Some people referring to Bill Clinton sexcapades say "Bill Clinton gave us Bush the
Younger thanks to having the self control of an adolescent chimpanzee." (
But this is wrong. Bill Clinton was much more
dangerous then that.
We can consider Bill Clinton to be the founder of "Vichy
left". He was instrumental in looting Russia after dissolution of the USSR which eventually created for the USA anb adversary
they really fear. With full spectrum of offensive weapons which can annihilate the USA more effectively then the USSR ever could.
He also sold Democratic Party to the Wall Street, creating first neoliberal "Vichy left"
party. The trick that was later replicated by Tony Blair in the UK -- another war criminal of the epoch of triumphal ascendance of
neoliberalism.
US Democrats were once the party that was for slavery as well, so this is not the
first time they defense reactionary, harmful for the nation, political course. So in way Bill Clinton returned the
Party to its historic roots, not it stands for neoliberal ("debt-based") slavery.
Contrary to what US media say, Bill and Hillary Clinton are
certainly not liberals or "progressives" (strange US term which means "normal in European sense
social democrats), but typical run-of-the-mill neoliberals (with Hillary beings a neocon, an
unrepentant warmonger hell bent on inciting the war with Russia via "no fly zone" in Syria).
As such they are
Republicans of DINO ("Democrats only in name").
Bill Clinton gave us NAFTA, repeal of Glass Steagill, deregulation
of media, etc. Bill Clinton switched Democrats from the policy of Americanism (or "America
first" in Trump terms) – focusing on what’s good for America’s middle class – to a policy of
globalism, focusing on how to make money for large corporations who can move their wealth and
workers to foreign countries all to the detriment of the American worker and the American economy.
Speaking of "Clinton family" Hillary is a war hawk and supported TPP, who during her
tenure as the Secretary of State turned "Public Service" into shady, lucrative business.
In a nutshell, they got rich by making super big $$$ speeches to shady groups and persons who wanted
to influence in the US government. Bill's speech fees skyrocketed when she became Secretary of
State. See Clinton Cash
Bill Clinton was a staunch neoliberal, one of 12 apostils of deregulation. He also is a
kind of Judas Iscariot of Democratic Party who helped to sell Democratic
Party to Wall Street for an annual "pension" about 20 silver coins (sorry million of USD),
delivered via speakers fees. He can can be
viewed as a Godfather of kleptocratic neocons called
Mayberry Machiavellians.
He also was the first the neoconservative president, completely in bed with
Likud lobby.
The President
which destroyed the USA relations with post-Soviet Russia by attack on Serbia (On 24 March 1999, Primakov
was heading to Washington, D.C. for an official visit. Flying over the Atlantic Ocean, he learned that
NATO had started to
bomb Yugoslavia. Primakov cancelled the visit, ordered the plane to turn around over the
ocean and returned to Moscow in a maneuver dubbed "Primakov's Loop".Yevgeny Primakov ). His main achievements
were:
This regime was the first kleptocratic regime in modern USA history. Increased inequality
at some point becomes, in essence, a kleptocracy i.e. a reverse Robin Hood organization where the
elites enrich themselves at the expense of the others. At some point, the ruling class overreaches
in a way that subtracts from rather than adds to the overall prosperity of the society.
"Bill Clinton conveniently forgets the hundreds of millions of campaign contributions that
he and Hillary so famously raised from Wall Street for the Democrats. They taught their party,
always a bit chaotic but left dispirited after the Kennedy assassinations, that 'greed is good.,'
and it certainly pays well. You can put up $1000 and obtain a return of $100,000 in a futures
market of which you know nothing, and do nothing, if you know the right people."
Completion of neoliberalization of the county and removal of New Deal laws that restrict financial
oligarchy. See Corruption of Regulators.
If you mix a lack of oversight with deregulation knowing that the political and economic playing
field is not even, you are inviting corruption (aka crony capitalism).
Attempt to colonize Russia and as a result dramatic deterioration (from love to hate)
of Russians attitude toward the USA and revival of Cold War.
Cynical and disgraceful abandonment of trade unions interest ("they have nowhere to go")
and reorientation of his government under the disguise of "triangulation" (which was later
adopted by Blair). In news articles and books, this betrayal of interests of trade unions by Democratic
Party brass is sometimes referred to as "Clintonian triangulation".[
In politics, triangulation is the strategy in which a political candidate presents their
ideology as being above or between the left and right sides (or "wings") of a traditional (e.g.
American or British) democratic political spectrum. It involves adopting for oneself some of the
ideas of one's political opponent. The logic behind it is that it both takes credit for the opponent's
ideas, and insulates the triangulator from attacks on that particular issue.
Started series of aggressive neocolonial wars with attack on Serbia. Installed the first
female hawk in State Department (Madeleine
Albright). See
New American Militarism
The collapse and subsequent economic rape of the USSR region in 1991-1998 was a huge stimulus
for the US economy. Something like 300 millions of new customers overnight for many products and
huge expansion of the dollar zone, which partially compensates for the loss of EU to euro.
Even if we count just the cash absorbed by the region, it will be a major economic stimulus. All-it-all
it was Bernanke size if we add buying assets for pennies on the dollar.
Actually, Bill Clinton put a solid fundament for subsequent deterioration relations with Russia.
His semi-successful attempt to colonize Russia (under Yeltsin Russia was a semi-colony and definitely
a vassal state of the USA) backfired.
Now the teeth of dragon planted by Slick Bill (of Kosovo war fame) are visible in full glory.
Russian elite no longer trusts the US elite and feels threatened.
Series of female sociopath (or borderline personalities) in the role of Secretaries of State did
not help either. The last one, "We came, we saw, he died" Hillary and her protégé Victoria Nuland
(which actually was a close associate of Dick Cheney
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/war_stories/2005/11/president_cheney.html ) are
actually replay of unforgettable Madeleine Albright with her famous a 60 Minutes segment in which
Lesley Stahl asked her "We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that's more
children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" and Albright replied "we
think the price is worth it."
Selling neoliberalism under the disguise of triangulation
The term was first used by President of the United States Bill Clinton's chief political advisor
Dick Morris as a way to describe his strategy for getting Clinton reelected in the 1996 presidential
election. In Dick Morris' words, triangulation meant "the president needed to take a position that not
only blended the best of each party's views but also transcended them to constitute a third force in
the debate." In news articles and books, it is sometimes referred to as "Clintonian triangulation".
Morris advocated a set of policies that were different from the traditional policies of the Democratic
Party. These policies included deregulation and balanced budgets.
One of the most widely cited capstones of Clinton's triangulation strategy was when, in his 1996
State of the Union Address, Clinton declared that the "era of big government is over."[5]
Politicians alleged to have used triangulation more recently include US President Barack Obama,[6][7]
former Senator Hillary Clinton, Tony Blair with "New Labour" in the United Kingdom, Jean Chrétien and
Paul Martin with the Liberal Party of Canada, Fredrik Reinfeldt with "The New Moderates" in Sweden,
and Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, and Kevin Rudd of the Australian Labor Party. In France, the Socialist
candidate in the 2007 presidential election, Ségolène Royal, advocated “military supervision” (encadrement
militaire) for first offenders.
During the 2010 State of the Union Address, President Obama insisted that he would remain with his agenda
in the face of criticism, rather than resort to triangulation.[5]
The Third Way actually means neoliberalism
The term "Third Way" was picked up in the 1950s by German ordoliberal economists such as Wilhelm
Röpke, resulting in the development of the concept of the social market economy -- an early attempt
to justify neoliberalism. Later Röpke distanced himself from the term and located the social market
economy as "first way" in the sense of an advancement of the free market economy. Most significantly,
Harold Macmillan, British Prime Minister from 1957 to 1963, based his philosophy of government on what
he entitled in a book, The Middle Way
In politics, the Third Way is a set of neoliberal policies that on the surface tries to reconcile
right-wing and left-wing politics by selling trade union interests to the higher bidder under the smokescreen
of adopting synthesis of right-wing economic and left-wing social policies. The Third Way was
by proponents of neoliberalism as an attempt to weaken power of the state to regulated transnational
corporations and discredit economic interventionist policies that had previously been popularized
by Keynesianism. It rise corresponds to the rise of popularity for neoliberalism and the New Right.
The Third Way managed completely co-opt and destroy some Democratic Parties (in the USA, GB and Germany).
Major Third Way social democratic proponent Tony Blair claimed that the socialism he advocated was different
from traditional conceptions of socialism. Blair said "My kind of socialism is a set of values based
around notions of social justice ... Socialism as a rigid form of economic determinism has ended, and
rightly". Blair referred to it as "social-ism" that involves politics that recognized individuals as
socially interdependent, and advocated social justice, social cohesion, equal worth of each citizen,
and equal opportunity.
Third Way social democratic theorist Anthony Giddens has said that the Third Way rejects the traditional
conception of socialism, and instead accepts the conception of socialism as conceived of by Anthony
Crosland as an ethical doctrine that views social democratic governments as having achieved a viable
ethical socialism by removing the unjust elements of capitalism by providing social welfare and other
policies, and that contemporary socialism has outgrown the Marxian claim for the need of the abolition
of capitalism.
Blair in 2009 publicly declared support for a "new capitalism" -- neoliberalism.
It supports the pursuit of greater egalitarianism in society through action to increase the distribution
of skills, capacities, and productive endowments, while rejecting income redistribution as the means
to achieve this. Like neoliberalism in general it emphasizes commitment to balanced budgets, an emphasis
on personal responsibility, decentralization of government power to the lowest level possible to restore
the power of financial oligarchy), encouragement of public-private partnerships, improving labor supply
(with Wal-Mart and McDonalds as two examples what they can do for impoverishing labor class), privatizing
of education, protection of transnational corporations, which are above the law.
It been heavily criticized by many social democrats, democratic socialists and communists in particular
as a betrayal of left-wing values.
"... Don't deny W his agency. As I followed the horrors, from Vietnam to Iraq to Syria to Central America and elsewhere, the full list that was visible anyway, of the W regime, it sure seemed clear to me that W played the bumbling yuk very well. ..."
"... the dumb cluck thing was mostly an act. he was deliberately talking that way not only to paint himself as stupid, but also because those in power assume we must be spoken to as children (they've studied president speeches since JFK have decreased from high school level to 6th grade in complexity, word usage etc). ..."
"... In our kayfabe duoparty system, it also gave the "opposing" side the "W is a Chimp" talking point to harp on (dress rehearsal for the same stuff against tRUMP). ..."
"... Abu Ghraib was not an anomaly, Con Son Island served the same purpose during the Vietnam War. When I was young I was proud to be an American Citizen, we had the Bill of Rights, the Military was controlled by Civilians and their oath was to defend the Constitution from "All Enemies Foreign and Domestic.". I have been horrified, ashamed and deeply saddened by what has happened in the US over the last half Century or so. ..."
"... I view the 2008 election as the major failing-to-turn-back-when-we-had-the-chance point. Obama could have undone Bush's worst policies, but instead he cemented them into place forever. ..."
"... Our elites are both stupid and evil, but Bush is more stupid and Obama is more evil ..."
"... you are 40 years off the mark-It was Reagan who's brand of avuncular fascism, celebrating stupidity as a virtue who paved the way. ..."
"... albrt: I agree with your take. Obama campaigned as an anti-war candidate (at least wrt Iraq). He then proceeded to "˜surge' into Afghanistan and added Libya, Syria, and Yemen, to the regime change mix. Never a thought given to prosecuting the war criminals: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet, Feith, Wolfowitz, Powell, et al; much less even consider a truth and reconciliation commission. ..."
"... Obama was equally complicit in this never ending horror show and, I am hopeful, history will hold him equally accountable. ..."
"... Is it not written that Margaret Thatcher's true legacy was Tony Blair? If that is true, then the true legacy of Dubya is Obama. ..."
"... As far as harm that George W. Bush did and launched (illegal/immoral wars, domestic surveillance, tax cuts for the wealthy"¦.) Bush should take the award. ..."
"... When Obama deliberately and with malice aforethought turned all the admitted (and in fact proudly self-avowed) war-criminals and criminals-against humanity loose, free and clear under "look forward not back", he routinised and permanentized the up-to-that-very-minute irregular and extra-constitutional novel methods of governance and practice which the Cheney-Bush Administration had pioneered. Obama deliberately made torture, aggressive war, etc. "legal" when America does it and "permanent" as long as America is strong enough to keep doing it. ..."
"... The Greatest Disappointment in History. No-one else comes close, in terms of the sheer numbers of people globally who he let down. The Bait and Switch King, The Great Betrayer. After the nightmare of Bush we got him and his "˜eloquence', pulling the wool over the dazzled sheeple's eyes while he entrenched the 1% and the neocon MI complex, his paymasters, and sponsors for his entry into the overclass. ..."
"... Lambert, you forgot this one" Biden presents Liberty Medal to George and Laura Bush Instead of a war crimes trial at the Hague, Biden gave him a (family bloging) medal! ..."
"... A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing the Realm ..."
"... It's really sickening to see George W being "rehabilitated" and made to look like some kind of a senior statesman, when he should be hauled off to the Hague to spend the rest of his life in prison for war crimes. For me, his election in 2000 was mostly the beginning of the end of the rule of law in this country. As a result, the U.S. has Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, in addition to all the other events mentioned, and don't forget he tried to privatize Social Security. ..."
"... and welfare "reform", the crime bill. Talk of privatizing SSI made commonplace acceptable. Repeal of Glass Steagall. They were going to do to healthcare what oBLAM succeeded at, 20 years before him but got sidelined by Lewinsky's blue dress stains. Clintoon is a criminal and so is his spouse, and he did his share of damage everywhere. people who think otherwise might be looking back with nostalgia on a simpler (pre 9.11) time. ..."
"... Jeff Wells wrote some interesting essays in the Bush years, though many of his connections were a bit too far out, even for me. He had some striking collateral evidence for his concept of High Weirdness in high places "" sex abuse, torture and magick figuring prominently, juxtaposed with political skulduggery, and financial crimes and misdemeanours. The Gannon/Guckert affair, the Franklin ring and Gary Caradori were the sort of thing that laced his quite penetrating analyses of events. Facts were jumping off points for speculations, but given our lack of facts his imaginings were a nourishment of sorts, though often very troubling indeed. ..."
"... People have been brain washed by the glossed over history of the US they are taught. It gives people a false belief of our past. The phrase American Exceptionalism comes to mind. It is a myth. The real history is out there but you have to search it out. From it's beginning continuing to today our government is responsible for bad behavior. ..."
"... We Americans have this thing called exceptionalism which among other things creates the idea that our government is more virtuous than others. ..."
"... We are not at Hitler/Stalin/Mao standards ""yet"" but who's to say that could never happen here? One of the bafflements of the 20th century was how a civilized people descended into the dark barbarism of Nazi Germany. ..."
"... Noam Chomsky observed some thirty years ago that if the Nuremberg standards were applied to all the post-war American Presidents, then all of them would hang. ..."
"... We have such a dismal record. Little George was the most audacious of all our criminal presidents, but he has plenty of company. My question is now, looking back, why was the USA incapable of organizing a peaceful world after WW2? I start there. 1945. ..."
Bush became President in the year 2000. That was "" let me break out my calculator "" 2021 "" 2000 = 21 years ago. It occurs to
me that our younger readers, born in 2000, or even 1990, may not know how genuinely horrid Bush was, as President.
I was blogging even back then, and I remember how horrid Bush was; certainly worse than Trump, at least for Trump's first three
years in office, until the Covid pandemic. To convey the full horror of the Bush years would not a series of posts, but a book. The
entire experience was wretched and shameful.
Of the many horrors of the Bush years, I will pick three. (I am omitting many, many others, including
Hurricane Katrina , the
Plame Affair
, Medicare Part D, the Cheney Energy Task Force
, that time
Dick Cheney shot an old man in the face ,
Bush's missing
Texas Air National Guard records , Bush gaslighting the 2004 Republican National Convention with terror alerts, and on and on
and on. And I didn't even get to 9/11, "
You've covered your ass ," WMDs, and
the AUMF. Sorry. It's exhausting.) I'm afraid my recounting of these incidents will be sketchy: I lived and blogged in them, and
the memories of the horror well up in such volume and detail that I lose control of the material. Not only that, there was an actual,
functioning blogosphere at that time, which did great work, but unfortunately most of that work has succumbed to link rot. And my
memory of events two decades ago is not as strong as it could be.
The White House Iraq Group
Here I will rely on excerpts from Colonel Sam Gardiner's (PDF) "Truth from These Podia: Summary of a Study of Strategic Influence,
Perception Management, Strategic Information Warfare and Strategic Psychological Operations in Gulf II" (2003), whose introduction
has been saved from link rot by the
National Security Archive and
a full version
by the University of Leeds . I would bet, long forgotten even by many of those who blogged through those times. ("Gulf II" is
what we refer to as the "War in Iraq.") Quoting from the full version:
You will see in my analysis and comments that I do not accept the notion that the first casualty of war is truth. I think we
have to have a higher standard. In the most basic sense, Washington and London did not trust the peoples of their democracies
to come to right decisions. Truth became a casualty. When truth is a casualty, democracy receives collateral damage.
Seems familiar. (Gardiner's report can be read as a brilliant media critique; it's really worth sitting down with a cup of coffee
and reading it all.)[2] More:
My research suggests there were over 50 stories manufactured or at least engineered that distorted the picture of Gulf
II for the American and British people . I'll cover most in this report. At the end, I will also describe some stories that
seem as if they were part of the strategic influence campaign although the evidence is only circumstantial.
What becomes important is not each story taken individually. If that were the case, it would probably seem only more of the
same. If you were to look at them one at a time, you could conclude, "Okay we sort of knew that was happening." It is the pattern
that becomes important. It's the summary of everything. To use a phrase often heard during the war, it's the mosaic. Recognizing
I said I wouldn't exaggerate, it would not be an exaggeration to say the people of the United States and UK can find out more
about the contents of a can of soup they buy than the contents of the can of worms they bought with the 2003 war in the Gulf.
The White House was, naturally, at the center of the operation:
One way to view how the US Government was organized to do the strategic communications effort before, during and after the
war is to use the chart that was used by the Assistant Deputy Director for Information Operations. The center is the White House
Office of Global Communications, the organization originally created by Karen Hughes as the Coalition Information Office. The
White House is at the center of the strategic communications process"¦.
Handy chart:
And:
Inside the White House there was an Iraq Group that did policy direction and then the Office of Global Communications itself.
Membership of the White House Iraq Group:
So, in 2020 Bush's write-in vote for President was Condi Rice, the [x] Black [x] woman who helped run a domestic disinformation
campaign for him in 2003, to sell the Iraq War to the American people. Isn't that"¦. sweet?
Of course, I was very naive at that point. I had come up as a Democrat, and my first real political engagement was the Clinton
impeachment. Back in 2003, I was amazed to discover that there was a White House operation that was planting fake stories in the
press "" and that I had been playing whackamole on them. At a higher level, I was disturbed that "Washington and London did not trust
the peoples of their democracies to come to right decisions." Now it all seems perfectly normal, which is sad.
Torture at Abu Ghraib
There are a lot of images of our torture prison in Iraq, Abu Ghraib. This one (
via ) is not the
most famous , but to me it is the most shocking:
What kind of country sets dogs on a naked prisoner? Well, my kind of country, apparently. (Later, I remember discussing
politics with somebody who came from a country that might be considered less governed by the rule of law than my own, and they said:
"Abu Ghraib. You have nothing to say." And they were right.)
For those who came in late, here's a snapshot (the detail of the story is in fact overwhelming, and I also have pity for the poor
shlubs the brass tossed into that hellhole[3].) From the Los Angeles Times, "
Few have faced consequences
for abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq " (2015):
[A] 44-year-old Al Jazeera reporter named Salah Ejaili, said in a phone interview from Qatar that he was arrested in 2003 while
covering an explosion in the Iraqi province of Diyala. He was held at Abu Ghraib for 48 days after six days in another facility,
he said.
"Most of the pictures that came out in 2004, I saw that firsthand "" the human pyramid where men were stacked up naked on top
of each other, people pulled around on leashes," he said in the interview, with one of his attorneys translating. "I used to hear
loud screams during the torture sessions."
Ejaili says he was beaten, left naked and exposed to the elements for long periods, and left in solitary confinement, among
other acts.
"When people look at others who are naked, they feel like they're animals in a zoo, in addition to being termed as criminals
and as terrorists," he said. "That had a very strong psychological impact."
The plaintiffs also say they suffered electric shocks; deprivation of food, water and oxygen; sexual abuse; threats from dogs;
beatings; and sensory deprivation.
Taha Yaseen Arraq Rashid, a laborer, says he was sexually abused by a woman while he was cuffed and shackled, and also that
he was forced to watch a female prisoner's rape.
Ejaili said that his face was often covered during interrogations, making it difficult for him to identify those involved,
but that he was able to notice that many of the interrogators who entered the facility wore civilian clothing.
His attorneys, citing military investigations into abuses at Abu Ghraib and other evidence, say the contractors took control
of the prison and issued orders to uniformed military.
"Abu Ghraib was pretty chaotic," said Baher Azmy, legal director for the Center for Constitutional Rights, which brought suits
against CACI and L-3 Services. "They were involved in a conspiracy with the military police to abuse our clients.""¦. Eleven U.S.
soldiers were convicted in military trials of crimes related to the humiliation and abuse of the prisoners.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers , and effects, against unreasonable searches
and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
If our legal system had the slightest shred of integrity, it would be obvious to the Courts, as it is to a six-old-child, that
what we laughingly call our "personal" computers and cellphones contain "paper," not in the tediously literal sense of a physical
material made from wood fibre, but in the sense of content . Bits and bytes are 20th Century paper, stored on silicon and
hard disk platters. Of course a warrant should be needed to read what's on my phone, ffs.
That Fourth Amendment common sense did not prevail is IMNSHO due in large part to Bush's program of warrantless surveillance,
put in place as part of the Global War on Terror. Here again, the complexity is overwhelming and took several years to unravel. I'm
afraid I have to quote Wikipedia on
this one :
A week after the 9/11 attacks, Congress passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (AUMF), which
inaugurated the "War on Terror". It later featured heavily in arguments over the NSA program.
Soon after the 9/11 attacks President Bush established the President's Surveillance Program. As part of the program, the Terrorist
Surveillance Program was established pursuant to an executive order that authorized the NSA to surveil certain telephone calls
without obtaining a warrant (see 50 U.S.C. § 1802 50 U.S.C. § 1809). The complete details of the executive order are not public,
but according to administration statements, the authorization covers communication originating overseas from or to a person suspected
of having links to terrorist organizations or their affiliates even when the other party to the call is within the US.
In October 2001, Congress passed the Patriot Act, which granted the administration broad powers to fight terrorism. The Bush
administration used these powers to bypass the FISC and directed the NSA to spy directly on al-Qaeda via a new NSA electronic
surveillance program. Reports at the time indicate that an "apparently accidental" "glitch" resulted in the interception of communications
that were between two U.S. parties. This act was challenged by multiple groups, including Congress, as unconstitutional.
The precise scope of the program remains secret, but the NSA was provided total, unsupervised access to all fiber-optic
communications between the nation's largest telecommunication companies' major interconnected locations, encompassing phone conversations,
email, Internet activity, text messages and corporate private network traffic .
Of course, all this is perfectly normal today. So much for the Fourth Amendment, good job. (You will note that the telcos had
to be in on it; amusingly, the CEO of Qwest, the only telco that refused to participate, was charged and convicted of insider trading,
good job again.) The legal aspects of all this are insanely complex, but as you see from my introduction, they should be simple.
Conclusion
Here's a video of the Iraqi (now in Parliament) who threw shoes at Bush (who got off lightly, all things considered):
We should all be throwing shoes at Bush, seriously if not literally. We should not be accepting candy from him. We should not
be treating him as an elder statesman. Or a "partner in crime." We should not be admiring his paintings. Bush ran a bad, bad, bad
administration and we are living with the consequences of his badness today. Bush is a bad man. We are ruled by bad people. Tomorrow,
Obama!
NOTES
[1] Indeed.
[2] For example, I vividly remember playing whack-a-mole as a blogger with the following WMD stories: Drones, weapons labs, WMD
cluster bombs, Scuds, nuclear materials from Niger, aluminum tubes, and dirty bombs. They one and all fell apart on close inspection.
And they were only a small part of the operation, as Gardiner shows in detail.
[3] My personal speculation is that Dick Cheney had a direct feed from the Abu Ghraib torture chambers to the White House, and
watched the proceedings live. Some of the soldiers burned images of torture onto CDs as trophies, and the prison also had a server,
whose connectivity was very conveniently not revealed by the judge in a lawsuit I dimly remember being brought in Germany. So it
goes.
Does anyone believe that W, son of H. W. Bush, H. W. son of Senator Prescott Bush, would have been been pres without that familial
lineage and its important govt connections? The pity is W wasn't smart enough to grasp world politics and the US's importance
as an accepted fulcrum in same beyond his momentary wants. imo. Brent Scowcroft and others warned him off his vain pursuits. The
word "squander" come to mind, though I wish it did not.
See for example Kevin Phillips' book American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush
. ( Kevin Phillips is a great
modernist American historian, imo, who saw the rise of Nixon before anyone else.)
Don't deny W his agency. As I followed the horrors, from Vietnam to Iraq to Syria to Central America and elsewhere, the
full list that was visible anyway, of the W regime, it sure seemed clear to me that W played the bumbling yuk very well.
He did what he set out to do, no doubt with careful guidance from that sh!t of a father (magically turned into a laid-in-state
"statesman") and mother-of-string-of-pearls, and of course Cheney and the rest of the corpo-gov policy gang.
The Consent Manufacturers are whitewashing an evil man and his slicker but equally evil successor and his glamorous spouse.
Helluva job, Georgie! Full marks for kicking the world a long way down a dark road.
the dumb cluck thing was mostly an act. he was deliberately talking that way not only to paint himself as stupid, but also
because those in power assume we must be spoken to as children (they've studied president speeches since JFK have decreased from
high school level to 6th grade in complexity, word usage etc).
see Pelosi's daughter's film of his campaign trail. He's no Angel Merkel, but sly enough for politics in this country
and most third world corruptocracies.
In our kayfabe duoparty system, it also gave the "opposing" side the "W is a Chimp" talking point to harp on (dress rehearsal
for the same stuff against tRUMP).
Abu Ghraib was not an anomaly, Con Son Island served the same purpose during the Vietnam War. When I was young I was proud
to be an American Citizen, we had the Bill of Rights, the Military was controlled by Civilians and their oath was to defend the
Constitution from "All Enemies Foreign and Domestic.". I have been horrified, ashamed and deeply saddened by what has happened
in the US over the last half Century or so.
And it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
You actually "˜blogged' back when we had to use punch cards to program our PCs? How oh how did you clamber on up out of "the
Well" so many times a week? I am somewhat convinced that the Hollerith Cards Protocol was the origin of the Twitter 140 character
limit.
I also "lived through" the "˜Reign of "W""˜ and see it as a Time of Prophecy. Most of the things we are now staring down the
barrel of were effectuated then.
I may be foilly, (may be? who am I kidding,) but I view the 2000 election as a major turning point of American history.
I view the 2008 election as the major failing-to-turn-back-when-we-had-the-chance point. Obama could have undone Bush's worst
policies, but instead he cemented them into place forever.
Our elites are both stupid and evil, but Bush is more stupid and Obama is more evil.
All the pomp and circumstance surrounding the personage of the President serves to conceal the people behind the scenes who
vetted and groomed said president, and actively advise him while in office. It's in this way that a Jimmy Carter may be viewed
as a gentle soul so far as presidents go, but he was actually vetted by Brzezinski on behalf of the CFR goons. Once in office
he was then advised by Brzezinski and Volcker, among other assorted lunatics. And he gladly took their advice the entire time.
That's how he came to be president in the first place. And so it goes.
albrt: I agree with your take. Obama campaigned as an anti-war candidate (at least wrt Iraq). He then proceeded to "˜surge'
into Afghanistan and added Libya, Syria, and Yemen, to the regime change mix. Never a thought given to prosecuting the war criminals:
Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Tenet, Feith, Wolfowitz, Powell, et al; much less even consider a truth and reconciliation commission.
Obama was equally complicit in this never ending horror show and, I am hopeful, history will hold him equally accountable.
Could you explain your view that Obama and Trump are "worse than that" (Bush-Cheney).?
As far as harm that George W. Bush did and launched (illegal/immoral wars, domestic surveillance, tax cuts for the wealthy"¦.)
Bush should take the award.
Obama did push for military action in Libya, but at least held back from Syria.
The administrations after Bush "kicked the can down the road" but he initiated the events they simply continued. And Trump
did attempt to pull troops back from Bush initiated wars. How is Trump worse than Bush? What are your metrics?
I am just a commenter here, but I would say that . . .
When Obama deliberately and with malice aforethought turned all the admitted (and in fact proudly self-avowed) war-criminals
and criminals-against humanity loose, free and clear under "look forward not back", he routinised and permanentized the up-to-that-very-minute
irregular and extra-constitutional novel methods of governance and practice which the Cheney-Bush Administration had pioneered.
Obama deliberately made torture, aggressive war, etc. "legal" when America does it and "permanent" as long as America is strong
enough to keep doing it.
He did some other things like that which I don't have time to mention right now. Maybe others will beat me to it.
Most of all, by slickly conning or permitting to self-con numbers of people about "hope and change" to come from an Obama Administration,
he destroyed all hope of hope. He destroyed hope itself. Hope is not a "thing" any more in this country, thanks to Obama.
He may also have destroyed black politicians' dreams of becoming America's " Second Black President" for several decades to
come. Been there, done that. Never Again. But since I am not Black, that is not my problem. That is something Black America can
thank Obama for, if they decide to wake up to the fact of that reality.
Of course , if the Evil Countess Draculamala becomes President after Biden, then I guess I will be proven wrong about that
particular observation.
The Greatest Disappointment in History. No-one else comes close, in terms of the sheer numbers of people globally who he let
down. The Bait and Switch King, The Great Betrayer. After the nightmare of Bush we got him and his "˜eloquence', pulling the wool over the dazzled sheeple's eyes while he entrenched
the 1% and the neocon MI complex, his paymasters, and sponsors for his entry into the overclass.
Last, does any single person with the possible exception of Hillary Clinton, bear so much responsibility for the election of
Trump?
Remember that Obama voted in favor of FISAA, the bill that immunized Bush and his flunkies from prosecution for their felony
FISA violations, as a senator, not long before the presidential election. It was impossible to make myself vote for him after
that.
Thanks Lambert. I'd add that the intelligence being sent to the "White House Iraq Group" was being manufactured by the Office
of Special Plans (OSP) which was set up and run by Douglas Feith and Paul Wolfowitz. Following Feith's history and connections
alone is a fruitful endeavor for those so inclined.
Among other things, Feith co-authored, along with Richard Perle and David Wurmser, the A Clean Break: A New Strategy For
Securing the Realm paper prepared for the prime minister of a certain foreign country. This is back in 1996. Around the same
time the PNAC boys were formed by Kagan and Kristol and started selling the same policy prescriptions vis a vis Iraq to the pols
and public here.
Feith was also fired from the NSC back in the early 80's for passing classified information to some little country. Fast forward
to his OSP days and, lo and behold, his employee Larry Franklin is convicted of the same thing, along with Steve Rosen and Keith
Weissman of AIPAC.
This stuff has gone on forever. What amount of ventilation is needed to blow this kind of dung out of the Augean stables of
geopolitics? Not much chance of that anyway, given all the incentives and and interests"
Is it luck that Putin and Xi might be a little less monstrous?
It's really sickening to see George W being "rehabilitated" and made to look like some kind of a senior statesman, when he
should be hauled off to the Hague to spend the rest of his life in prison for war crimes. For me, his election in 2000 was mostly
the beginning of the end of the rule of law in this country. As a result, the U.S. has Guantanamo, the Patriot Act, in addition
to all the other events mentioned, and don't forget he tried to privatize Social Security.
His eight years as president, for me, was a horror show. What really bothers me is that he got away with all of it "" and now
he's hailed as an eminence gris. I can't help but think that his rehabilitation is to remind us all of how bad Orange Man was
"" Obama was just as bad because he cemented everything W did "" and more.
That is an assignment, which is a violation of our written site Policies. This applies to reader comments when you could easily
find the answer in less than 30 seconds on Google rather than being a jerk and challenging a reader (or even worse, me derivatively)
on bogus grounds.
> For me, [W's] election in 2000 was mostly the beginning of the end of the rule of law in this country.
At this moment I'm writing it is still early days for this thread: there are only 24 comments. In these comments are named
many bad people. However, one name that does not (yet) appear is "˜Clinton'. W was a monster as president (and likely remains
a monster as a human being) but surely Billy Jeff needn't yield to him in his contempt for the rule of law.
Quite right, of course. My comment was specifically in regard to his disdain for and abuse of the rule, and rôle, of law in
the American polity, e.g., his perjury > disbarment. Sort of like the famous photograph of Nelson Rockefeller who, while serving
as VP, was captured giving the finger to a group of protestors; Clinton also oozed that kind of hubristic impunity.
Regarding Clinton, the damage he caused to his own country and the world was substantial. The destruction of Yugoslavia caused
considerable mayhem "" in addition to bombing and breaking apart a sovereign nation, it enabled "liberals" to feel good about
war again, and paved the way for the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc.
And the damage done by NAFTA was enormous "" in terms of leading to deaths of despair in both the US and Mexico I suspect NAFTA
has a higher domestic "body count" than any of the subsequent forever wars.
and welfare "reform", the crime bill. Talk of privatizing SSI made commonplace acceptable. Repeal of Glass Steagall.
They were going to do to healthcare what oBLAM succeeded at, 20 years before him but got sidelined by Lewinsky's blue dress
stains. Clintoon is a criminal and so is his spouse, and he did his share of damage everywhere. people who think otherwise might be
looking back with nostalgia on a simpler (pre 9.11) time.
little known covered up crime from his ARK days is the selling of HIV tainted blood (taken from prisoners) to Canada, among
other things.
yet another who had credible rape allegations. which damages our image at home and abroad.
I read that for the very briefest time, somebody or other was selling Total Information Awareness memorabilia with the Total
Information Awareness symbol on it. I wish I had thought to buy a Total Information Awareness mug.
I imagine knockoffs and parodies exist, but I am not sure the real thing is findable any more.
After Dennis Rader, the Wichita serial killer, murdered someone, the cops always found his semen on the floor next to the mutilated
victim. He got sexual pleasure out of gruesome murder. This is how I always pictured Cheney's attitude toward torture. Well. I
tried not to actually picture it.
Talk about your target rich environment. Where do you even start? Where do you begin? A serial business failure, draft dodger,
military deserter, drunk driver "" and all that was before he became President. A man so incurious about the world "" just like
Trump "" that he never even owned a passport until he actually became President and who never knew that Islam (prior to the Iraq
invasion) , for example, was just not one religion but was divided into Sunni and Shia in the same way Christianity is divided
into "" mostly "" Protestant and Catholics. But to me he was always the "Frat Boy President". His family always protected him
from his many flaws and he never had to grow up like his father had to in WW2. Even as President he never grew into the job, again,
just like Trump.
Lambert gives a few good reminders but there were many others and these are just the top of my head. He cared little for the
US Constitution and called it nothing more than a goddamn scrap of paper. He officially made the US a torture nation, not only
by pretending that US laws did not apply in Guantanamo bay but also aboard US Navy ships for which laws definitely did apply.
As part of a movement to make America an oil-fueled hegemony for the 21st century, he invaded Iraq with the firm intention on
invading Iran next so that Washington would have a firm grip on the fuel pump of the world. As he said "" "America is addicted
to oil." He dropped the ball on 9/11 through over-obsessing on Iraq and in the immediate aftermath sent jets around the country
"" when all jets were grounded "" to fly Saudi royalty back to Saudi Arabia before the FBI could interrogate them about all their
knowledge of the attack. All this to hide his very deep connections with the Saudis.
I could go on for several more paragraphs but what would be the point? For the neocons he was a great fronts-man to be followed
by a even greater one. I sometimes think that if Biden was a "˜real' Republican, then he would have been a great vice-president
for Bush. And now the establishment and their trained seals in the media are trying to make him out as "America's Favourite Uncle"
or something so that when he dies, he will have the same sort of funeral as John McCain did. And I predict that tens of thousands
of veterans around the country will then raise their glasses to him "" and then pour the contents on the ground.
W's rehab continues in the UK MSM, not just the Independent. The worst offenders are probably the Grauniad and Channel 4, both
Blairite.
The rehab mirrored the rise of Trump. His lack of interest in war upset these preachy imperialists.
Using Michelle Obama to facilitate the rehab brought id pol into the equation and made it easier. It was remarkable how often
the above photo is used in the neo liberal and neo con media.
Thank you, Colonel. That foto is remarkable and I suspect that the origins for the idea for it may lay on the other side of
the pond as it seemed so familiar-
There is a blog called Rigorous Intuition 2.0. Many of its blogposts are about the Bush period and Bush related subjects and
events. ( Many others are not). The sections on 9/11, Iraq, and Katrina probably have the highest percent of Bush-related blogposts,
in case one is interested.
Jeff Wells wrote some interesting essays in the Bush years, though many of his connections were a bit too far out, even for
me. He had some striking collateral evidence for his concept of High Weirdness in high places "" sex abuse, torture and magick
figuring prominently, juxtaposed with political skulduggery, and financial crimes and misdemeanours. The Gannon/Guckert affair,
the Franklin ring and Gary Caradori were the sort of thing that laced his quite penetrating analyses of events. Facts were jumping
off points for speculations, but given our lack of facts his imaginings were a nourishment of sorts, though often very troubling
indeed.
Who needs to make shit up during those years?
The facts"¦the shit he actually did, was glossed over or simply forgotten.
If shit was made up about his sorry ass i didn't bother checking, Sir.
I just assumed it was true.
Bushies destroyed the country. If there's a country in 100 years they'll be paying for those years.
And then came obama and big Mike
People have been brain washed by the glossed over history of the US they are taught. It gives people a false belief of our
past. The phrase American Exceptionalism comes to mind. It is a myth. The real history is out there but you have to search it out. From
it's beginning continuing to today our government is responsible for bad behavior.
Some scholars like Noam Chomsky write about
our real history. Unfortunately most people don't read this material. They are content with our glossed over shining star version
of US history that unfortunately continues to be taught in our educational system , starting in elementary school continuing through
a 4 year college education. Our system of government is so corrupted , I don't believe it can be fixed.
Nixon was rehabbed so he could open China, Kissinger got to keep his mantle. W portrayed by Josh Brolin pretty good take. Nice
to see dunking on GW, but the cycle of rehabilitation is due. The question is can he do some good or is there too much mud on
his boots. Can't see W as a new Jimmy Carter. Glossing over history begins the moment it's made. Makes me miss LBJ
Between 1998 and 2000, under the rule of Saddam Hussein, about 1000 prisoners from Abu Ghraib prison were executed and buried
in mass graves.
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prison
How many Abu Ghraib prisoners did the US army execute?
Tell me again how many Iraqis were killed by the US Army because they were doing their own version of "Red Dawn"? And that
tens if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqis would still be alive if Saddam was simply left in place. Here is a video to watch
while you have a little think about it-
We Americans have this thing called exceptionalism which among other things creates the idea that our government is more virtuous
than others. It's a useful idea in that it calls us to be different and better than the average nation, and certainly different
and better than a cruel dictatorship. But it's also a dangerous idea because too many of us actually believe it to be true. Our
atrocities are different in kind, but the scale is the same.
We are not at Hitler/Stalin/Mao standards ""yet"" but who's to say
that could never happen here? One of the bafflements of the 20th century was how a civilized people descended into the dark barbarism
of Nazi Germany.
"(I am omitting many, many others, including Hurricane Katrina, the Plame Affair, Medicare Part D, the Cheney Energy Task Force,
that time Dick Cheney shot an old man in the face, Bush's missing Texas Air National Guard records, Bush gaslighting the 2004
Republican National Convention with terror alerts, and on and on and on. An I didn't even get to 9/11, "You've covered your ass,"
WMDs, and the AUMF. Sorry. It's exhausting.)"
Agree with all the criticism of Bush, Cheney, Obama. On a lighter note, my father-in-law is a high tech oil prospector in W
Texas, much of it in Midland, overlapping in time with W. Both members of the Petroleum Club (been there once, very stuffy) and
worked out at the same gym. Naturally, my wife asked if he had ever seen W naked. Her dad wouldn't answer, but did turn beet red.
We take this as confirmation.
Noam Chomsky observed some thirty years ago that if the Nuremberg standards were applied to all the post-war American Presidents,
then all of them would hang. Chomsky could not have imagined the future sequence of presidents from that point forward, but certainly
they did not break the chain of criminality. My point is that Bush is not unique in the type of crimes, just the enormity of them.
But I also believe he set new standards (lower) for shamelessness. Remember his smirk?
But also remember Obama joking about killing people.
Remember the comedy skit in which GWB "looked" for Iraq WMD's in the Oval office as part of the White House Correspondent's
dinner?
Anyone with any sense of decency would have refused to do this skit, but Bush apparently followed his handlers' advice to get
some laughs. That the USA was led by someone of such limited talent for 8 years speaks volumes. Years ago, a New York Times reader wrote that Hillary Clinton is a "well-connected mediocrity".
That comment may be true for ALL of the recent political candidates, from both parties, for a great many years.
LBJ was definitely not mediocre (civil rights/war on poverty), and would be viewed far more favorably, maybe as great, if he
had pulled out of Vietnam rather than escalating. Carter in his post presidency has much to recommend. Post presidency Bush is painting his portraits rather than having any retrospective regrets for the harm he did.
We have such a dismal record. Little George was the most audacious of all our criminal presidents, but he has plenty of company.
My question is now, looking back, why was the USA incapable of organizing a peaceful world after WW2? I start there. 1945. How
did our ideology become so inept? And everything I have read about our failures over the years is contrasted with what might have
been. We have operated under a system that could not function without extraction. There was always a sell-by date on the cover;
one that we tried to ignore. There's no doubt in my mind that it has finally failed completely. Ignominiously. But we have also
learned and come to admit certain realities. The most important one is that there can be no more war; civilization cannot survive
a modern war. So, ironically, our advanced warfare might well bring a peaceful world without world war. And our advances in science
(mostly militarily inspired) will help us now survive.
Lambert, thank you for this piece. I won't repeat what others have opined. I've had a real problem with Michelle Obama being
the rehabilitation cheerleader leader for Dubya. Imho, we lost all of our rights under the odious Patriot Act, which was pre-written.
Russ Feingold was the lone Senate holdout. And I recall Byrd's ire and rant at the tome they had no time to read, but he caved.
It went downhill from there. The links below, (apologies, I don't know how to fashion a hot link..) are about Bush's crimes and
Amnesty International's exhaustive investigation of them.
I don't have the citation anymore, and I've knocked myself out trying to find it. But there exists a UN human rights commission
memo suggesting (?) Obama to do a number of things: hold Bushco accountable for war crimes etc, as well as address what is termed
as "systematic racism" in incarceration (and more). I had printed it out a number of years ago and can't find it.)
I'm not buying that Bush fils is any elder statesman. He and his cronies used torture, extreme rendition, hired mercenaries and
completely destabilized the Middle East. We still don't have our rights back, and I'm betting the Patriot Act will never go away.
(Nor will data mining under the guise of "targeted advertising" and sold to..the military.) The NYT's link is how Obama elected
to rug sweep and just move ahead! I look forward to Lambert's take on the Obama administration..
Finally, someone has the courage to point out the obvious. An excellent article, well researched and nicely nuanced.
I'm disappointed with the remedy proposed, however. Throwing shoes is not enough; it's merely symbolic. The potential crimes
committed here, including lying us into war, the extent of torture committed, and practices that violate international military
norms and intelligence require a transparent and impartial investigation. One possible venue is the International Criminal Courts
in the Hague.
I've been told many times that sunlight can be an effective deterrent against disease.
I ordered this book when Paul Craig Roberts mentioned, and quoted from it, on February 14,
2021. I especially liked PCRs quote halfway through the essay:
The United States isn't a nation any longer . It is a collection of peoples
without a country. A nation requires a unifying spirit of the people, and the United States
has no such unifying spirit. Martyanov observes that there is nothing in common between
a white WASP farm worker from Iowa, a Jewish lawyer from Manhattan, and a black rapper from
the Bronx. They view the world, America and their place in it differently, and those
visions are irreconcilable.
This has been obvious to some of us for decades. Worse yet, there is no mechanism or
movement anyone can imagine that will keep the disintegration process in check. If anything,
the elites are finding new and exciting ways to divide Americans further, and nobody is
happier about it than the social media addicts who enjoy bigger and better rotten egg memes
they can toss at the enemy de jour.
This is interesting too:
Not only is America's crisis systemic, but its elites are uncultured , badly educated
and mesmerized by decades of their own propaganda, which in the end, they accept as a
reality
I do hope the author means "uncultured" in the pejorative, insulting, Russian sense of the
word. They are the "elites" who are revolting, and they are too dumb to know they are kicking
the floorboards out from under their feet.
"People of the United States, your ruling elites are lying to you just like the chamber
orchestra on the Titanic that was playing music while the supposedly "unsinkable" Titanic
was sinking!".
The difference is, the actual American ship was just fine and hadn't hit an iceberg.
Rather, we were being deliberately sunk by a bunch of loons who were punching holes in the
hull of the ship!
But don't go thinking the whole shebang is about to go under. This has been the dream of
preppers on the right, and various anti-American groups on the other side, for generations.
The Big Collapse, in which the whole North American continent, with all its power and wealth,
just vanishes, is a pipe dream.
The most immediate causes of US collapse are, in my opinion, the rise of the predator,
parasite, class to a position of total dominance while the proles have sunk into the shite,
and the rise of China...
"... Clinton hollowed out his own country in order to completely remove all constraints (financial, mediatic, military). He doesn't get called out for it nearly enough in my opinion. ..."
"... Clinton was a particular type of low-class, sybaritic evil but he didn't have a strong USSR to contend with. Instead he had the drunken traitor Yeltsin dance for him like a bedraggled starving bear. ..."
"So when was this golden age? Under Reagan? Well, this is when the dismantling of the
inner core of the empire began."
Beg to differ. Reagan understood how to administer the US empire. He knew the risks of
overstretching it. He made the promise to the Soviets not to encroach on their sphere of
influence. He defended the high interest rates which strengthened the USD and which kept the
banking sector in check.
All of that went to hell with Bill Clinton:
He broke Reagan's promise and expanded NATO eastwards, he dismantled the Glass Steagall act
which led to a malignant hypergrowth of the banking sector, and he was the who introduced the
telecommunications act in 1996 which allowed for the concentration of corporate media in the
hands of the few.
Bill Clinton basically turned the empire into a rapacious and uncontrollable animal.
(Funny how noone here is talking about imprisoning him )
There is a silver lining to Bill C's blood-soaked administration. It was while he was in
power, that the Russians finally awoke from their 1990s stupor. They began to understand the
mortal danger they were facing, and they patriotically chose Putin to lead them in 1999.
– Reagan was a disgusting Russophobe and Serbophobe who proclaimed 10th April (the
founding of the Independent State of Croatia) a national holiday in California as governor.
Not surprising given that his was the most RC government ever – he also colluded with
the Polish anti-Christ to destroy the USSR. In the process he encouraged the German Nazis
(see visit to Bitburg) who then destroyed Yugoslavia.
– He brought the world to the brink of a nuclear holocaust that was prevented by a
vigilant Russian officer (in 1983?).
– He turbo-charged the power of corporations and decimated social structures and the
rights of the working class (the Americans are paying for this now).
This is not to say that the scumbag Clinton was good – after all he was trained at
Georgetown – that seminary for American murderers.
Thanks for this Ken. Good to know who Reagan really was!
To get back to your point about the "dismantling of the empire" Reagan, for all his
personal awfulness and recklessness (and subversiveness) was still more restrained than
Clinton. Clinton hollowed out his own country in order to completely remove all
constraints (financial, mediatic, military). He doesn't get called out for it nearly enough
in my opinion. I guess it's personal, after what he did to us.
Clinton was a particular type of low-class, sybaritic evil but he didn't have a strong
USSR to contend with. Instead he had the drunken traitor Yeltsin dance for him like a
bedraggled starving bear. Never again!
On Sept. 15, Tucker Carlson brought onto his show Darren Beattie, a former Trump
speechwriter. Beattie explained to viewers that the same networks promoting color revolutions
overseas are now training their sights on President Donald Trump: "What's unfolding before our
eyes is a very specific type of coup called the 'color revolution.' "
Similarly,
Revolver website posted a multi-part series on the color revolution against Trump, with its
Sept. 9 installment taking up Norm Eisen, one of the participants in the Transition Integrity
Project's war gaming of the 2020 election. Eisen was Obama's White House ethics czar and was
hired by the Democratic leadership of the House Judiciary Committee in 2019, where he prepared
ten articles of impeachment against Trump a month before Pelosi announced an official
impeachment inquiry. He himself took part in the impeachment proceedings.
But his involvement in ousting Trump began even before the nomination. Eisen ran Citizens
for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), financed amongst others by George Soros's
Open Society, which partnered with David Brock to put forward a blueprint -- issued before the
inauguration -- for attacking Trump through such means as policing social media, getting tech
companies to censor content (media platforms ... will no longer uncritically and without
consequence host and enrich fake news), impeachment itself, fake news (a steady flow of
damaging information, new revelations), and other techniques.
Eisen co-authored "The Democracy Playbook: Preventing and Reversing Democratic
Backsliding," a Brookings guide to the perplexed seeking to institute policies through frankly
undemocratic means. Eisen named Gene Sharp's From Dictatorship to Democracy as an inspiration
for his document.
Consider another color revolutionary. Michael McFaul, former U.S. Ambassador to Russia
and a supporter of the Ukraine color revolution, realized that "color revolution" was taking on
a negative connotation. In August he tweeted a revised nomenclature: "Autocrats have demonized
the phrase, 'color revolutions.' (& revolution generally has a negative connotation for
many.) Instead, I use the term 'democratic breakthroughs.' "
What kind of democratic breakthrough? Consider McFaul's Sept. 4 tweet:
"Trump has lost the Intelligence Community. He has lost the State Department. He has lost
the military. How can he continue to serve as our Commander in Chief?"
Astute readers will note that neither the IC, State Department, or military appoint the
President, who takes that office by means that are actually democratic -- an election!
Eisen also heads the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group, whose website announces that
it is "a bipartisan and transatlantic platform for discourse and coordination to address
democratic backsliding in Europe." What is "democratic backsliding"? Naturally, it's when the
plebes get uppity and vote for their favored candidates, as in, you know, elections.
Russiagate has been an obvious coup attempt from the beginning
jinn @ May 10 15:20
That is not at all obvious... you have to be extremely gullible to believe any of it is
real.
IMO Russiagate was about initiating a new McCarthyism.
And Trump's Deep State selection was about re-igniting nationalism in response to
the Russia-China alliance which was recognized as a threat to the Empire in 2013-2014 with
Russia's blocking of US action in Syria and Ukraine.
There was nothing mysterious about "Russiagate." It was a transparently false narrative
designed, by the most incompetent election campaign team in history, to excuse their shocking
inability to defeat one of the weakest and most discredited Presidential candidates there has
ever been.
_________________________________________________
Yeah that is what we are asked to believe, but the problem is how did this incompetent
election campaign keep the ball in the air for more than 2 years?
They did not invent the Flynn lied to FBI story and they did not invent the Trump
obstructed justice stories. And they did not create any of the silly stories about contacts
with Russians. There is no doubt the Hillary supporters sat on the sidelines and cheered all
the nonsense that was unfolding in the Russiagate narrative but the storyline that they were
cheering for was all created by Trump and his lackeys.
C3
@C_3C_3
FBI knew the Dossier was FAKE
CIA knew the Dossier was FAKE
DOJ knew the Dossier was FAKE
ODNI knew the Dossier was FAKE
Media knew the Dossier was FAKE
Mueller knew the Dossier was FAKE
Congress knew the Dossier was FAKE
BO Admin knew the Dossier was FAKE
They were all in on it
"... The bottom line is the true enemies of the American people are no foreign nation or adversary---the true enemy of the American people are the people who control America. ..."
"... This way of thinking points to a dilemma for the American ruling class. Contrary to a lot of the rhetoric you hear, much of the American ruling class, including the "deep state" is actually quite anti-China. To fully account for this would take longer than I have here. But the nutshell intuitive explanation is that the ruling class, particularly Wall Street, was happy for the past several decades to enrich both themselves and China by destroying the American working class with policies such as "free-trade" and outsourcing. But in many ways the milk from that teat is no more, and now you have an American ruling class much more concerned about protecting their loot from a serious geopolitical competitor (China) than squeezing out the last few drops of milk from the "free trade." ..."
This is awesome, he nails the dilemma which our owners are confronted with;
I'll put it this way: It is not as though the American ruling class is intelligent,
competent, and patriotic on most important matters and happens to have a glaring blind spot
when it comes to appreciating the threat of China. If this were the case, it would make
sense to emphasize the threat of China above all else.
But this is not the case. The American ruling class has failed on pretty much every
issue of significance for the past several decades. If China were to disappear, they would
simply be selling out the country to India, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, or some other country
(in fact they are doing this just to a lesser extent).
Our ruling class has failed us on China because they have failed us on everything. For
this reason I believe that there will be no serious, sound policy on China that benefits
Americans until there is a legitimate ruling class in the United States. For this reason
pointing fingers at the wickedness and danger of China is less useful than emphasizing the
failure of the American ruling class. The bottom line is the true enemies of the
American people are no foreign nation or adversary---the true enemy of the American people
are the people who control America.
This way of thinking points to a dilemma for the American ruling class. Contrary to
a lot of the rhetoric you hear, much of the American ruling class, including the "deep
state" is actually quite anti-China. To fully account for this would take longer than I
have here. But the nutshell intuitive explanation is that the ruling class, particularly
Wall Street, was happy for the past several decades to enrich both themselves and China by
destroying the American working class with policies such as "free-trade" and outsourcing.
But in many ways the milk from that teat is no more, and now you have an American ruling
class much more concerned about protecting their loot from a serious geopolitical
competitor (China) than squeezing out the last few drops of milk from the "free
trade."
@102 karlof1 - "By deliberately setting policy to inflate asset prices, the Fed has
priced US labor out of a job, while as you report employers sought labor costs that allowed
them to remain competitive."
I never heard it said so succinctly and truly as this before. That is what happened isn't
it? The worker can't afford life anymore, in this country.
And if the worker can't afford the cost of living - who bears the cause of this, how
follows the remedy of this, and what then comes next?
I really appreciate your point of view, which is the only point of view, which is that the
designers of the economy, the governors of the economy, have placed the workers of the
economy in a position that is simply just not tenable.
No wonder they strive to divide in order to rule - because they have over-reached through
greed and killed the worker, who holds up the society.
How long can the worker flounder around blaming others before the spotlight must turn on
the employer?
You have to remember these people really do think they are better. They do think in class
terms even if they avoid that rhetoric in public. The problem is they thought they could
control China like they did Japan. That was dumb then and it looks even dumber now. You can
see similar dumbness in their lack of grip on any realisitic view of Russia. Provincials
really. Rich peasants.
Thank you, they certainly DO think in class terms ALWAYS. + Rich peasants is perfect
:))
Thankfully they are blinded by hubris at the same time. The USA destroyed the Allende
government in Chile in 1973. After the Nixon Kissinger visit to China in 1979 they assumed
they could just pull a color revolution stunt when they deemed it to be the right time.
Perhaps in their hubris they thought every Chinese worker would be infatuated with capitalism
and growth.
They tested that out in the People Power colour (yellow) revolt in the Filipines in 1986
following a rigged election by Marcos. In 1989 only 16 years after China had been buoyed up
with growth and development following the opening to USA capitalism, they tried out the same
trick in Tienanmen square in China but those students were up against the ruling party of the
entire nation - not the ruling class. BIG MISTAKE. The ruling party of China was solidly
backed by the peasant and working class that was finally enjoying some meager prosperity and
reward a mere 40 years after the Chinese Communist Party and their parents and grandparents
had liberated China from 100 years of occupation, plunder, human and cultural rapine and
colonial insult. Then in 2020 it was tried on again in Hong Kong. FAIL.
The hubris of the ruling class and its running dogs is pathetic.
We see the same with Pelosi and the ruling class in the Dimoratss today. They push Biden
Harris to the fore, piss on the left and refuse to even hold a vote on Medicare for All in
the middle of a pandemic. Meanwhile the USAi ruling class has its running dogs and hangers on
bleating that "its wrong tactic, its premature, its whatever craven excuse to avoid exposing
the ruling class for what they are - thieves, bereft of compassion, absent any sense of
social justice, fakes lurking behind their class supposition.
They come here to the bar with their arrogant hubris, brimming with pointless information
some even with emoji glitter stuck on their noses. Not a marxist or even a leftie among them.
Still its class that matters and its the ruling class that we must break.
@102 karlof1 and Grieved | Dec 19 2020 3:12 utc | 129
I did not understand inflate-assets/suppress-workers and forgot to return to it to clear
it up. Grieved sent me back to Karlof1. I just got it.
That viewpoint indeed explains method of operation to accomplish the results I observed.
When Nixon was forced to default on Bretton Woods use of Gold Exchange Standard* [the USD is
as good as gold], then printing fiat solved the problem [threat to US inventory of
gold]....but printing fiat [no longer redeemable as a promise convert to gold] became the new
problem [no way to extinguish the promises to redeem/pay].
So how to proceed? Aha! Steal from the workers; squeeze 'em, entertain and dazzle 'em!..
Such an elegant solution...slow, certain and hardly noticeable...like slow-boiling frogs...an
on-going project as we blog.
"... Band said he had no idea about Epstein's sex crimes back then but got enough bad vibes that he advised Clinton to end the relationship. But Clinton continued to socialize with Epstein and take his money. In 2006 Epstein donated $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation. Clinton made more than two dozen trips on Epstein's jet around this time, Epstein's flight logs show. In January 2003, according to Band, Clinton visited Epstein's private Caribbean island, Little St. James. Band said it was one of the few trips he declined to go on in his time with Clinton. - Vanity Fair ..."
"... Chelsea Clinton had a relationship with Epstein and his alleged co-conspirator in an underage sex trafficking ring, Ghislaine Maxwell. ..."
"... Chelsea had ties to Epstein and Maxwell, Band said; he showed me a photo of Bill and Chelsea posing with Epstein and Maxwell at the King of Morocco's wedding. Chelsea remained friends with Maxwell for years after the press revealed Maxwell was a close associate of Epstein's. For instance, Chelsea invited Maxwell to her 2010 wedding at the Brooke Astor estate in Rhinebeck, New York, after Epstein had pleaded guilty in Florida to procuring sex from a minor. - Vanity Fair ..."
"... "Ghislaine had access to yachts and nice homes. Chelsea needed that ," said Band. ..."
"... Thanks again to WikiLeaks, we also know that Band was soliciting donations for Clinton through his PR and investment firm, Teneo in an sordid example of "pay for play" which most of the mainstream media refused to cover - which he worried about in an email to John Podesta, saying: " If this story gets out, we are screwed ." ..."
"... In 2011, Band says he instructed Bill Clinton's staffers to ban Maxwell 'from all Clintonworld events' to try and drive a wedge between Chelsea and Ghislaine . ..."
Bill Clinton's former top aide and
Chelsea Clinton nemesis Doug Band has told
Vanity Fair that former
President Bill Clinton did visit Jeffrey Epstein's infamous "pedo island" in January 2003, and that he was unable to push Epstein
out of Clinton's orbit since they flew to Africa together in 2002 aboard the the pedophile's (Epstein's) private 727, dubbed the
"Lolita Express."
Band said he had no idea about Epstein's sex crimes back then but got enough bad vibes that he advised Clinton to end the relationship. But Clinton continued to socialize with Epstein and take his money. In 2006 Epstein donated $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
Clinton made more than two dozen trips on Epstein's jet around this time, Epstein's flight logs show. In January 2003, according
to Band, Clinton visited Epstein's private Caribbean island, Little St. James. Band said it was one of the few trips he declined
to go on in his time with Clinton. -
Vanity Fair
Band - who revealed the Clinton Foundation's
'for-profit' activity and accused Chelsea Clinton of tapping Foundation funds to
pay for her wedding (known only because of WikiLeaks) - also says Chelsea Clinton had a relationship with Epstein and his alleged
co-conspirator in an underage sex trafficking ring, Ghislaine Maxwell.
Chelsea had ties to Epstein and Maxwell, Band said; he showed me a photo of Bill and Chelsea posing with Epstein and Maxwell
at the King of Morocco's wedding. Chelsea remained friends with Maxwell for years after the press revealed Maxwell was a close
associate of Epstein's. For instance, Chelsea invited Maxwell to her 2010 wedding at the Brooke Astor estate in Rhinebeck, New
York, after Epstein had pleaded guilty in Florida to procuring sex from a minor. -
Vanity Fair
"Ghislaine had access to yachts and nice homes. Chelsea needed that ," said Band.
Band notably created the
now-defunct
Clinton Global Initiative, which has helped to raise $74 billion for Clinton global charities, according to
Newsmax . Thanks again
to WikiLeaks, we also know that Band was
soliciting donations for Clinton through his PR and investment firm, Teneo in an sordid example of "pay for play" which most
of the mainstream media refused to cover - which he worried about in an email to John Podesta, saying: "
If this
story gets out, we are screwed ."
In response to Band's claims about Chelsea, a family spokesperson said that " Chelsea was on friendly terms with Maxwell because
of a mutual friend (Gateway computer founder Ted Waitt) and only took one yacht trip with Maxwell in 2009: "It wasn't until 2015
that Chelsea became aware of the horrific allegations against Ghislaine Maxwell and she hopes that all the victims find justice."
In 2011, Band says he instructed Bill Clinton's staffers to ban Maxwell 'from all Clintonworld events' to try and drive a wedge
between Chelsea and Ghislaine .
"I knew in telling everyone to stop including Ghislaine that Chelsea and her father would be very angry. It made it harder for
them to justify being close to her," said Band.
"... If Trump's legal action against brazen election fraud to deny him a second term succeeds -- what's highly unlikely but possible -- will a phony DJT/Russia connection again make headline news? ..."
The scheme was cooked up by Obama/Biden regime Russophobes John Brennan, Hillary and the
DNC -- to smear Russia and discredit Trump at the same time.
It aimed to maintain and escalate US hostility toward the Russian Federation – for its
sovereign independence, advocacy for world peace, opposition to Washington's imperial agenda,
and having foiled its aim to transform Syria into another US vassal state.
It also relates to Sino/Russian unity – representing the only obstacle to Washington's
aim for unchallenged global dominance.
Probes by special counsel Robert Mueller, as well as House and Senate committees found no
evidence of Russian US meddling.
Nor did the US intelligence community. Claims otherwise without corroborating evidence were
and remain baseless.
In US criminal judicial proceedings, evidence beyond a reasonable doubt is required for
convictions.
Without it, fairly and impartially adjudicated cases would be dismissed.
Time and again, Russia was falsely accused of US election meddling, notably in the run-up to
Trump v. Hillary in 2016.
To this day, no credible evidence ever proved accusations because none exists.
The Russiagate hoax remains one of the most shameful political chapters in US history,
exceeding the worst of McCarthyism because despite its exposed Big Lies, it's still around.
Yet in 2018 testimony before House Intelligence Committee members, former Director of
National Intelligence James Clapper (2010 – 2017) said the following:
"I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was
plotting (or) conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election."
"I do not recall any instance when I had direct evidence of the content of" alleged Trump
team-Russia collusion.
Remarks like the above, along with failure of probes by Mueller, House and Senate members to
present evidence of Russian US election meddling should have ended the Russiagate witch-hunt
once and for all.
While largely dormant in the run-up to and aftermath of US Election 2020, it could resurface
any time in old or new form.
In following NYT reports on other issues, most recently with regard to Trump v.
Biden/Harris, I haven't seen a Russiagate report in its online editions for some time.
Belatedly I discovered an August 2020 mini-book-length article in the NYT Magazine
(online), a publication I don't follow.
It discusses a classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of various geopolitical
issues, this one prepared in July 2019.
The Times: "According to multiple officials who saw it, the document discussed Russia's
ongoing efforts to influence US elections: the 2020 presidential contest and 2024's as well
(sic)."
Its so-called "interest" is much the same as in other nations.
"Interest" has nothing to do with meddling. No credible evidence ever surfaced to show US
election interference by any nations.
It's in sharp contrast to credible evidence of US meddling in scores of elections abroad
throughout the post-WW II period and earlier.
According to "key judgments" of US intelligence officials, "Russia favored the current
president: Donald Trump," adding:
Ahead of the summer 2020 party national conventions, "Russia worked in support of the (Dem)
presidential candidate Bernie Sanders," said the Times, based on the NIE report.
It wasn't "genuine" support for Sanders, just an effort "to weaken that party and ultimately
help the current US president (sic)."
The Times: "Just as this article was going to press," the Office of the Director of National
Intelligence (ODNI) claimed the following:
Moscow "is using a range of measures to primarily denigrate former (Joe) Biden and what it
sees as an anti-Russia 'establishment (sic).' "
The ODNI accused Moscow of "sophisticated election-disrupting capabilities (sic)."
An unnamed intelligence community source familiar with the NIE was quoted, saying it's "100
percent reliable (sic)."
Left unexplained by the Times was that from inception to the present day, Russiagate was and
remains a colossal hoax.
No evidence ever surfaced to suggest Kremlin US election meddling, nor by any other foreign
country.
What the NIE allegedly called "100 percent reliable" defied reality. It's part of
longstanding Russia bashing.
In January 2017, a US intelligence community report titled "Assessing Russian Activities and
Intentions in Recent US Elections: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution" --
claiming Trump v. Hillary election meddling -- included no evidence proving it.
None existed then or now to present day.
When Vladimir Putin was asked if he wanted Trump to win in 2016 -- at a joint Helsinki,
Finland news conference with DJT in July 2018 -- he replied: "Yes, I did."
His preference for Trump over Hillary was unrelated to election meddling.
If other foreign leaders expressed a preference for one US presidential candidate over
another, the same logic holds.
One thing has nothing to do with the other. Implying otherwise is an act of deception, a
longstanding US intelligence community and Times specialty.
Trump was justifiably skeptical about accusations of Russian US election meddling that
favored him over Hillary in 2016 or over Biden/Harris this month.
According to the Times, Trump's objections to claims about alleged Russia US election
meddling "alarm(ed) the intelligence community."
Former acting CIA director/Hillary campaign advisor Michael Morell was quoted calling Trump
"an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation."
He's a political novice, geopolitical know-nothing, first ever US reality TV president.
He's no witting or unwitting Russian agent.
Separately, Morell defied reality, claiming:
Election 2016 was "the only time in American history when we've been attacked by a foreign
country and not come together as a nation," adding:
"In fact, it split us further apart."
"It was an inexpensive, relatively easy to carry out covert mission." It deepened our
divisions."
"I'm absolutely convinced that those Russian intelligence officers who put together and
managed the attack on our democracy (sic) in 2016 all received medals personally from
Vladimir Putin (sic)."
The above claims and others about a DJT/Russia connection et al are pure rubbish.
The lengthy Times magazine piece was all about smearing Russia, falsely claiming Kremlin US
election meddling, and demeaning Trump for defeating media darling Hillary.
No evidence was included to back any of the above claims. None exists.
In the run-up to and aftermath of US election 2020, Russiagate simmers largely below the
surface.
If Trump's legal action against brazen election fraud to deny him a second term succeeds --
what's highly unlikely but possible -- will a phony DJT/Russia connection again make headline
news?
Will there be claims of Kremlin involvement in backing litigation to discredit
Biden/Harris?
No matter how often the Russiagate Big Lie was debunked before, it may never die.
It may be around as long as the Russian Federation and China remain Washington's favorite
national security threats.
Real ones don't exist so they're invented as pretexts to advance US imperial interests.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email
lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] . He is a Research
Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for
Hegemony Risks WW III."
If Donald Trump wants to get re-elected as President of the U.S. he's going to have to take
out former President Barack Obama. At this point Obama is the person who most stands in his
path for a second term.
Former Vice President Joe Biden may well wind up being the nominee but that's only because
he is Obama's stand in since Obama can't run for a third term thanks to the only part of the
U.S. Constitution anyone seems to give a damn about anymore.
But, make no mistake, the current flap about the unmasking of Trump's first (and
short-lived) National Security Adviser Gen. Michael Flynn is all about Trump finally going on
the offensive after more than three years of fighting rear-guard actions just to stay in
power.
Obama was the ring leader in the operation to spy on Trump and anyone with half a brain
knows it. The unmasking of the unmaskers in the Obama administration is to tarnish his legacy
and dishearten any centrist voters who may be tiring of Trump's mistakes and the worsening
economic collapse engineered by the shutdown of the economy during the peak of the COVID-19
hysteria.
This is why it is imperative for Trump to take Obama out of this election cycle as quickly
as possible.
With Hillary finally bending the knee to Obama when she publicly endorsed Biden that was the
signal that she's acknowledging she's lost the fight for control over the Democratic Party,
which she and her husband have ruled with a closed fist for decades.
Now Obama is free and clear to begin campaigning openly on Biden's behalf. And don't for a
second think that the trial balloons of his wife Michelle being Biden's running mate are the
fanciful wishes of hopeless Democrats. Michelle is absolutely one of the top candidates for
that job.
Because with Trump surviving everything thrown at him to this point the only chance Biden
has this fall is his second coming as the Left's political messiah. Take nothing away from
Obama, he is an excellent campaigner.
With Michelle as his running mate that puts Obama right where he needs to be, hounding Trump
on all the issues that are supposed to be weaknesses for him – the economy, COVID-19
deaths, unemployment, etc.
So, the timing of Trump having his acting ODNI Director Richard Grenell pick a public spat
with the hapless Head of the House Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff and get the transcripts
of the impeachment interviews released to the public isn't coincidence, folks. These
transcripts confirm that Obama's inner circle all lied through their teeth in the media for
years about the RussiaGate collusion story.
This comes on the heels of Trump's somewhat cleaned up Dept. of Justice dropping the case
against Flynn which then opens up the opportunity to resurrect the timeline of events which led
up to his firing and indictment by the very people now revealed as bald-faced liars and
conspirators.
Trump then goes directly to the people and coins the term of the year, "Obamagate."
He's telling the entire world who his target is. He knows that if he loses this election any
chance of reforming any part of the D.C. swamp vanishes as Biden steps aside for health reasons
after sweeping everything under the rug and Obama rules the White House from the shadows as
First Lady.
And it's clear that this is the real reason behind the Democratic governors defying their
people and Trump on opening up their cities and states. They are purposefully trying to destroy
the country to regain control over it.
These people are vandals.
But Trump's biggest obstacle at this point isn't the Democrat-controlled House or the Media,
it is the Republicans in the Senate who have proven repeatedly to be spineless when it comes to
anything substantive.
Obama is guilty of the highest crimes a President can be guilty of, utilizing Federal law
enforcement and intelligence services to spy on a political opponent during an election. This
is after eight years of ruinous wars, coups both successful and not, drone-striking U.S.
citizens and generally carrying on like the vandal he is.
Thankfully Rand Paul (R-Ky) has been activated by Trump to go after Graham directly and
force him to back peddle. Paul is already calling for hearings in the Senate, using his
Chairmanship of the Government Oversight Committee to end run around Light in the Loafers
Lindsey.
The FBI is now going after people like Richard Burr (R-NC), head of the Senate Intelligence
Committee for potential insider trading violations. This is a pure power play to make sure Burr
doesn't let this die in committee.
If this tweet isn't clear enough that Trump wants Obama's head on a platter and he's now
willing to go scorched earth on him and anyone trying to protect Obama to get it I don't know
what is.
Things are spiraling out of control in D.C. quickly. A reader noted to me recently that one
of Trump's strengths is that he thrives in chaos, that he's most comfortable stirring the pot
and getting everyone around him 'on tilt' as the poker players say.
That's what he's doing now with #Obamagate. He's doing what he does best, forcing his
opponents to ab react to him and leaving them vulnerable to his next attack. He's in pure
campaign mode now, which we haven't seen in four years.
But this time he's campaigning with a lot more resources at his disposal especially if he
has them all nailed. Trump wouldn't be going after Obama if he didn't have proof of Obama's
guilt. He's a limbic creature but he's not random.
Obama's people will spin this as desperation over the mishandling of COVID-19, but it won't
matter. With a Justice Dept. that looks ready to get to work for the first time in decades,
Trump just well be ready to finally do something right.
National security parasites want taxpayers money. Badly.
Notable quotes:
"... Just days before the 2020 election the bureaucratic forces behind the original claim of Russian hacking of state election-related websites in 2016 launched a new drive to spawn fears of Moscow-made political chaos in the wake of the voting. ..."
"... The new narrative was not consistent with information previously published by the the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security's new Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), however. It was so incoherent, in fact, that it suggested a state of panic on the part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials worried about a possible transition to a Joe Biden administration. ..."
"... Krebs' warning of a possible Russian announcement that hackers had succeeded in disrupting the result of the U.S. election was so removed from reality that it suggested internal panic DHS over the failure of Russian hackers to do anything that could be cited as interfering the election. ..."
"... Two days after Krebs' dubious warning, the FBI and the DHS's new Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued an "alert" reporting that "a Russian state-sponsored APT [Advanced Persistent Threat] actor" known as "Berserk Bear" had "conducted a campaign against a wide variety of US targets." ..."
"... On October 28, Krebs elaborated on the latter theme in an interview with the PBS NewsHour . Referring inaccurately to government warnings about "Russian interference, some of which targeted voter registration," which the FBI-CISA alert had never mentioned, PBS interviewer William Brangham asked, "Do you worry at all that there might be infiltration that we are not aware of?" ..."
"... Instead of correcting Brangham's inaccurate suggestion, Krebs responded that "infiltration" into voter registration files was "certainly possible," but that "[W]e have improved the ability to detect compromises or anomalous activity." ..."
Reprinted from The Grayzone with
the author's permission.
A Department of Homeland Security election alert spawning new Russia fears was so
incoherent and inconsistent with previous findings, it suggested a state of political panic
inside the agency.
Just days before the 2020 election the bureaucratic forces behind the original claim
of Russian hacking of state election-related websites in 2016 launched a new drive to spawn
fears of Moscow-made political chaos in the wake of the voting.
The new narrative was not consistent with information previously published by the the
FBI and the Department of Homeland Security's new Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security
Agency (CISA), however. It was so incoherent, in fact, that it suggested a state of panic on
the part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) officials worried about a possible
transition to a Joe Biden administration.
On October 20, Christopher Krebs, the head of CISA, issued a
video statement expressing confidence that "it would be incredibly difficult for them to
change the outcome of an election at the national level." Then he abruptly changed his tone,
adding, "But that doesn't mean various actors won't try to introduce chaos in our elections
and make sensational claims that overstate their capabilities. In fact, the days and weeks
just before and after Election Day is the perfect time for our adversaries to launch efforts
intended to undermine your confidence in the integrity of the electoral process."
Krebs' warning of a possible Russian announcement that hackers had succeeded in
disrupting the result of the U.S. election was so removed from reality that it suggested
internal panic DHS over the failure of Russian hackers to do anything that could be cited as
interfering the election.
Two days after Krebs' dubious warning, the FBI and the DHS's new Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) issued an "alert" reporting that "a
Russian state-sponsored APT [Advanced Persistent Threat] actor" known as "Berserk Bear" had
"conducted a campaign against a wide variety of US targets."
Since "at least September," according to the DHS alert, the DHS warning claimed that it
had targeted "dozens" of "US state, local, territorial and tribal government networks." It
even claimed that the supposed Russian campaign had compromised the network infrastructure of
several official organizations and "exfiltrated data from at least two victims servers". At
the same time, it acknowledged there was "no indication" that any government operations had
been "intentionally disrupted."
The report went on to suggest, "[T]here may be some risk to elections information housed
on SLTT [state, local territorial and tribal] government networks." And then it abruptly
shifted tone and level of analysis to offer the speculation that the Russian government "may
be seeking access to obtain future disruption options, to influence US policies or actions",
or to "delegitimize" the "government entities".
On October 28, Krebs elaborated on the latter theme in an interview with the PBS
NewsHour . Referring inaccurately to government warnings about "Russian interference,
some of which targeted voter registration," which the FBI-CISA alert had never mentioned, PBS
interviewer William Brangham asked, "Do you worry at all that there might be infiltration
that we are not aware of?"
Instead of correcting Brangham's inaccurate suggestion, Krebs responded that
"infiltration" into voter registration files was "certainly possible," but that "[W]e have
improved the ability to detect compromises or anomalous activity."
Krebs then homed in on a scenario he obviously wanted the public to focus on: "[Y]ou might
see various actors, foreign powers, claim that they were able to accomplish something, [that]
they were able to hack a database or hack the vote count. And it's simply not true."
Although the October 22 alert did not assert any deliberate Russian government hack of
election-related sites, Krebs sought to keep speculation about both Russian capabilities and
intent alive.
The buried alert that undermined the frightening official assessment
Eleven days before Krebs debuted his speculation about Russia claiming to have hacked US
elections, the FBI and CISA issued a separate alert that seriously undercut
his questionable claims.
The earlier document was clearly referring to the very same efforts by hackers to break
into various websites address in the October 22 alert. It not only referred to the same state
and local government networks and to the wider range of targets affect but also mentioned
precisely the same technical vulnerabilities that were targeted in the series of hacks.
The alert further stated that, "[I]t does not appear these targets are being selected
because of their proximity to elections information ." In other words, the two US agencies
conceded they had no basis for attributing to any of the hacks in question to any election
interference plot.
The most striking difference between the two alerts, however, was that the October 9 alert
did not refer to any "Russian state-sponsored APT actor" as the October 22 one did. Instead,
it simply pointed to "APT actors" in the plural, indicating that the US intelligence
community had no evidence indicating a single actor was at work, let alone one that was
"Russian-state sponsored."
Contrary to the impression that US officials may have conveyed in referencing an "Advance
Persistent Threat," or APT,
it is now widely understood by cybersecurity specialists that this term no longer refers
to a state-sponsored actor. That is because the sophisticated tools and techniques once
associated with state-sponsored hacking have now become available to a much wider range of
cyber actors. Indeed, the codes for such high-end tools have been identified in the
Shadow Brokers and Vault 7
leaks, and the tools have been marketed widely at affordable prices on the dark web.
The October 9 alert firmly established the dearth of evidence on the part of CISA and FBI
about a Russian state-sponsored hacking team planning elections-related operations in the US
The sudden pivot days later to an unqualified claim that a single state-sponsored APT had
been responsible for the same very large range of operations should have been accompanied by
claims of substantial new intelligence, or at least a reference to the evidence underlying
the dramatic new reversal. But no such proof ever arrived.
Scott McConnell, the spokesman for CISA, promised the Grazyzone on October 29 that he
would provide someone to answer questions about the October 22 alert by the close of business
Friday. In the end, however, no one from CISA responded, and there was no answer on
McConnell's line.
The peculiar reversal by the DHS and CISA on the hacking claims raise questions about the
institutional considerations taken by these agencies. Did indications that President Donald
Trump's campaign was faltering inform their decision to issue a more stridently anti-Russian
assessment in hopes of surviving a political transition?
The US officials who drew up the initial pre-election alert seemed keenly aware that
despite that drumbeat of over the past two years, no state-sponsored Russian hacking of
election institutions was underway. But as the Trump campaign sputtered, they had their own
careers to consider. Days later, DHS and CISA declared the wily Russians guilty of yet
another malign operations – albeit one that would not require the slightest evidence to
provide, and which proved impossible to explain.
Gareth Porter, an investigative historian and journalist specializing in US national
security policy, received the UK-based Gellhorn Prize for journalism for 2011 for articles on
the U.S. war in Afghanistan. His new book is
Manufactured Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare. He can be contacted
at [email protected]
.
Update (1745ET): President Trump just took a minute away from the campaign trail to weigh in
on the 'coming out' of Miles Taylor, the formerly "anonymous" op-ed writer and self-proclaimed
leader of the internal White House #resistance,
"Who is Miles Taylor?" President Trump wrote, before recounting Taylor's association with
various adversaries of the administration. He added that "they should fire, shame, and punish
everybody associated with this FRAUD on the American people" - a group that would presumably
include some members or former members of his own inner circle, as well as the editors of the
NYT.
A photo of Taylor and Trump has been circulating on Twitter since before Trump published his
tweet, and we imagine Trump's response to the inevitable reporter question will be his usual
"so what?".
Meanwhile, CNN has reportedly decided not to fire Taylor, even though he lied on air to one
of the network's anchors (anderson cooper, clip below) despite being a paid employee of the
company.
It's still unclear what Google's response will be.
* * *
Roughly two years have passed since an anonymous Trump Administration insider
published an op-ed - then later, a whole book - warning Americans how President Trump was a
danger to the nation, primarily due to his "lack of character".
Well, on Wednesday afternoon, with six days left until the big day, the MSM and their
political operative allies, orchestrated the public coming-out of Miles Taylor, a former senior
official within Trump's Homeland Security Department who, before today, was best known as the
first former senior administration official to endorse Joe Biden for president.
In the year since Taylor has left the White House, he has parlayed his national security
bona fides (which were burnished during a stint working for Dick Cheney in the Bush White
House) into a top job working for Google, as well as a lucrative contract to appear as a
talking head on CNN and...did we mention the book deal?
Shortly following a teaser from George Conway, who called his fellow conservative Republican
a "true patriot"....
...Buzzfeed Ben - excuse us, Ben Smith - the former top man at Buzzfeed who left that
struggling media company to take the coveted job as the NYT's media columnist (a position
formerly held by both Brian Stelter and, before him, the legendary American media reporter
David Carr), was the first to confirm Taylor's identity, followed by a tweet from Taylor
acknowledging that it was all true.
Taylor published a statement on his reasoning for "why I'm no longer 'anonymous'" via his
new Medium page, which is strange, considering he now works for CNN, technically. In the
statement, Taylor wrote that Trump "sees personal criticism as subversive" followed by a Teddy
Roosevelt quote condemning those who say the president must not be criticized as "not only
unpatriotic and servile, but...morally treasonable to the American public." Later in the piece,
he quoted Abraham Lincoln.
Though Taylor acknowledged that he has been a life-long Republican, and that he "wanted this
president to succeed", he said Trump is "a man without character", and "his personal defects
have resulted in leadership failures so significant that they can be measured in lost American
lives."
More than two years ago, I published an anonymous opinion piece in The New York Times about
Donald Trump's perilous presidency, while I was serving under him. He responded with a short
but telling tweet: "TREASON?" Trump sees personal criticism as subversive. I take a different
view.
As Theodore Roosevelt wrote, "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile,
but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about
him or anyone else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant,
about him than about anyone else." We do not owe the President our silence. We owe him and the
American people the truth. Make no mistake: I am a Republican, and I wanted this President to
succeed. That's why I came into the Administration with John Kelly, and it's why I stayed on as
Chief of Staff at the Department of Homeland Security. But too often in times of crisis, I saw
Donald Trump prove he is a man without character, and his personal defects have resulted in
leadership failures so significant that they can be measured in lost American lives.
I witnessed Trump's inability to do his job over the course of two-and-a-half years.
Everyone saw it, though most were hesitant to speak up for fear of reprisals. So when I left
the Administration I wrote A Warning, a character study of the current Commander in Chief and a
caution to voters that it wasn't as bad as it looked inside the Trump Administration -- it was
worse. While I claim sole authorship of the work, the sentiments expressed within it were
widely held among officials at the highest levels of the federal government. In other words,
Trump's own lieutenants were alarmed by his instability.
Much has been made of the fact that these writings were published anonymously. The decision
wasn't easy, I wrestled with it, and I understand why some people consider it questionable to
levy such serious charges against a sitting President under the cover of anonymity. But my
reasoning was straightforward, and I stand by it. Issuing my critiques without attribution
forced the President to answer them directly on their merits or not at all, rather than
creating distractions through petty insults and name-calling. I wanted the attention to be on
the arguments themselves. At the time I asked, "What will he do when there is no person to
attack, only an idea?" We got the answer. He became unhinged. And the ideas stood on their own
two feet. To be clear, writing those works was not about eminence (they were published without
attribution), not about money (I declined a hefty monetary advance and pledged to donate the
bulk of the proceeds), and not about crafting a score-settling "tell all" (my focus was on the
President himself and his character, not denigrating former colleagues). Nevertheless, I made
clear I wasn't afraid to criticize the President under my name. In fact, I pledged to do so.
That is why I've already been vocal throughout the general election. I've tried to convey as
best I can -- based on my own experience -- how Donald Trump has made America less safe, less
certain of its identity and destiny, and less united. He has responded predictably, with
personal attacks meant to obscure the underlying message that he is unfit for the office he
holds. Yet Trump has failed to bury the truth.
Why? Because since the op-ed was published, I've been joined by an unprecedented number of
former colleagues who've chosen to speak out against the man they once served. Donald Trump's
character and record have now been challenged in myriad ways by his own former Chief of Staff,
National Security Advisor, Communications Director, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense,
Director of National Intelligence, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and others he
personally appointed. History will also record the names of those souls who had everything to
lose but stood up anyway, including Trump officials Fiona Hill, Michael McKinley, John Mitnick,
Elizabeth Neumann, Bob Shanks, Olivia Troye, Josh Venable, Alexander Vindman, and many more. I
applaud their courage. These are not "Deep Staters" who conspired to thwart their boss. Many of
them were Trump supporters, and all of them are patriots who accepted great personal risks to
speak candidly about a man they've seen retaliate and even incite violence against his
opponents. (I've likewise experienced the cost of condemning the President, as doing so has
taken a considerable toll on my job, daily life, marriage, finances, and personal safety.)
These public servants were not intimidated. And you shouldn't be either. As descendants of
revolutionaries, honest dissent is part of our American character, and we must reject the
culture of political intimidation that's been cultivated by this President. That's why I'm
writing this note -- to urge you to speak out if you haven't.
While I hope a few more Trump officials will quickly find their consciences, your words are
now more important than theirs. It's time to come forward and shine a light on the discord
that's infected our public discourse. You can speak loudest with your vote and persuade others
with your voice. Don't be afraid of open debate. As I've said before, there is no better screen
test for truth than to see it audition next to delusion. This election is a two-part
referendum: first, on the character of a man, and second, on the character of our nation.
That's why I'm also urging fellow Republicans to put country over party, even if that means
supporting Trump's Democratic opponent. Although former Vice President Joe Biden is likely to
pursue progressive reforms that conservatives oppose (and rest assured, we will challenge them
in the loyal opposition), his policy agenda cannot equal the damage done by the current
President to the fabric of our Republic. I believe Joe Biden's decency will bring us back
together where Donald Trump's dishonesty has torn us apart.
Trump has been exactly what we conservatives always said government should NOT be:
expansive, wasteful, arbitrary, unpredictable, and prone to abuses of power. Worse still, as
I've noted previously, he's waged an all-out assault on reason, preferring to enthrone emotion
and impulse in the seat of government. The consequences have been calamitous, and if given four
more years, he will push the limits of his power further than the "high crimes and
misdemeanors" for which he was already impeached.
Trust me. We spent years trying to ameliorate Trump's poor decisions (often unsuccessfully),
many of which will be back with a vengeance in a second term. Recall, this is the man who told
us, "When somebody's president of the United States, the authority is total." I believe more
than ever that Trump unbound will mean a nation undone -- a continued downward slide into
social acrimony, with the United States fading into the background of a world stage it once
commanded, to say nothing of the damage to our democratic institutions.
I was wrong, however, about one major assertion in my original op-ed. The country cannot
rely on well-intentioned, unelected bureaucrats around the President to steer him toward what's
right. He has purged most of them anyway. Nor can they rely on Congress to deliver us from
Trump's wayward whims. The people themselves are the ultimate check on the nation's chief
executive. We alone must determine whether his behavior warrants continuance in office, and we
face a momentous decision, as our choice about Trump's future will affect our future for years
to come. With that in mind, he doesn't deserve a second term in office, and we don't deserve to
live through it.
Removing Trump will not be the end of our woes, unfortunately. While on the road visiting
swing states for the past month, it's become clear to me how far apart Americans have grown
from one another. We've perpetuated the seemingly endless hostility stoked by this divisive
President, so if we really want to restore vibrance to our civic life, the change must begin
with each of us, not just with the occupant of the Oval Office. Fortunately, past generations
have lit the way toward national reconciliation in even harder times.
On the brink of a civil war that literally split our nation in two, Abraham Lincoln called
on the people not to lose sight of one other. He said in his Inaugural Address:
We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it
must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every
battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land,
will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the
better angels of our nature.
Heed Lincoln's words. We must return to our founding principles. We must rediscover our
better angels. And we must reconcile with each other, repairing the bonds of affection that
make us fellow Americans.
Mere minutes after Taylor's big coming-out, the online backlash began. Even members of the
'#resistance' slammed Taylor for his involvement in executing Trump's child-separation policy,
and for waiting this long to speak up.
As it turns out, Google execs reportedly misled their own employees when they insisted that
Taylor wasn't involved with the child-separation policy, an issue that ranks as Trump's
paramount sin among denizens of Silicon Valley.
Many also complained about the NYT hyping up the identity of the "anonymous" insider to try
and suggest that he was a top-level staffer, prompting speculation about Rex Tillerson, John
Kelly or even James Mattis. Trump's current chief of staff Mark Meadows,
And journalist Judd Legum with the extended version of that explanation, in which he
denounces "Anonymous" as little more than a grifter, who played a "critical role" in the family
separation policy, now working to parlay his brief time in the Trump Administration into a
quick buck.
Some were incredulous that Taylor left the administration and now works for Google and
CNN.
https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-18&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1321546046363721728&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fanonymous-author-outs-himself-liberal-media-immediately-slams-him-child-separating&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550px
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
With Taylor now outed as a child prison guard, as we have no doubt he will be branded by the
left, we imagine Google will need to make a statement at some point about whether Taylor will
continue on in his role, or be...fired.
play_arrow Unknown User , 58 minutes ago
A typical Neoliberal incapable of comprehending loyalty and ready to sellout anyone for a
dollar.
Everybodys All American , 1 hour ago
This little man operates like a CIA agent. I'd be shocked if that's not the case. He
actually said he believes in Joe Biden's' decency. No one in their right mind is saying that
...
gmrpeabody , 50 minutes ago
Biden's decency..? Now THAT'S funny...
JLee2027 , 1 hour ago
Just another one who betrayed his country for bucks and fame. Hope it was worth it.
Perseus-Reflected , 1 hour ago
Looks like a latte-drinking little b!tch to me.
aspen1880 , 58 minutes ago
he "identifies" with bish
chelydra , 4 minutes ago
The epitome of an effete, preening dandy.
hot sauce technician , 1 hour ago
Everything the biden campaign is doing seems to backfire on it.
LVrunner , 58 minutes ago
Should be giving away puppies soon like Hilary did at this point.
Redhotfill , 1 hour ago
Working for Google, CNN, Book deal yeah Pay Offs! Surprised no Netflx stock options.
44magnum , 1 hour ago
Or a seat on the board
mrslippryFIST , 1 hour ago
The year isnt over yet.
OGAorSAD , 1 hour ago
And we care why? Should be a headline with Section 230 being repealed, and multiple
indictments of Biden's, Clinton's, and Obama's
nope-1004 , 54 minutes ago
Never heard of him.
The fact that he's a documented public liar and democrat makes complete sense though.
mrslippryFIST , 1 hour ago
Hah, little beta cuck didn't get his 15mins so he outs himself to get his 15 mins of
fame.
This is what participation ribbons gives you.
Willie the Pimp , 1 hour ago
What else would you expect from an obvious jizz guzzler? The LGBT have destroyed the
USSA.
pictur3plane , 1 hour ago
SOY BOY NOTHING BURGER.
JRobby , 52 minutes ago
Oh! Look! He shops at Amazon!!!
Pop this prick and dump him in a landfill
Friedrich not Salma , 54 minutes ago
DNC probably asked him to reveal himself to eat up Teevee time and distract from Hunter's
story.
Md4 , 53 minutes ago
Zactly.
Where's Hunter?
Boxed Merlot , 31 minutes ago
...Where's Hunter?...
Chillin with Mr. Corzine? You remember that guy don't you? He's another GS Vice President
and Mr. Obama's prized confidant in his financial wizardry that ripped off his "investors" to
the tune of frn1B and slunk out of the public eye.
Who are these people? Look at the way they dress. Look at the smug arrogant look on their
faces.
They are caught in a bubble and are totally divorced from reality.
It should be requirement of every individual who enters government to spend at least one
year unclogging apartment building sewer stoppages.
Having a basic grasp of reality and a first hand look at where sewage actually goes is
vital to a healthy reality based outlook on life.
Peace
Salsa Verde , 1 hour ago
Scumbags gonna scum.
EnoughBS21 , 56 minutes ago
How's it feel, little traitor? You threw Trump under the bus and now your "new friends"
are tossing you away.
A Mister nobody!
Md4 , 54 minutes ago
And was " anonymous".
Credible?
44magnum , 1 hour ago
Trump has no character and Biden is senile.
So he picks Biden and the whore? She is definitely a character.
I am more equal than others , 1 hour ago
Judging character from afar. It is an amazing skill that has never existed.
novictim , 46 minutes ago
On the scales of justice, Trump is light as a feather while these Leftist
infiltrator-traitors and grifters, China-stooges and bribe takers, are lead weights on the
American Republic. There is no parallel to the corruption that has been revealed about the
Russia-Collusion hoax and now the truth about Biden's sale of US' China-policy in return for
the CCP padding the Biden family nest egg.
Watergate has nothing on these latest scandals. And Trump comes away from all of this like
a shining star.
JmanSilver.Gold , 44 minutes ago
Just another leftwing swamprat.
Floki_Ragnarsson , 46 minutes ago
So this weasel turd creates the problem, whines about it, and then makes a book deal, bags
a CNN job, etc?
Obviously a slimy Democrud.
Teamtc321 , 51 minutes ago
***** shadow man talks about character? Typical Demshelvic POS.
Joe Biden is burning down.
zerozerosevenhedgeBow1 , 1 hour ago
Ahh... Wallet before country, honor and integrity. I see a trend of "Public Service".
Delete his security clearance before he tries to change genders, because politically then you
probably couldn't afterwards.
Hipneck911 , 45 minutes ago
So a minor level DHS obama holdover who is a lifelong democrat-donated to Obamas
campaign-and probably had all of maybe ONE meeting where the President was present. AKA
typical leftist LOSER.
Imagine That , 1 hour ago
Big fuss about a chicken-sh*t nobody, who the world will forget before he changes his silk
panties.
Pvt Joker , 45 minutes ago
"We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies"
Yeah, Imma say this guy and any one who thinks like him is my enemy.
Occams_Razor_Trader_Part_Deux , 47 minutes ago
You had me till Vindman.................... you're an operative .....................
Blaster09 , 55 minutes ago
Another POS!!!
lwilland1012 , 1 hour ago
Give people enough time, and they will always show you their true colors. Just watch and
listen.
novictim , 42 minutes ago
But the election is on Tuesday. Millions have already voted.
The MSM has betrayed every American in ways unthinkable just a decade ago.
Dindu Nuffins , 45 minutes ago
Not worth changing the news cycle from the laptop. No one cares who this rat is,
undifferentiated as he is from the many others.
"... Same principle with speaking engagements. Nobody in the corporate world seriously believed that listening to a speech from Hillary Clinton was worth $200,000 - especially when she sometimes kept getting these gigs at the same company every few months: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-08-03/every-hillary-and-bill-clinton-speech-2013-fees ..."
"... Furthermore, the book sales conduit adds an extra degree of separation between the ultimate source of the money and the recipient of the money. Somebody who wants to buy a politician could for example donate money to an NGO that does "political education" and buys political books to distribute to people, and that NGO buys the copies of the corrupt politician's book in bulk. ..."
Learned here on SST that a lot of the huge book contracts given to swampies are a form of
money laundering. I have long tried to figure out how the publishing companies could afford to
pay yuudge advances for ghost written books in a country where so few people read much of
anything any longer. Simple answer! Big money people order yuudge numbers of books in advance
so that the publisher is assured a profit.
I think it was the previous mayor of Baltimore who got a multi-million dollar windfall
from her best-selling children's book. I wonder how many kids actually read it.
Lots of trucks out with their flags here, people are becoming optimistic here in South
Florida, feels almost normal here.
Trump taking New York would be the ultimate, lets hope. I'm looking forward to watching
CNN's Wolf Blitzer on election night, it's been 4 years for me and CNN. I just want to see
him squirm.
it looks a lot less like corruption when a politician receives money because he wrote an
"inspiring book" that seemingly sells lots of copies than when he receives money outright for
political favors.
Furthermore, the book sales conduit adds an extra degree of separation between the
ultimate source of the money and the recipient of the money. Somebody who wants to buy a
politician could for example donate money to an NGO that does "political education" and buys
political books to distribute to people, and that NGO buys the copies of the corrupt
politician's book in bulk.
Interesting question about book deals. Certainly it could be a channel to hide the names
of donors, which would seem the only rational reason to do so. I would guess the lecture
circuit a more appropriate way to do that. If I'm going to part with that much I'd at least
want a song for their dinner out of it.
The 10 biggest book deals have a mixture of celebrities, I can't imagine anyone wanting to
slip Bruce Springsteen $10 million under the table so it appears the publishers do make money
on these deals, counter-intuitive though it be.
Book writing can be far more lucrative than I ever thought possible. James Patterson got
150 million for a 17 book series. I would say he earned it although I've never read any of
his stuff. Michelle Obama's first book sold over 10 million copies and netted her at least 65
million in a deal for both her and Barrack's memoirs.
Ken Follett got 50 million for his trilogy.
Bill Clinton got 15 million for his book while George W. Bush only got 7 million for
his.
Hillary got 14 million for hers. Springsteen got 10 million for his autobiography.
Even Pope Jan Pavel II made a cool 8.5 million for his memoirs back in 1994. There are an
awful lot of 7 figure book advances out there.
Another phenomenon in the book world is the mass purchase of books by organizations. For
example the RNC bought $100K worth of Don Trump Jr's book and more than $400K worth of Sean
Hannity's latest. I'm sure the RNC is not alone in this practice.
There is considerable evidence that the American system of government may have been
victimized by an illegal covert operation organized and executed by the U.S. intelligence and
national security community. Former Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper, former CIA
Director John Brennan and former FBI Director Jim Comey appear to have played critical
leadership roles in carrying out this conspiracy and they may not have operated on their own.
Almost certainly what they may have done would have been explicitly authorized by the former
President of the United States, Barack Obama, and his national security team.
It must have seemed a simple operation for the experienced CIA covert action operatives. To
prevent the unreliable and unpredictable political upstart Donald Trump from being nominated as
the GOP presidential candidate or even elected it would be necessary to create suspicion that
he was the tool of a resurgent Russia, acting under direct orders from Vladimir Putin to
empower Trump and damage the campaign of Hillary Clinton. Even though none of the alleged
Kremlin plotters would have expected Trump to actually beat Hillary, it was plausible to
maintain that they would have hoped that a weakened Clinton would be less able to implement the
anti-Russian agenda that she had been promoting. Many observers in both Russia and the U.S.
believed that if she had been elected armed conflict with Moscow would have been inevitable,
particularly if she moved to follow her husband's example and push to have both Georgia and
Ukraine join NATO, which Russia would have regarded as an existential threat.
Trump's surprising victory forced a pivot, with Clapper, Brennan and Comey adjusting the
narrative to make it appear that Trump the traitor may have captured the White House due to
help from the Kremlin, making him a latter-day Manchurian Candidate. The lesser allegations of
Russian meddling were quickly elevated to devastating assertions that the Republican had only
won with Putin's assistance.
No substantive evidence for the claim of serious Russian meddling has ever been produced in
spite of years of investigation, but the real objective was to plant the story that would
plausibly convince a majority of Americans that the election of Donald Trump was somehow
illegitimate.
The national security team acted to protect their candidate Hillary Clinton, who represented
America's Deep State. In spite of considerable naysaying, the Deep State is real, not just a
wild conspiracy theory. Many Americans nevertheless do not believe that the Deep State exists,
that it is a politically driven media creation much like Russiagate itself was, but if one
changes the wording a bit and describes the Deep State as the Establishment, with its political
power focused in Washington and its financial center in New York City, the argument that there
exists a cohesive group of power brokers who really run the country becomes much more
plausible.
The danger posed by the Deep State, or, if you choose, the Establishment, is that it wields
immense power but is unelected and unaccountable. It also operates through relationships that
are not transparent and as the media is part of it, there is little chance that its activity
will be exposed.
Nevertheless, some might even argue that having a Deep State is a healthy part of American
democracy, that it serves as a check or corrective element on a political system that has
largely been corrupted and which no longer serves national interests. But that assessment
surely might have been made before it became clear that many of the leaders of the nation's
intelligence and security agencies are no longer the people's honorable servants they pretend
to be. They have been heavily politicized since at least the time of Ronald Reagan and have
frequently succumbed to the lure of wealth and power while identifying with and promoting the
interests of the Deep State.
Indeed, a number of former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Directors have implicitly or
even directly admitted to the existence of a Deep State that has as one of its roles keeping
presidents like Donald Trump in check. Most recently, John McLaughlin, responding to a question
about Donald Trump's concern over Deep State involvement in the ongoing impeachment process,
said unambiguously "Well, you know, thank God for the 'deep state' With all of the people who
knew what was going on here, it took an intelligence officer to step forward and say something
about it, which was the trigger that then unleashed everything else. This is the institution
within the U.S. government is institutionally committed to objectivity and telling the truth.
It is one of the few institutions in Washington that is not in a chain of command that makes or
implements policy. Its whole job is to speak the truth -- it's engraved in marble in the
lobby."
Well, John's dedication to truth is exemplary but how does he explain his own role in
support of the lies being promoted by his boss George "slam dunk" Tenet that led to the war
against Iraq, the greatest foreign policy disaster ever experienced by the United States? Or
Tenet's sitting in the U.N. directly behind Secretary of State Colin Powell in the debate over
Iraq, providing cover and credibility for what everyone inside the system knew to be a bundle
of lies? Or his close friend and colleague Michael Morell's description of Trump
as a Russian agent , a claim that was supported by zero evidence and which was given
credibility only by Morell's boast that "I ran the CIA."
Beyond that, more details have been revealed demonstrating exactly how Deep State associates
have attempted, with considerable success, to subvert the actual functioning of American
democracy. Words are one thing, but acting to interfere in an electoral process or to undermine
a serving president is a rather more serious matter.
It is
now known that President Barack Obama's CIA Director John Brennan created a Trump Task
Force in early 2016. Rather than working against genuine foreign threats, this Task Force
played a critical role in creating and feeding the meme that Donald Trump was a tool of the
Russians and a puppet of President Vladimir Putin, a claim that still surfaces regularly to
this day. Working with James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, Brennan fabricated
the narrative that "Russia had interfered in the 2016 election." Brennan and Clapper promoted
that tale even though they knew very well that Russia and the United States have carried out a
broad array of covert actions against each other, including information operations, for the
past seventy years, but they pretended that what happened in 2016 was qualitatively and
substantively different even though the "evidence" produced to support that claim was and still
is weak to nonexistent.
The Russian "election interference" narrative went on steroids on January 6, 2017, shortly
before Trump was inaugurated, when an "Intelligence Community Assessment" (ICA) orchestrated by
Clapper and Brennan was published. The banner headline atop The New York Times, itself an
integral part of the Deep State, on the following day set the tone for what was to follow:
"Putin Led Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Says."
With the help of the Establishment media, Clapper and Brennan were able to pretend that the
ICA had been approved by "all 17 intelligence agencies" (as first claimed by Hillary Clinton).
After several months, however Clapper revealed that the preparers of the ICA were "handpicked
analysts" from only the FBI, CIA, and NSA. He explained rather
unconvincingly during an interview on May 28, 2017, that "the historical practices of the
Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor,
whatever, which is a typical Russian technique," adding later that "It's in their DNA."
Task Force Trump was kept secret within the Agency itself because the CIA is not supposed to
spy on Americans. Its staff was pulled together by invitation-only. Specific case officers
(i.e., men and women who recruit and handle spies overseas), analysts and administrative
personnel were recruited, presumably based on their political reliability. Not everyone invited
accepted the offer. But many did because it came with promises of promotion and other
rewards.
And this was not a CIA-only operation. Personnel from the FBI also were assigned to the Task
Force with the approval of then Director James Comey. Former MI-6 agent Christopher Steele's
FBI handler, Michael Gaeta, may have been one of those detailed to the Trump Task Force.
Steele, of course, prepared the notorious dossier that was surfaced shortly before Donald Trump
took office. It included considerable material intended to tie Trump to Russia, information
that was in many cases fabricated or unsourced.
So, what kind of things would this Task Force do? The case officers would work with foreign
intelligence services such as MI-6, the Italians, the Ukrainians and the Australians on
identifying intelligence collection priorities that would implicate Trump and his associates in
illegal activity. And there is evidence that John Brennan himself would contact his
counterparts in allied intelligence services to obtain their discreet cooperation, something
they would be inclined to do in collegial fashion, ignoring whatever reservations they might
have about spying on a possible American presidential candidate.
Trump Task Force members could have also tasked the National Security Agency (NSA) to do
targeted collection. They also would have the ability to engage in complicated covert actions
that would further set up and entrap Trump and his staff in questionable activity, such as the
targeting of associate George Papadopoulos. If he is ever properly interviewed, Maltese citizen
Joseph Mifsud may be able to shed light on the CIA officers who met with him, briefed him on
operational objectives regarding Papadopoulos and helped arrange monitored meetings. It is
highly likely that Azra Turk, the woman who met with George Papadopoulos, was part of the CIA
Trump Task Force.
The Task Force also could carry out other covert actions, sometimes using press or social
media placements to disseminate fabrications about Trump and his associates. Information
operations is a benign-sounding euphemism for propaganda fed through the Agency's friends in
the media, and computer network operations can be used to create false linkages and misdirect
inquiries. There has been some informed speculation that Guccifer 2.0 may have been a creation
of this Task Force.
In light of what has been learned about the alleged CIA whistleblower there should be a
serious investigation to determine if he was a part of this Task Force or, at minimum,
reporting to them secretly after he was seconded to the National Security Council. All the CIA
and FBI officers involved in the Task Force had sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution of the
United States, but nevertheless were involved in a conspiracy to first denigrate and then
possibly bring down a legally elected president. That effort continues with repeated assertions
regarding Moscow's malevolent intentions for the 2020 national elections. Some might reasonably
regard the whole Brennan affair, to include its spear carriers among the current and retired
national security state leadership, as a case of institutionalized treason, and it inevitably
leads to the question "What did Obama know?"
"... The sustained tosh from the good old boys at state, cia, fbi & nsa isn't worthy of comment, given that it is 100% evidence-free accusations which surprise surprise 'just happens' to align with these provenly corrupt organisations' most prioritsed foreign policy goals. ..."
Last month, national security prosecutors at the Justice Department were told to look at any
ongoing investigations involving Iran or Iranian nationals with an eye toward making them
public.
The push to announce Iran-related cases has caused internal alarm, these people said, with
some law enforcement officials fearing that senior Justice Department officials want to
reveal the cases because the Trump administration would like Congress to impose new sanctions
on Iran.
U.S. officials on Wednesday night accused Iran of targeting American voters with faked but
menacing emails and warned that both Iran and Russia had obtained voter data that could be
used to endanger the upcoming election.
The disclosure by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe at a hastily called
news conference marked the first time this election cycle that a foreign adversary has been
accused of targeting specific voters in a bid to undermine democratic confidence -- just four
years after Russian online operations marred the 2016 presidential vote.
The claim that Iran was behind the email operation, which came into view on Tuesday as
Democrats in several states reported receiving emails demanding they vote for President
Trump, was leveled without specific evidence .
...
Metadata gathered from dozens of the emails pointed to the use of servers in Saudi Arabia,
Estonia, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates, according to numerous analysts.
The emails are under investigation, and one intelligence source said it was still unclear who
was behind them.
...
... the evidence remains inconclusive.
The claims that Iran is behind this are as stupid as the people who believe them.
I for one trust (not) those 50 former intelligence officials who say that all emails are
Russian disinformation. They are intended to 'sow discord' which is something the U.S. has
otherwise never ever had throughout its history.
More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining their
belief that the recent disclosure of emails ... "has all the classic earmarks of a Russian
information operation."
...
While the letter's signatories presented no new evidence, they said their national security
experience had made them "deeply suspicious that the Russian government played a significant
role in this case" and cited several elements of the story that suggested the Kremlin's hand
at work.
"If we are right," they added, "this is Russia trying to influence how Americans vote in
this election, and we believe strongly that Americans need to be aware of this."
No, this doesn't make any sense. It is not supposed to do that.
Posted by b on October 22, 2020 at 7:21 UTC | Permalink
The sustained tosh from the good old boys at state, cia, fbi & nsa isn't worthy of
comment, given that it is 100% evidence-free accusations which surprise surprise 'just
happens' to align with these provenly corrupt organisations' most prioritsed foreign policy
goals.
We know that these yarns align in syncopation with
what the amerikan empire most wants to promulgate, yet bereft of even a a cunt hair's worth
of evidence, the only truth which can be inferred from this foggy bottom tosh is the obvious
one - that is that the empire is becoming so desperate they will happily toss their
credibility with the many to the winds if they can, please sir, just convince a few of the
few.
Stuff like this is a suitable test of how the media are supposed to represent our interests
and help us in not getting fooled. You report, and afterwards you test what your readers
believe.
Independently of questionable bias issues serious newspapers will defend news like this
with formal justifications of journalistic code
- neutrality and objectivity: we just report but don't judge.
- null hypothesis of trustworthiness: official sources are to be trusted unless proven
otherwise. At least, proven otherwise by someone we consider trustworthy.
The propaganda is already embedded in the lofty ethics codes journalists will proudly adhere
to.
"Other documents that have emerged include FBI paper work that reveals the bureau's
interactions with the shop's owner, John Paul Mac Isaac, who reported the laptop's contents
to authorities. The document shows that Isaac received a subpoena to testify before the U.S.
District Court in Delaware on Dec. 9, 2019 . One page appears to show the serial
number for a MacBook Pro laptop and a hard drive that were seized by the agency."
https://www.ibtimes.sg/signed-receipt-hunter-bidens-name-delaware-laptop-repair-store-surfaces-52672
So the FBI kept Hunter Biden's bomb shell HDDs under wraps for almost a year. Enough time
to figure out they where not filled with Russian kompromat.
If you needed a leaked email to understand why it was corrupt for Hunter Biden to be getting
50k a month to be on the board of a Ukranian energy company, then you are likely already so
propagandized that you will vote for Joe Biden no matter what gets printed.
Really this propaganda is a brilliant move for those who control what is in print. They
have a clear circle of blame in Russia, Iran, or China, who are to blame for everything, and
this allows the media to limit the scope of discussion greatly by suppressing real criticisms
towards actual problems (the Bidens being corrupt across multiple generations) and deflecting
that energy into hating Russia, China, and Iran, which are the main targets for imperialism.
It is also a crude and vague lie to use anonymous sources to blame foreign entities for these
types of things, which actually makes it an elegant argument for a simpleton as it is
difficult if not impossible to disprove.
Because the media is really owned and operated by so few people who all have a hive-mind
about money and power, the messages are consistent, even though ridiculous, and they resonate
with many of the readers who really ought to know better, but have become inured to the
damaging effects of the lies they have consumed for decades. Stories like these will keep
working for a long time. If one of the sources in the article reported 'Up is Down, Left is
Right!', there would be a wave of car accidents until they issued a retraction.
The Russians ( Putin / Lavrov) say ever so politely that the US is not agreement-capable.
I add that the US ( politicians, Wall Streeters, MSM, think tanks ) are:
-- not truth-capable;
-- not ethics-capable;
-- not shame-capable;
-- not honour-capable.
What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul?
He turns into a ghoul without a soul, says I, a devil without human-ness!
How dare they call us deplorables when they are the despicables?
More than 50 former senior intelligence officials have signed on to a letter outlining
their belief that the recent disclosure of emails ... "has all the classic earmarks of a
Russian information operation."
Do American journalists actually believe it's still in Russia interest to re-elect Trump?
Washington-Kremlin relations have deteriorated rapidly under Trump.
Posted by: Et Tu | Oct 22 2020 9:35 utc | 9 -- "In America, Truth is a Foreign Agent and
World Peace is a threat to National Security."
Nice one... Meet Mr Truth, un-registered foreign agent !!! and Mr World Peace, national
security threat !!!
American leadership would not be so despicable IF they do not pretend to be "spreading
freedom / democracy" when they wreak their global malice.
They do not even care for their own people (covid19 fiasco, anyone?), but pretend to care
for the Chinese people so much they would regime-change the CCP; they pretend to care for the
Russian people so much they would sooner shoot Putin's plane from the sky; they pretend to
care for the Iranian people so much they block their access to covid19 medicines.
Here's a part of a comment I posted back in February 2020 that none of you took
seriously.
Posted by: Circe | Feb 28 2020 20:29 utc | 124:
The planet of extremely bad karma SATURN is moving into Bloomberg's sign, Aquarius, right
after mid-March and forming a square to Biden's sign, Scorpio. This is a very malefic
aspect.
People under these two signs, Aquarius and Scorpio ie Bloomberg and Biden will
experience obstacles, setbacks and challenges, create hidden enemies , and aging
will be accelerated and serious health issues could emerge.
So I was criticized for injecting astrology into that election thread, mostly by
AntiSpin.
Turns out as usual I hit the mark.
Bloomberg lost close to a BILLION dollars and failed badly in the primaries. That's what I
call a major setback. However, as of December after a 6-month retrograde into Capricorn,
Saturn is returning to Aquarius, so it ain't over for Bloomberg and things will get
complicated for Biden , for the U.S. and the rest of the world.
I also stated back then that nominating Joe Biden would be a greater risk for Dems than
nominating Bernie Sanders because Joe Biden was heading for serious astrological head winds
relating to something unseen at the time involving a serious family issue.
While I was certain that whatever the issue was would come to light and could affect him
in the Presidential campaign, I couldn't figure out the family aspect at the time, since he
appears to have a solid marriage and tragedy is in the rear view now.
Last night however it all suddenly became clear and I've come to the realization that I
was 100% right when I wrote that comment back in February 2020. Tonight I realized that the
family issue...is Hunter Biden!
I was sounding the alarm that something bad would come to light because Saturn was headed
into Aquarius, Biden's Home and Family sector squaring Biden's sign.
However, to make matters worse, it turns out that Hunter Biden is an Aquarian and Saturn
the karmic taskmaster is headed on a collision course to upend his life.
At the time I wrote the comment I obviously couldn't predict exactly what would unfold,
how or the precise timing, only that it would be bad and that's why I warned back then that
Democrats should have chosen Bernie. I believed Bernie could beat Trump and I was right,
because Trump is in total mental meltdown and self-destructing with his handling of the
pandemic.
Now even if Saturn will square Biden's Scorpio that's not to say that Biden won't still
win, but we are approaching a very bad full moon on October 31st. There is massive tension
building, subterfuge lurking and the situation is going to get ugly. A battle royal is
brewing. This is a powder keg moment.
Trump will not behave at the debate today. Must see t.v. With Obama's scorching speech
yesterday seething in Trump's brain, and his Iran stunt unravelling and ineffective at
distracting from the spotlight from Obama and the laptop bone clenched between his teeth;
he's a rabid dog fit to be tied. Give him a padded cell, already.
As for the U.S. and the world: The pandemic started with Saturn crossing Pluto's path in
Capricorn and entering full force into Aquarius in March when the world shut down.
So what will happen when karmic Saturn crosses Pluto again on it's way out of Capricorn
and enters Aquarius for the next 3 years?
Fasten your seat belts everyone...we're heading into major turbulence. There's so much
karmic tension gathering steam; it's very scary.
How much does it cost to get a trip to the moon?
I'll get back to sleazy Giuliani and his Pandora's box. There's too much to unpack there
than meets the eye. Just know that when circumstances appear too convenient-it's because they
are.
Trump's dirty play is a day late and a dollar short plus he's not playing with a full
deck. Must be one of those Covid long-term effects.
It's time...to get these scum-sucking, misery mongers out of the damn White House
already!
You know the US government is suffering from severe Alzheimer's disease when it claims that
Iran (of all nations) sent threatening emails to Democrat voters demanding that they vote for
a President who authorised the murder of a popular Iranian military general back in early
January this year.
Brian Kilmeade and morning crew run the fake Iranian emails story by former CIA station
Chief Daniel Hoffman.
Kabuki Actor Hoffman:
'[Uses opportunity to say Iranian Mantra] Iran has been attacking us for years, they have
attacked our shipping in the Gulf (???, that's a new one) blah-blah-blah.
'Iran and Russia are attacking our democracy because that is what they fear most about
America. Democracy would be the end of both regimes (Iran has no other motive to dislike the
U.S. such as us killing their top General, the Stuxnet virus, murderous sanctions, ...)'
So they hate us because of our freedoms, a classic.
Kabuki Actor Kilmeade:
'Can't we do something about this?' [note, the U.S. is the perpetual victim, never the
bully]
'Can't we pushback?' [The aggrieved victim, the U.S. is defending itself]
'Iran is doing this, Russia is sending bombers, can't we blow up an oil well?'
Kabuki Actor Kilmeade represents the entire degenerate U.S. public, unable to process
information that views another country as having rational motives or our Intel agencies of
being deceptive.
God, if you exist, You must hate this more than I do. How long?
All that rubbish is distraction. Discussing it is just playing to Borg's music.
They come up with so outlandish and jaw dropping crap that half he people thinks "it is so
outlandish it gotta be true, who would lie so much?" and other half that knows better is in
such a shock and disbelief that it needs some time to come to its senses and start tearing
apart the lie piece by piece BUT.... Time is lost, distraction worked and MSM/Borg come up
with next outrageous lie for next round. Russia, China, Navalny etc. etc.
And while marry go round Borg is doing it's deeds in dark while people is obsessing with
Trump's knickers.
Barack oblamblam held off until as long as he possibly could, a move most likely connected to
two realities, (1) not wanting to contradict what he, oblamblam said back in march "do not
underestimate Joe's ability to screw anything up" and (2) Oblamblam's desire not to be
found to be associated with sleepy joe's blatant corruption. Mud sticks n all that. Oblamblam
was much more subtle in lining up wedges to be trousered. eg. Try as people might they have
yet to uncover how a community worker turned prez found the dough to purchase a 45 acre
Martha's vineyard estate off a notorious billionaire and Oblambam is reluctant to do anything
which could prompt those questions,
Hence it wasn't until the 2020 election was mostly over that some DNC extortionists
managed to convince oblam to say a few words, or else, to the Philadelphia african american
males who chose to stay home on election day 2016.
Barack can claim 'he paid his dues' whilst keeping as much space as he can organise
between himself and crooked joe, who has already brought oblamblam's prezdency into disrepute
with the shameless & ugly ukraine rort that he and his bagman hunter had concocted.
There we mentioned the philly speech oh rabid, irrationally superstitious dembot.
Here's my prediction
Trump re-elected I fortell will mean more racist murdering thugs on the street. an guess what
they'l be In uniform and directly or indirectly trained by Israel.
And then there's the military presence on your streets -- you ain't seen nothing yet.
Wake the f up your gunna be massively oppressed by a fascist govenment ya skin couloir won't
matter, nore who you voted for. You already live in a one party dictatorship.
ie the elite. Face it your redundant as a human being replaced by a micro-chip.
Revolt I tell you revolt !!
The greater American public are about to become the next oppressed Palistinians ! oppressed
devalued and slowly distroyed. Like a frog in a heated pan.
You won't notice till it's to late will you ?
No really, will you ?
Journalism love's that high minded nonsense.
They write what they are paid to write.
Looking at the guardian wrt Assange
these clowns are beneath contempt.
Don't know if you are familiar with the box populi blog.
There a very good set of chapters from a book about journalist ethics.
i'm just surprised they haven't brought in venezuela and bolivia yet. that's supposed to be
sarcasm, but reality keeps outstripping sarcasm. i am actually worried they are ramping up
for a war in biden's first 100 days, either against iran or some serious provocation of
russia like provoking some incident in azerbaijan and blaming armenia. they're f/n batshit.
mark2 i think you're correct about more jackbooted government thugs on the street, but that's
gonna happen under either trump or crime bill joe/copmala. you're right about the israeli
training too, they trained cops in that kneeling on the throat technique. field tested on
palestinians.
Idiotic.
The united States was once a nest of excellence in nearly everything. Now it s a hub of naked
idiocy.
The Russians have nothing to fear from the US or Nato, except in the economy but they can fix
it. The Iranians have enough of what it takes to keep the Zio anglos away and at bay:
thousands of missiles to target Israel, Saudiland, a 25 year economic alliance program with
Beijing.
And clearly the time and opportunity where it was possible to still erase in a single coup
the Iranian military might is over.
"Breaking WaPo: The U.S. government has concluded that Iran is behind a series of threatening
emails arriving this week in the inboxes of Democratic voters, according to two U.S.
officials. https://washingtonpost.com/technology/202"
Posted by: librul | Oct 22 2020 12:52 utc | 22 When you hear, "Russians", just substitute in
your mind "witches", the weight of evidence is the same.
Absolutely correct. You win the thread.
Neither Iran nor Russia nor China give a rat's ass about the US election. There may be
literally thousands of private enterprise hackers who want to breach US election servers
precisely to get the Personal Identifying Information which is coin of the realm on the Dark
Web, but they couldn't care less about the election itself. It's physically impossible for
any country outside of the US to significantly influence the election in a country of 300
million people - and every country knows that. The only country that *doesn't* know that is
the US, which is why it spends scores and hundreds of millions of dollars - up to five
billion in Ukraine, allegedly - to influence foreign elections. That's the level of effort
needed to influence a foreign election more than the influence of the actual inhabitants of
that nation. But every time some private group in Russia launches an ad campaign for a couple
hundred thousand bucks tops, with zero effect on the US election, Putin gets blamed for some
plan to mastermind the overthrow of "democracy."
I rather liked Obama's speech If for no other reason than the tone was completely
different from the two candidates.
1. I'm tired of Trump's narcissism .
2. Can't stand Biden's fake 'I'm one of you'. He is corrupt, feels guilty about it, and
has to reassure us that he's Lunch Box Joe .
I've noticed this about Biden for a while, he conjures up these fake memories ...
'You know what I'm talking about because I've been on that park bench at noon when you only
have 20 minutes to eat your lunch because that whistle going to blow and you have to run
back to your Tuna canning station or lose your job and with that your health insurance,
car, and home.'
Okay this is not a literal quotation but it is a pattern and you know what I'm talking
about :-)
Pretzelatack @ 26
Yes to all you say their.
Re-reading my above comments they sound pretty harsh !
I am sorry, and do apologise !
It was part desperation and part morbid humour in the spirit of b's post.
Comparing Americans to a frog in pan may be a bit much !
I am in the U.K. we had a gen election one year ago !
I WAS THAT FROG IN A PAN.
Now I live in a pox ridden bankrupt banana republic run by a bunch of Israel bootlickers.
I don't go down well at party's.
And it's not superstition when the facts start to align with planetary motion.
How do you explain the Moon's effect on nature?
You think it's the only celestial body in the Solar System that influences life on Earth?
That cosmic order is inescapable. Astrology is thousands of years old dating back to the
Babylonians and has evolved through centuries of study and cannot, should not be dismissed as
mere superstition.
I'm not an expert at all, but I recognize order and higher authority when I see it and
believe me those planets are there for a reason and they rule everything. They're like
carrots and sticks (IMHO mostly sticks). Now who put them there and to what ultimate purpose
besides order and evolution is another matter.
I don't often bring it into a discussion, especially not to throw a discussion off topic,
except when I intuitively feel fate present in important events both personally and on a
universal scale.
This is a time of fated/karmic events, the pandemic being the most important (lesson) of
these.
I think a more appropriate title would be "Fascist Season" . . . Fascism has come of age here
in the land of the fee. The "intelligence agencies" create disinformation campaigns to
overthrow the elected President while the "justice department" et al withhold evidence and
fail to prosecute all the oligarchs and crooks who are busy censoring
information and preparing to rig and disrupt the
impending presidential election.
But technology and the "progressive" (pun intended) destruction of the US Constitution has
led the dumbed-down US masses (don't forget Canada and Australia lol) into a whole new world
of Orwellian lock-downs and wholesale economic destruction aimed at finishing off what was
left of the US middle class. Soon we will have our cash taken away and replaced with a
digital currency that can
always be taken away or tailored for limited use, subject to negative interest rates that it
cannot escape, etc. And all this is ushered in via
hyperinflation leading to a collapse of the bond and equities markets, and finally the
collapse of the US dollar (and all other Western fiat currencies).
The USA is so naive. They have been interfering in so many elections using money,
blackmail,CIA operations. There was no way for other countries with less means to do the same
to the USA. Now with social media they can, and they are absolutely right to take their
revenge for all the troubles they got into with the USA plotting to promote a pro-US
leader.
Now the battle is equal and the USA does not have the monopoly of interfering in other
countries election!
Tit for tat...
All these stories are risible. Note the struggle to clarify who these 'malign'
Régimes are attacking the US, and why.
Russia-R-R for Trump, but Iran-Ir-Ir for Trump doesn't quite hit the spot so now Iran is
trying to damage Pres. Trump (from one of the articles..) .. is Iran trying to promote the
election of Kamala Harris? What? Russia is for Trump and Iran against ?
The fall-back is a blanket, these evil leaders are trying to 'undermine democracy',
influence 'US voters', meddle in 'our freedom-loving' politics, etc.
The attempt to stir up the spectre of threatening enemies far off is a hackneyed ploy. In
the case of the USA, it is now melded with the promotion and control of planned internal
strife, with internal enemies being natives (not islamist terrorists who sneak in and are
under cover before erupting in murderous madness..) - Color Revolution Style.
-- BLM + Antifa haven't been active recently (or not in MSM top stories) as the election
is approaching. Such would be upping the Trump vote for "law-and-order."
(imho from far off..) Many in the US don't take any of this seriously, it is just
game-playing, false alarm, pretend concern.
"Oh wow, Iran is targetting Trump, did you know, real serious, did you hear, tell me is
Zoe-chick divorcing that creep Edmond, I want to know, did you have that interview with Gov.
X for the job? Is she hot? How much "
The credentialised class and the movers and shakers just roll their eyeballs, and the poor
are in any case stuck in a desperado cycle of struggle against misery, what is going on with
Putin / Iran / Xi is off the radar.
Vilification of China (hate hate hate); claimed by the media and the pundits and our
"Fearless Covid Conquering Leader" and all the good little parrots, to be the source of evil
itself... Scapegoat extraordinaire... Hacking and Cheating and Aggressing and exercising
Brutality towards its own citizens... The worst of the worst per our "intelligence" apparatus
(and blind ideologues). Existential threat numero uno.
But wait!
The US is being attacked! Attacked they say; by all of the "bad" guys simultaneously.
The forces of evil out there are broad and out to get us. They hate our (imagined)
freedoms.
Evidence (not):
Justice Department pushing Iran-connected charges in HBO hack, other cases
U.S. government concludes Iran was behind threatening emails sent to Democrats
U.S. intelligence agencies say Iran, Russia have tried to interfere in 2020 election
Hunter Biden story is Russian disinfo, dozens of former intel officials say
Invariably in all cases, The Voice of "Intelligence" (not bloody likely from ANY of this
crew) deeply intoned to impart the "certainty", neatly encapsulated in the words "highly
likely", delivered without a scrap of proof but loud, prominent, regular, mind numbing
pontification.
Trust me! We lie, We cheat, We steal; and that is just the tip of the iceberg.
The US, all on its own, engenders distrust within the population because the US and all
its political and Executive, and Legislative and Judicial and "intelligence" bureaucracies
are corrupt to the core... Worse, they make no bones about it if you pay attention. And
Partisanship is nothing but distraction because they are ALL corrupt and morally bankrupt;
without empathy, remorse, sense of guilt or shame.
It was the US itself that thought it could subjugate the world through its faux
"democratic" business practices and its claim of natural superiority... Its self declared
Rules of Order instead of adhering to and supporting consensus established International
LAW... Hegemon pompously declaring it has a RIGHT to Full Spectrum Dominance and slavish
obedience.
Not the Iranians, not the Russians, not the Chinese, not the CCP, not the North Koreans,
not the Venezuelans; none of them are disrupting, threatening or meddling in the US
elections.
If you believe what the morons are smearing across the public consciousness through every
communication medium possible you are a sucker... Totally disconnected any critical thinking
faculties that may have been present. The very definition of sheeple... baaaa! (the sound
drowns out reason and thought).
The rest of the World beyond NATO and Five Eyes isn't attacking the US or its
institutions. They have all been attacked every which way from Sunday BY the US and its
Satraps (targets of, victims of, and willing accomplices to our sophisticated excessively
funded and supported global protection racquet).
The US, our Government, always blames our designated and non-compliant, non-obeisant
existential threats for all the things we do to them.
And all this cacophony of alleged evil "attacks" from outside right now?
Look!!! Look!!! Over here!
Don't pay any attention to who and what decided to put us in the position we find
ourselves in and what we have done to vast swaths of the world's populations "over
there".
Now go vote for one of two degenerate teams, both of which are headed by supremely
unqualified psychopaths.
The CIA really needs a new playbook. The Russia/Iran thing is laughable to the rest of the
world, and to many 'Americans' as well. Unfortunately Partisans run the country, and those
folks are addicted to the Kool Aid of MAGA – just different versions.
This October is like an Advent Calendar of October Surprises with plenty of time still on
the clock for some great Golden Shower or Democratic child orgy deep fakes. Who the hell
knows at this point – the acceleration of events this year makes Future Shock look like
an Ambien commercial.
Trump is toast and good riddance. And sure Biden et al are war criminals and corrupt
creatures of the Swamp. The Establishment is a much easier target to resist vis a vis policy
than a crazy cretin without any policy but his own self-aggrandizement.
"Astrology believers tend to selectively remember predictions that turn out to be true,
and do not remember those that turn out false. Astrology has not demonstrated its
effectiveness in controlled studies and has no scientific validity.[6]:85;[11] The study,
published in Nature in 1985, found that predictions based on natal astrology were no better
than chance, and that the testing "...clearly refutes the astrological hypothesis."[10] "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology
As for getting voter US state voter databases, most states allow people to purchase part of a
voter's information. Other parts like birth dates remain private. But the publicly available
list is probably enough as it identifies party affiliation, voting history as when dates they
voted (not how they voted). All the other private information is more useful to identity
thieves and Indian scam centers. And as one poster noted, those databases like gold on dark
web.
As for email addresses that implies those must be acquired through party officials and
candidates off donor lists. Off hand I do not know that an email address is required to
register to vote--I seriously doubt it. I know that Bernie famously refused to give his donor
database to Hillary. The emails imply some sort of inside job or some false flag.
Just read the story on Truthout of voters in Alaska & Florida, and possibly Pennsylvania
and Arizona receiving threatening messages if they should vote against Trump. "We know you're
a Democrat and we have access to your voting records..." Metadata indicates servers located
in the kingdoms of Israel's new friends...
Well, I just went to the Board of Elections website for my county here in Ohio and I can,
with a few clicks, generate a report from their site of a county listing of voters filtered
in over a half-dozen ways - i.e. by Party affiliation and including addresses. Comes under
the heading of "Voter and Candidate Tools."
So some concoct a tale which blames Iran, Russia, etc. for information freely available
from your State's BOE? This information has always been available, but not exploited before
in this way by US neo Nazis.
So, even though your ballot is secret, intimidation is easy to engage in based solely on
Party affiliation of record. If Trump loses, should some people expect bricks through their
windows, or perhaps fire-bombings? Trump and his supporters are certainly ratcheting up the
apocalyptic messaging, working themselves into a frenzy - that is obvious and not even
debatable.
I never read Dante; which circle of hell are we entering now?
Everyone here knows I was 100% behind Bernie Sanders for the Presidency because I felt he was
the right person for these times, but the mass is dumb and blind. I agree with the comment I
read on the previous thread I think by someone called Horseman that portrays Bernie's goal as
moving the Dem Party to the Left and not sheepdogging, but recognizing the stakes involved
superceded Left purity.
At the same time I was totally against Biden because he is much more Zionist than Bernie,
therefore more corrupt, as Zionism is counter-evolutionary being inherently supremacist,
entitled, and undemocratic.
However, Trump is exponentially worse! He is a fascist Zionist and totally depraved. There
is a choice here of monumental significance. Short term loss for greater future gain.
Biden is very flawed, but I'm inclined to view a man who suffered multiple life-altering
tragedies to reach this point and who is grappling with embracing a son, Hunter, who probably
was destroying his life, than a narcissistic less than evolved baby-man pig with a god
complex who squandered life and daddy's money on material and artificial pursuit and has no
notion of humanity, as the only sane choice.
Yes, Joe Biden should face his flaws and answer for whatever corruption exists in him, but
that laptop issue should not be a reason to stop people from getting Trump, the most corrupt
President in my lifetime next to Bush OUT. That goal is paramount. This is 2nd to the
pandemic in fated events. If people do not make the right choices and learn something from
these events then let this planet devolve into hell because that will be what is deserved!
The stakes right now are astronomical and super-fated!
Don't blow a singular opportunity to get rid of that Fascist pig Trump over a laptop
that's really a Pandora's box being used by Shmeagol Gollum Giuliani as a trap to unleash
misery for years to come.
This is clearly the Deep State and imperial establishment spouting obvious nonsense in order
to discredit themselves and therefore to help in Trump's reelection bid! Henry Kissinger told
me so! What incredibly subtle and intricate plans they have!
Or... maybe it is just a bunch of incompetent baboons in the Deep State control room
randomly flipping switches and pulling levers in the desperate hopes that something,
anything, works.
Nah! This is all part of the Great Plan! It just seems like abject stupidity because we
cannot grasp its intricate complexities.
All these new threads are defaulting to election threads. Sorry, b.
But I'll bite.
In the case of a Biden victory, which do you think will happen first?:
1) Renewed hostilities w/ Assad in Syria leading to his violent ousting and thrusting the
west into violent confrontation w/ Russia...
Or...
2) Forcible entry into the Armenian/Azerbaijan conflict and establishing a no-fly
zone...
Or...
3) a combination of both and would throw us into a direct confrontation with either Russia
or Iran or both?
It looks like the demonizing of Iran is ramping up with the mail-threats telling dims to
vote Trump or else. Dims don't like hostile, foreign powers helping the Don and swaying
elections. It's a nice tip-off as to what Biden and the dim establishment might consent to
once Obama-era sycophants and technocrats move back in to the White House.
Seems to be the year of anniversaries; another's being celebrated today but not by the Outlaw
US Empire. China
& North Korea Celebrate 70th Anniversary of China's intervention in Outlaw US Empire's
invasion of Korea , which is how it's being portrayed, "China, N. Korea stand together
'for self-protection against US hegemony' like 70 years ago" reads the headline at the link.
To mark the anniversary, China has published an official
history , explaining its decision "To resist US aggression and aid Korea, China had no
choice but to fight a war;" the 3-volume work is The War to Resist US Aggression and Aid
Korea . From China's perspective, it defeated Outlaw US Empire forces; so, it's not
"forgotten" at all. Xi's using the occasion to give a major speech, the subject of which
hasn't been disclosed.
Just 12 days to go until the refusals to abide by the outcome day arrives. If one wants to
look, there's lots of illegal foreign influence happening but from sources that go
unmentioned: Corporations that have foreign owners, which most do, who provided campaign
contributions in any form to any entity associated with the election.
HeHeHe!!! The first bits of Putin's appearance at the Valdai Club today
are being published . In a jab back at those accusing Russia of interfering in elections
and such Putin said:
"Strengthening our country and looking at what is happening in the world, in other
countries, I want to say to those who are still waiting for the gradual demise of Russia: in
this case, we are only worried about one thing -- how not to catch a cold at your
funeral."
There's more, although a transcript has yet to be published.
There's a thread right before this one on International Events. Why don't you go spew your
poisonous Trump Kool-Aid there instead of polluting with Trumpian-laced propaganda here?
I know-I know, Election threads raise the common sense factor further and that leads to
Trump's demise, so you can't help but rush in to correct that dangerous shift. Why
don't you do something equally meaningless like pounding sand down a rat hole?
After the Russiagate fiasco I thought the Americans had learned their lesson, but it seems I
was wrong.
Honestly, this may be the beginning of an irreversible process of ideological polarization
of the American Empire.
The thing is it's one thing to wage propaganda warfare against a foreign enemy to your
domestic audience: the foreign enemy will be destroyed either way, so they will never be able
to tell their version of the story, plus the domestic audience can give itself the luxury of
living the lie indefinitely as it doesn't affect their daily lives. Plus they'll directly
benefit from the conquest of a foreign enemy, e.g. cheaper gas to your car after the
destruction and conquest of Iraq; the abundance in the shelves of Walmarts after the
subjugation of China, and so on.
It's a completely different story when you wage propaganda warfare against yourself: the
Trump voter knows he/she didn't vote for Trump because of Russian influence, while the Hilary
Clinton/Joe Biden voter knows he/she didn't vote in either of them because of Chinese
influence. But each part will believe the half of the lie that benefits them against the
other, creating a vicious cycle of mistrust between the two halves.
Meanwhile, the American economy (capitalism) continues to decline. Time is running up:
It was a shock-and-awe moment when lawmakers gave the package a thumbs up. Yet in the
months since, the planned punch has not materialized.
The Treasury has allocated $195 billion to back Fed lending programs, less than half of
the allotted sum. The programs supported by that insurance have made just $20 billion in
loans, far less than the suggested trillions.
The programs have partly fallen victim to their own success: Markets calmed as the Fed
vowed to intervene, making the facilities less necessary as credit began to flow again.
So, the very announcement of the Fed it would lend indefinitely and unconditionally made
such loans unnecessary!
I didn't like it at the beginning, but the term "Late Capitalism" is growing on me.
MSM pushing the the Iran angle shows that they are more anti-Iran than anti-Trump.
What effect would Iran intend by sending fake threatening emails from right-wing guns nuts
to Democrats? I doubt it would discourage those Democrats from voting (for Biden), and I
doubt Iran would think it would. The only effect it would have is to increase the fear,
distrust, and disgust Democrats already have for those groups - which is "sowing discord",
not "meddling with elections".
The Trump regime pushes this because it makes Trump look good & makes Iran look bad
(at least the way it's been framed). MSM generally doesn't like Trump, but prints this
because hyping fear & loathing toward Iran matters more to them than dumping Trump.
Great that they are working on it, I was taking notes but kind of lousy its not easy to
listen and write at the same time. Started kind of nervous, but right now it is Putin at his
most relaxed and eloquent.
It is interesting to see how Putin is way more at ease when answering journalist's
questions than when exposing his part of the event. Right now they asked him about his image,
punk, criminal etc etc. Answer: my function is the main thing, and I do not take it
personally, now the chinese will ask.
In case the truth gets lost in your purposely misleading translation. This hare-brained
scheme was cooked up by Trump and his newly-appointed right-hand bootlicker RATcliffe, at DNI
and delivered to the American people by the latter as a desperate distraction minutes after
Obama smacked down Trump on every air wave.
It immediately gave off an offensive odor, as I stated previously, of Trump turd floating
in golden toilet.
And that's why Chris Wray looked so awkward and uneasy behind that RAT.
Three hours of serious talking about any and all world problems. I wonder how long Lunch Box
Joe could hold on his own. The orange man probably could do it, but just talking about
himself. The US need someone like VVP.
I ought to listen while also reading the Russian close-captioning so I can rebuild my
Russian language facility and catch the body language messages, but I still need to read/hear
it all in English. As for his response to questions, IMO Putin knows what to expect from
media reporters but not from other experts in the audience whose questions are usually more
complex. Then there's the need to remain tactful, although there are times when he does need
to get indignant, as with the issue of illegal sanctions that harm nations's abilities to
deal with the pandemic--the utter immorality and inhumanity of the Outlaw US Empire that
never gets the attention it deserves.
What would Iran gain by scaring lower end of the spectrum Democrats into voting for Trump,
is that desirable for Iran?
Ah ... but it was a pump fake, Iran thought that people would think that the emails were
genuine, arrest a few of the Proud Boys and this would hurt Trump by associating him with a
domestic terror group. Not only is this scenario convoluted but it is extremely risky because
it might scare a handful of impressionable Democrats into voting for Trump and any
investigation would uncover hacking of some kind.
Most likely suspect, Israel. They have the means to hack and the contacts in the U.S. to
suggest Iranian origin.
As Putin said, Russia was able to find "balance" in its reaction to COVID; and as with China
but unlike the Outlaw US Empire, it put the safety of the Russian people first and foremost.
The Empire is experiencing yet another big outbreak nationwide and has yet to put the
interests of its citizenry first.
Is Circe deranged?
I don't know but I doubt if she spends trillions of dollars each year on murdering inocent
men women and children.
Mmmmm
Perhaps to people living in a ''loony bin'' (America) people outside must seem quite strange
!
I live near Glastonbury finest bunch of people you'd ever meet. Not known for genocidel
tendency's.
Any ways Iran, Russia interfering in America's elections -- -- - pure paranoid delusion
(weaponised)
The Mighty Wurlitzer has
begun to sound more like the New York Philharmonic tuning up while riding the Empire State Express
as it crashes endlessly into Grand Central Station.
Dear Circe, each language is a world view, I wish I had the resources available today when
I was younger, I would speak as many as possible, I consider that with the means available
today speaking half a dozen would be no problem at all. You have the blessing and the curse
of speaking english, so no need for anything else, but that is your problem, you are so
relaxed about it that you're not able to spell correctly the name of one of your best known
cities, San Francisco, with a c before the s.
Again, come up with something else, the bot label is as primitive as your knowledge of your
own language and geography.
kiwiklown@14: They do not even care for their own people (covid19 fiasco, anyone?), but pretend to care
for the Chinese people so much they would regime-change the CCP; they pretend to care for the
Russian people so much they would sooner shoot Putin's plane from the sky; they pretend to
care for the Iranian people so much they block their access to covid19 medicines.
Well said, although rather sad! The last pretension reveals exactly the mentality that was
behind the genocide upon the Native American centuries ago, resorting to tactics such as
passing out smallpox infected blankets, dispensation of whisky, as well as outright
slaughters of course.
Gruffy @ 68
Maybe but she martches to a different drum beat. Not the trump drum beat of war that you
follow, and will lead you all over the cliff.
Don't get me wrong ! You'd have to squeeze my nuts pretty dam hard (tears in my eyes) before
I'd vote for Biden.
But you must know two things -- -
A. Trump is bat shit crazy and has his finger on the button whilst the Dems are money mad and
there is know profit in Armageddon.
And
B. I'm antifa my hobby is smashing the filthy fascists !!
Who's streets ? Our streets !!
Without mentioning its name, Putin in his speech pinned the tail on
the donkey regarding TrumpCo's pandemic failure:
"The values of mutual assistance, service and self-sacrifice proved to be most important.
This also applies to the responsibility, composure and honesty of the authorities, their
readiness to meet the demand of society and at the same time provide a clear-cut and
well-substantiated explanation of the logic and consistency of the adopted measures so as not
to allow fear to subdue and divide society but, on the contrary, to imbue it with confidence
that together we will overcome all trials no matter how difficult they may be.
"The struggle against the coronavirus threat has shown that only a viable state can act
effectively in a crisis ..." [My Emphasis]
Yes, it didn't begin with Trump, but he sure did accelerate the process of making the
domestic part of the Outlaw US Empire dysfunctional, which for me makes this "silly season"
even worse than usual.
I view this as shit-against-the-wall policy. You throw it up there. Sometimes it sticks,
sometimes it doesn't.
This is how lowly vermin do foreign policy nowadays.
Remember the story -- first reported as Russians, then Iranians -- paying bounty to the
Talibs to kill (as if they needed motivation) American soldiers?
Well, in that case, I guess neither story really stuck, but you see where I'm going with
this. It's all shite
And silly season continues with self-proclaimed anti-fascists who don't know what fascists
are.
Fascism doesn't necessarily have anything to do with race or religion. Is there any racial
difference between Ukropians and Russians? Fascism is simply a tool that capitalists use to
smash class consciousness. Literally any differences can be used by the capitalists to direct
the violent mobs at their victims, even differences that are completely imaginary and don't
really exist except in the group mind of the mob.
Now I wonder... who is it that will attack someone for saying "But ALL lives
matter!" ? Who is smashing class consciousness?
And this is why the USA is turning into a failed state and Russia isn't:
"Nevertheless, I am confident that what makes a state strong, primarily, is the
confidence its citizens have in it . That is the strength of a state. People are the
source of power , we all know that. And this recipe doesn't just involve going to the
polling station and voting, it implies people's willingness to delegate broad authority to
their elected government, to see the state, its bodies, civil servants, as their
representatives – those who are entrusted to make decisions, but who also bear full
responsibility for the performance of their duties .
"This kind of state can be set up any way you like. When I say 'any way,' I mean that what
you call your political system is immaterial. Each country has its own political culture,
traditions, and its own vision of their development. Trying to blindly imitate someone else's
agenda is pointless and harmful. The main thing is for the state and society to be in
harmony .
"And of course, confidence is the most solid foundation for the creative work of the
state and society. Only together will they be able to find an optimal balance of freedom and
security guarantees ." [My Emphasis]
What a brilliant collection of words emphasizing the absolute requirement for the state to
do its utmost to support and develop its human capital--its citizens--while also saying
citizens have their own duty to ensure the quality of the state, which means installing
representatives that will work for them and promote their interests first and foremost since
they are the backbone of the state. Don't feed and care for the citizenry as in the USA and
you'll have a corrupt, feeble state when it comes to keeping itself strong. And IMO the
primary difference that's making Russia stronger while the USA atrophies is that Russia
listens to its people and genuinely cares for and acts in their interests while in the USA
the demands of the citizenry have fallen on deaf ears for decades, regardless the political
party running the government.
Gruffy is trying to conflate perpetrator as opposed to the victim/ victems !
Classic -- -
US geo-politics.
Blame shifting fascist tactic.
Learned far right tactic.
Or
Psychopathic projection.
Example -- --
US attacks Iran &Russia but blames them for attacking The US.
Also Gruffy I note how you side step a point well made by
Asking a deliberately distracting question. Yawn
"Blame shifting" absolutely is part of smashing class consciousness. Shift the blame
for people's difficulties from capitalism to various parts of the working class. Those who
participate violently in this process are fascists and perpetrators. Of course, they are also
victims because they are destroying their own class consciousness. Class consciousness is
necessary if they are ever to be able to address the real issues causing them hardship.
When the question and answers segment comes online it is worth reading his opinion about
the Karabakh conflict and how it is a very difficult situation for Russia since both
countries involved, Armenia and Azerbaijan are part of a common family. The question implied
that Russia would unequivocally side with Armenia based on religion, to which Putin answered
that 15% of Russia population professes the islamic faith and that he considers Azerbaijan a
country as close to Russia as Armenia, with over two million nationals from each of the
warring countries living in Russia and as part of a very influential and productive
community.
Interesting too his take on Turkey, admitting that there are a lot of disagreements Putin
had good words for Erdogan admitting that he is independent and that he is someone able to
uphold his word, the Turk Stream project, it was agreed upon and completed, compared to the
europeans to whom he did not spare in his almost contemptuous words insinuating their lack of
sovereignty.
Gruffy error !!
In this context the 'mob'
Is trump followers.
The thugs in uniform.
The proud boys.
The US forces abroad and at home.
Gruffy 'you' ARE the mob.
I feel you watched to many cowboy films portraying native Americans as the bad guys! It
shows.
I won't be replying more. as I see your very shabby diversionary tactic. Nice try though. We
see you !! What you are and what you do.
Thanks for your reply! Even before the Q&A Putin skewers both the Empire and EU in
this paragraph:
"Genuine democracy and civil society cannot be imported.' I have said so many times. They
cannot be a product of the activities of foreign 'well-wishers,' even if they 'want the best
for us.' In theory, this is probably possible. But, frankly, I have not yet seen such a thing
and do not believe much in it. We see how such imported democracy models function. They are
nothing more than a shell or a front with nothing behind them, even a semblance of
sovereignty. People in the countries where such schemes have been implemented were never
asked for their opinion, and their respective leaders are mere vassals. As is known, the
overlord decides everything for the vassal . To reiterate, only the citizens of a
particular country can determine their public interest." [My Emphasis]
And that "particular country" is one where both the citizens and the government share
"confidence" in each other such that they work in "harmony." Thus the #1 goal of the Outlaw
US Empire to sow chaos within nations so such confidence and harmony can't be established;
and if they are, then destroyed.
No one has ever lied to American people more than the American regime and her terrorizing
intelligence community organization, Snowden is the living proof of this . Anyone still alive
and living on this planet if it ever believed a word on anything coming out of the USG not
only is a fool and a total idiot but his/her head must be seriously checked. Regardless of
their party affiliations they have no shame of lying cheating steeling those United
oligarchy' Secretary of State is the proof that.
This poster is on neither "side" . More like Putin looking in pain over Azerbaijan and
Armenia killing each other at the prompting of some third party that doesn't care about
either of them. This poster is neither faux left nor right wing; however, this poster's
grandmother was Cherokee. There is no anger directed your way for your failure to understand,
though.
If Americans had any backbone they would be on the streets protesting about this sham
election prior to the election, of false choice no choice.
You earn your democracy or you loose your democracy.
Iran, Russia bashing ! Just how low have you people sunk.
No hind sight, no insight and no foresight !
No hope. Spineless.
Totally weird! You all, please get behind re-electing Trump. He is doing such a good job of
destroying the US empire and its pretensions. If you are really a leftist, this is a GOO:-D
thing!
The alternative is to vote Independent or Green but they don't have a chance right
now.
Walking only 3 miles on Wilshire Blvd in Los Angeles , going west I have counted 47 homeless
(male,females,wht,black,Asian)asking for handouts. These lost soles are the ones who have
paid the price for the for ever wars to secure the Israel' realm,
The propose of yesterday's security show at FBI was to convince the public that all negative
comments and cretics coming their way by internet blogs, email , media etc. is not really
from disfranchised Americans public, but rather foreign countries operation that they do not
like our democracy and way of life, It was solely meant to make people not to subscribe and
believe what negativity they hear or read on US( non existing)democracy ,
This is a cheap standard operation by totalitarian regimes.
53
That money went to the ESF,what else do you think is levitating stocks and bonds ?
You assumed wrongly, but Kudlow let slip they(ESF) were broke and actually stated the money
was going to them in a presser.
I dunno why I'm bothering to do this because astrology is such a lame easily disproven
superstition that gets by because there are just so many con artists making predictions that
occasionally some must be correct - the stopped clock effect, but here goes.
The moon's effect on our planet's oceans is proven to be caused by a known phenomenon,
gravity. These stars whose positions we are told influence our human lives (just another
anthrocentric load of bulldust what about beings on other planets?) are thousands of light
years away from earth, meaning when the con-artists draw up their star charts or WTF they
call 'em, they are looking at formations that happened thousands of years ago - all different
depending on a particular star's distance from earth.
Claiming to be able to predict anything rational from such a mish mash of incorrect data is
risible, sad really and goes much to explain the house dembot's mania.
As for oblammer in Miami? I guess the dnc know where quite a few oblammer bodies are
buried.
My view is changing, Biden is so crooked that even though if he wins, the corporate media
will try hard to leave him alone, but he's just too clumsy, so that some dems are going to
side with the rethugs to impeach him and fast, however that may be what the oligarchy is
counting on, as that brings bad karmala harris to the fore, a women so unpopular with dem
rank and file she withdrew from the primary before any votes were cast, how's that for
'democracy'.
This is the real issue, both dem & rethug prez candidates are crooks through and
through, if the dems win, then the spotlight the corporate media shone on orangeutan will be
turned off. At least some of trump's worst rorts were stopped by a fear of being found out,
but if the dems win dopey joe will have no such constraint - until he does something so over
the top eg kick off nuclear war, that the media finally wakes up. too late but at least now
they're awake.
Posted by: vinnieoh | Oct 22 2020 16:04 utc | 45 If Trump loses, should some people expect
bricks through their windows, or perhaps fire-bombings?
That is the threat. If either side loses, there will be massive civil unrest - at least
it's very likely that is (part of) "the plan" - whatever the plan actually is. In any event,
plan or not, it's predictable. Most of the preppers I follow on Youtube are urging everyone
to stock up on food and water because there's a good chance that everyone will be back on
movement restrictions of some sort, if not full-on martial law, within the next couple
months. As I said before, this country is going to start looking like Turkey or Italy in the
70's when the Grey Wolves and the Red Brigades were terrorizing those countries. It may not
be "civil war", but it's likely to be uglier than what happened this summer.
There will be cries of joy in the streets and maybe some celebratory looting, all from the
urban left.
Trump's supporters might assemble peacefully in a very sparse manner, but I would bet most
would simply take the newly alotted time from the Biden-victory to prep and ready a little
more before the real fireworks begin. Violence would only erupt from the urban left attacking
those demonstrations.
Real men are lying in wait. The city is not their playground any longer.
Posted by: Debsisdead | Oct 22 2020 11:21 utc | 19 -- "Barack can claim 'he paid his dues'
whilst keeping as much space as he can organise between himself and crooked joe, who has
already brought oblamblam's prezdency into disrepute with the shameless & ugly ukraine
rort that he and his bagman hunter had concocted."
Thanks for your astute observations. Am learning much.
A compromised man never escapes blackmail: he is but a tool in the hands of his owners. It
is not IF, but WHEN he will be used / abused. Over and over again, like a banker's boot
stomping on his arrogant face.
But then, who is to say that Obanger Obummer was unaware of his VP, that Basement-Biding
Bidet Biden's 'arrangements' for wealth accretion? And more (there is always more), who is to
say that Obanging Ohumming gets NO share therefrom at some 'convenient' time?
Evil thinks himself clever to hide in the dark, yet lives in daily fear of the light.
Thusly Obanging Ohummer's calculations that you noted above, and his dark demeanour these
days. He knows he is walking on a knife edge, with a sword hanging over his head, and a
safety net (those 17 intelligence agencies?) that can turn into a fowler's snare (sorry,
mixed metaphors!)
Yet, looking at the happier demeanour (she used to scowl all through 2017/2018) on that
shallow face called Michelle Ohummer, we can guess that she thinks they have escaped clean
with their 'rewards of office'.
Christian J. Chuba @17 asked, "How long?" I ask, how does an immoral leadership ever going
to turn moral? When does America get the leadership that she deserves?
@71 karlof1 - "only a viable state can act effectively in a crisis" - Putin
What a brilliant equation from Putin. Even more penetrating and useful than the formerly
existing observation that socialist-style societies have performed best in response to the
virus. Putin's criterion cuts exactly to the essence of the thing.
What the US has demonstrated from the virus response is that it is not a viable state. The
benchmark now exists. Thanks for bringing it over.
I have a friend of Cherokee ancestry. She told me how once she was speaking with an elder
woman of the tribe, and described herself as "one-eighth Cherokee".
The old woman shook her head and said, "The Cherokee spirit cannot be diluted."
Should any here be interested, Wikipedia has aa extensive listing of governmental scandals
for the 20th and 21st century administrations. Note the number of executive, legislative and
judicial scandals for each administration. Note also the volume of scandals as
administrations go from Franklin D. Roosevelt through to D.J. Trump for both executive and
legislative branches. The political parties of the malfeasant are of interest as well -
trending can be discerned, maybe, for the observant.
"... When the matter of truth is depicted as a possible threat to those that govern a country, you no longer have a democratic state. True, not everything can be disclosed to the public in real time, but we are sitting on a mountain of classified intelligence material that goes back more than 60 years. ..."
"... From this recognition, the whole matter of declassifying material around the Russigate scandal in real time, and not highly redacted 50 years from now, is essential to addressing this festering putrefaction that has been bubbling over since the heinous assassination of President Kennedy on Nov. 22nd, 1963 and to which we are still waiting for full disclosure of classified papers 57 years later. ..."
"... These intelligence bureaus need to be reviewed for what kind of method and standard they are upholding in collecting their "intelligence," that has supposedly justified the Mueller investigation and the never-ending Flynn investigation which have provided zero conclusive evidence to back up their allegations and which have massively infringed on the elected government's ability to make the changes that they had committed to the American people. ..."
"... Just like the Iraq and Libya war that was based off of cooked British intelligence (refer here and here ), Russiagate appears to have also had its impetus from our friends over at MI6 as well. It is no surprise that Sir Richard Dearlove, who was then MI6 chief (1999-2004) and who oversaw and stood by the fraudulent intelligence on Iraq stating they bought uranium from Niger to build a nuclear weapon, is the very same Sir Richard Dearlove who promoted the Christopher Steele dossier as something "credible" to American intelligence. ..."
"... In other words, the same man who is largely responsible for encouraging the illegal invasion of Iraq, which set off the never-ending wars on "terror," that was justified with cooked British intelligence is also responsible for encouraging the Russian spook witch-hunt that has been occurring within the US for the last four years over more cooked British intelligence, and the FBI and CIA are knowingly complicit in this. ..."
"... "The Central Intelligence Agency violated its charter for 25 years until revelations of illegal wiretapping, domestic surveillance, assassination plots, and human experimentation led to official investigations and reforms in the 1970s." [emphasis added] ..."
"... On Dec. 22, 1974, The New York Times published an article by Seymour Hersh exposing illegal operations conducted by the CIA, dubbed the "family jewels". This included, covert action programs involving assassination attempts on foreign leaders and covert attempts to subvert foreign governments, which were reported for the first time. In addition, the article discussed efforts by intelligence agencies to collect information on the political activities of US citizens. ..."
"... Largely as a reaction to Hersh's findings, the creation of the Church Committee was approved on January 27, 1975, by a vote of 82 to 4 in the Senate. ..."
"... In addition, the Church Committee produced seven case studies on covert operations, but only the one on Chile was released, titled " Covert Action in Chile: 1963–1973 ". The rest were kept secret at the CIA's request. ..."
"... Among the most shocking revelation of the Church Committee was the discovery of Operation SHAMROCK , in which the major telecommunications companies shared their traffic with the NSA from 1945 to the early 1970s. The information gathered in this operation fed directly into the NSA Watch List. It was found out during the committee investigations that Senator Frank Church, who was overseeing the committee, was among the prominent names under surveillance on this NSA Watch List. ..."
"... According to Garrison's team findings, there was reason to believe that the CIA was involved in the orchestrations of President Kennedy's assassination but access to classified material (which was nearly everything concerning the case) was necessary to continue such an investigation. ..."
"... Though Garrison's team lacked direct evidence, they were able to collect an immense amount of circumstantial evidence, which should have given the justification for access to classified material for further investigation. Instead the case was thrown out of court prematurely and is now treated as if it were a circus. [Refer to Garrison's book for further details and Oliver Stone's excellently researched movie JFK ] ..."
"... On Oct. 6th, 2020, President Trump ordered the declassification of the Russia Probe documents along with the classified documents on the findings concerning the Hillary Clinton emails. The release of these documents threatens to expose the entrapment of the Trump campaign by the Clinton campaign with help of the US intelligence agencies. ..."
"... Trey Gowdy, who was Chair of the House Oversight Committee from June 13th, 2017 – Jan. 3rd, 2019, has stated in an interview on Oct. 7th, 2020 that he has never seen these documents. Devin Nunes, who was Chair of the House Intelligence Committee from Jan. 3rd, 2015 – Jan. 3rd, 2019, has also said in a recent interview that he has never seen these documents. ..."
"... Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation . ..."
"Treason doth never prosper; what is the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it
treason." – Sir John Harrington.
As Shakespeare would state in his play Hamlet, "Something is rotten in the state of Denmark,"
like a fish that rots from head to tail, so do corrupt government systems rot from top to
bottom.
This is a reference to the ruling system of Denmark and not just the foul murder that King
Claudius has committed against his brother, Hamlet's father. This is showcased in the play by
reference to the economy of Denmark being in a state of shambles and that the Danish people are
ready to revolt since they are on the verge of starving. King Claudius has only been king for a
couple of months, and thus this state of affairs, though he inflames, did not originate with
him.
Thus, during our time of great upheaval we should ask ourselves; what constitutes the
persisting "ruling system," of the United States, and where do the injustices in its state of
affairs truly originate from?
The tragedy of Hamlet does not just lie in the action (or lack of action) of one man, but
rather, it is contained in the choices and actions of all its main characters. Each character
fails to see the longer term consequences of their own actions, which leads not only to their
ruin but towards the ultimate collapse of Denmark. The characters are so caught up in their
antagonism against one another that they fail to foresee that their very own destruction is
intertwined with the other.
This is a reflection of a failing system.
A system that, though it believes itself to be fighting tooth and nail for its very
survival, is only digging a deeper grave. A system that is incapable of generating any real
solutions to the problems it faces.
The only way out of this is to address that very fact. The most important issue that will
decide the fate of the country is what sort of changes are going to occur in the political and
intelligence apparatus, such that a continuation of this tyrannical treason is finally stopped
in its tracks and unable to sow further discord and chaos.
When the Matter of "Truth" Becomes a Threat to "National Security"
When the matter of truth is depicted as a possible threat to those that govern a
country, you no longer have a democratic state. True, not everything can be disclosed to the
public in real time, but we are sitting on a mountain of classified intelligence material that
goes back more than 60 years.
How much time needs to elapse before the American people have the right to know the truth
behind what their government agencies have been doing within their own country and abroad in
the name of the "free" world?
From this recognition, the whole matter of declassifying material around the Russigate
scandal in real time, and not highly redacted 50 years from now, is essential to addressing
this festering putrefaction that has been bubbling over since the
heinous assassination of President Kennedy on Nov. 22nd, 1963 and to which we are still
waiting for full disclosure of classified papers 57 years later.
If the American people really want to finally see who is standing behind that curtain in Oz,
now is the time.
These intelligence bureaus need to be reviewed for what kind of method and standard they
are upholding in collecting their "intelligence," that has supposedly justified the Mueller
investigation and the never-ending Flynn investigation which have provided zero conclusive
evidence to back up their allegations and which have massively infringed on the elected
government's ability to make the changes that they had committed to the American
people.
Just like the Iraq and Libya war that was based off of cooked British intelligence
(refer here
and here ),
Russiagate appears to have also had its impetus from our friends over at MI6 as well. It is no
surprise that Sir Richard Dearlove, who was then MI6 chief (1999-2004) and who
oversaw and stood by the fraudulent intelligence on Iraq stating they bought uranium from
Niger to build a nuclear weapon, is the very same Sir Richard Dearlove who promoted the
Christopher Steele dossier as something "credible" to American intelligence.
In other words, the same man who is largely responsible for encouraging the illegal
invasion of Iraq, which set off the never-ending wars on "terror," that was justified with
cooked British intelligence is also responsible for encouraging the Russian spook witch-hunt
that has been occurring within the US for the last four years over more cooked British
intelligence, and the FBI and CIA are knowingly complicit in this.
Neither the American people, nor the world as a whole, can afford to suffer any more of the
so-called "mistaken" intelligence bumblings. It is time that these intelligence bureaus are
held accountable for at best criminal negligence, at worst, treason against their own
country.
When Great Figures of Hope Are Targeted as Threats to "National Security"
The Family Jewels
report , which was an investigation conducted by the CIA to investigate itself, was spurred
by the Watergate Scandal and the CIA's unconstitutional role in the whole affair. This
investigation by the CIA reviewed its own conduct from the 1950s to mid-1970s.
The Family Jewels report was only partially declassified in June 25, 2007 (30
years later). Along with the release of the redacted report included a six-page summary with
the following introduction:
"The Central Intelligence Agency violated its charter for 25 years until revelations of
illegal wiretapping, domestic surveillance, assassination plots, and human experimentation led
to official investigations and reforms in the 1970s." [emphasis added]
Despite this acknowledged violation of its charter for 25 years, which is pretty much since
its inception, the details of this information were kept classified for 30 years from not just
the public but major governmental bodies and it was left to the agency itself to judge how best
to "reform" its ways.
On Dec. 22, 1974, The
New York Times published an article by Seymour Hersh exposing illegal operations conducted
by the CIA, dubbed the "family jewels". This included, covert action programs involving
assassination attempts on foreign leaders and covert attempts to subvert foreign governments,
which were reported for the first time. In addition, the article discussed efforts by
intelligence agencies to collect information on the political activities of US
citizens.
Largely as a reaction to Hersh's findings, the creation of the Church Committee was
approved on January 27, 1975, by a vote of 82 to 4 in the Senate.
The Church Committee also published an interim
report titled "Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders", which investigated
alleged attempts to assassinate foreign leaders, including Patrice Lumumba of Zaire, Rafael
Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, Ngo Dinh Diem of Vietnam, Gen. René Schneider of Chile
and Fidel Castro of Cuba. President Ford attempted to withhold the report from the public, but
failed and reluctantly issued Executive
Order 11905 after pressure from the public and the Church Committee.
Executive Order 11905 is a United States Presidential Executive Order signed on February 18,
1976, by a very reluctant President Ford in an attempt to reform the United States Intelligence
Community, improve oversight on foreign intelligence activities, and ban political
assassination.
The attempt is now regarded as a failure and was largely undone by President Reagan who
issued Executive
Order 12333 , which extended the powers and responsibilities of US intelligence agencies
and directed leaders of the US federal agencies to co-operate fully with the CIA, which was the
original arrangement that CIA have full authority over clandestine operations (for more
information on this refer to my papers
here and
here ).
In addition, the Church Committee produced seven case studies on covert operations, but
only the one on Chile was released, titled " Covert Action in
Chile: 1963–1973 ". The rest were kept secret at the CIA's request.
Among the most shocking revelation of the Church Committee was the discovery of
Operation SHAMROCK ,
in which the major telecommunications companies shared their traffic with the NSA from 1945 to
the early 1970s. The information gathered in this operation fed directly into the NSA Watch
List. It was found out during the committee investigations that Senator Frank Church, who was
overseeing the committee, was among the prominent
names under surveillance on this NSA Watch List.
In 1975, the Church Committee decided to unilaterally declassify the particulars of this
operation, against the objections of President Ford's administration (refer here and
here for more information).
The Church Committee's reports constitute the most extensive review of intelligence
activities ever made available to the public. Much of the contents were classified, but over
50,000 pages were declassified under the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records
Collection Act of 1992.
President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas on Nov. 22nd, 1963. Two days before his
assassination a hate-Kennedy handbill (see picture) was circulated in Dallas accusing the
president of treasonous activities including being a communist sympathizer.
On March 1st, 1967 New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison arrested and charged Clay Shaw
with conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy, with the help of David Ferrie and others.
After a little over a one month long trial, Shaw was found not guilty on March 1st, 1969.
David Ferrie, a controller of Lee Harvey Oswald, was going to be a key witness and would
have provided the "smoking gun" evidence linking himself to Clay Shaw, was likely murdered on
Feb. 22nd, 1967, less than a week after news of Garrison's investigation broke in the
media.
According to Garrison's team findings, there was reason to believe that the CIA was
involved in the orchestrations of President Kennedy's assassination but access to classified
material (which was nearly everything concerning the case) was necessary to continue such an
investigation.
Though Garrison's team lacked direct evidence, they were able to collect an immense
amount of circumstantial evidence, which should have given the justification for access to
classified material for further investigation. Instead the case was thrown out of court
prematurely and is now treated as if it were a circus. [Refer to Garrison's book for further details and
Oliver Stone's excellently researched movie JFK ]
To date, it is the only trial to be brought forward concerning the assassination of
President Kennedy.
The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) was created in 1994 by the Congress enacted
President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, which mandated that all
assassination-related material be housed in a single collection within the National Archives
and Records Administration. In July 1998, a staff report
released by the ARRB emphasized shortcomings in the original autopsy.
The
ARRB wrote , "One of the many tragedies of the assassination of President Kennedy has been
the incompleteness of the autopsy record and the suspicion caused by the shroud of secrecy that
has surrounded the records that do exist." [emphasis added]
Asked about the lunchroom episode [where he was overheard stating his notes of the autopsy
went missing] in a May 1996 deposition, Finck said he did not remember it. He was also vague
about how many notes he took during the autopsy but confirmed that 'after the autopsy I also
wrote notes' and that he turned over whatever notes he had to the chief autopsy physician,
James J. Humes.
It has long been known that Humes destroyed some original autopsy papers in a fireplace at
his home on Nov. 24, 1963. He told the Warren Commission that what he burned was an original
draft of his autopsy report. Under persistent questioning at a February 1996 deposition by
the Review Board, Humes said he destroyed the draft and his 'original notes.'
Shown official autopsy photographs of Kennedy from the National Archives, [Saundra K.]
Spencer [who worked in 'the White House lab'] said they were not the ones she helped process
and were printed on different paper. She said 'there was no blood or opening cavities' and
the wounds were much smaller in the pictures [than what she had] worked on
John T. Stringer, who said he was the only one to take photos during the autopsy itself,
said some of those were missing as well. He said that pictures he took of Kennedy's brain at
a 'supplementary autopsy' were different from the official set that was shown to him.
[emphasis added]
This not only shows that evidence tampering did indeed occur, as even the Warren
Commission acknowledges, but this puts into question the reliability of the entire
assassination record of John F. Kennedy and to what degree evidence tampering and forgery have
occurred in these records.
We would also do well to remember the numerous crimes that the FBI and CIA have been guilty
of committing upon the American people such as during the period of McCarthyism. That the FBI's
COINTELPRO has been implicated in covert operations against members of the civil rights
movement, including Martin Luther King Jr. during the 1960s. That FBI director J. Edgar Hoover
made no secret of his hostility towards Dr. King and his ludicrous belief that King was
influenced by communists, despite having no evidence to that effect.
King was assassinated on April 4th, 1968 and the civil rights movement took a major
blow.
In November 1975, as the Church Committee was completing its investigation, the Department
of Justice formed a Task Force to examine the FBI's program of harassment directed at Dr. King,
including the FBI's security investigations of him, his assassination and the FBI conducted
criminal investigation that followed. One aspect of the Task force study was to determine
"whether any action taken in relation to Dr. King by the FBI before the assassination had, or
might have had, an effect, direct or indirect, on that event."
In its report
, the Task Force criticized the FBI not for the opening, but for the protracted continuation
of, its security investigation of Dr. King:
"We think the security investigation which included both physical and technical
surveillance, should have been terminated in 1963. That it was intensified and augmented by a
COINTELPRO type campaign against Dr. King was unwarranted; the COINTELPRO type campaign,
moreover, was ultra vires and very probably felonious."
In 1999, King Family
v. Jowers civil suit in Memphis, Tennessee occurred, the full transcript of the trial can
be found here
. The jury found that Lloyd Jowers and unnamed others, including those in high ranking
positions within government agencies, participated in a conspiracy to assassinate Dr. King.
During the four week trial, it was pointed out that the rifle allegedly used to assassinate
King did not have a scope that was sighted, which meant you could not have hit the broad side
of a barn with that rifle, thus it could not have been the murder weapon.
This was only remarked on over 30 years after King was murdered and showed the level of
incompetence, or more likely, evidence tampering that was committed from previous
investigations conducted by the FBI.
The case of JFK and MLK are among the highest profile assassination cases in American
history, and it has been shown in both cases that evidence tampering has indeed occurred,
despite being in the center of the public eye. What are we then to expect as the standard of
investigation for all the other cases of malfeasance? What expectation can we have that justice
is ever upheld?
With a history of such blatant misconduct, it is clear that the present demand to declassify
the Russiagate papers now, and not 50 years later, needs to occur if we are to address the
level of criminality that is going on behind the scenes and which will determine the fate of
the country.
The American People Deserve to Know
Today we see the continuation of the over seven decades' long ruse, the targeting of
individuals as Russian agents without any basis, in order to remove them from the political
arena. The present effort to declassify the Russiagate papers and exonerate Michael Flynn, so
that he may freely speak of the intelligence he knows, is not a threat to national security, it
is a threat to those who have committed treason against their country.
On Oct. 6th, 2020, President Trump ordered the declassification of the Russia Probe
documents along with the classified documents on the findings concerning the Hillary Clinton
emails. The release of these documents threatens to expose the entrapment of the Trump campaign
by the Clinton campaign with help of the US intelligence agencies.
The Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe released some of these documents
recently, including former CIA Director John Brennan's handwritten notes for a meeting with former
President Obama, the notes revealing that Hillary Clinton approved a plan to "vilify Donald
Trump by stirring up scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service."
Trey Gowdy, who was Chair of the House Oversight Committee from June 13th, 2017 –
Jan. 3rd, 2019, has stated in an interview on Oct. 7th, 2020 that
he has never seen these documents. Devin Nunes, who was Chair of the House Intelligence
Committee from Jan. 3rd, 2015 – Jan. 3rd, 2019, has also said in a recent interview that
he has never seen these documents.
And yet, both the FBI and CIA were aware and had access to these documents and sat on them
for four years, withholding their release from several government-led investigations that were
looking into the Russiagate scandal and who were requesting relevant material that was in the
possession of both intelligence bureaus. Do these intelligence bureaus sound like they are
working for the "national security" of the American people?
The truth must finally be brought to light, or the country will rot from its head to
tail.
Jim Comey Ignored State Department Whistleblower on HIllary's Crimes With Classified
Material by Larry C Johnson
One year before Jim Comey was immersed in his plot to overthrow Donald Trump, the duly
elected President of the United States, a brave Foreign Service Officer at the U.S. Department
of State came forward with firsthand information of Hillary Clinton's rampant abuse of
Classified material. The man, a senior State Department diplomat who had served as the acting
Ambassador (Chargé d'Affaires) in the Asia Pacific
region under President Clinton, also was a veteran of the U.S. Army during the Vietnam
War.
The letter from this whistleblower is stunning and I am going to present it in total. It is
dated 10 January 2016. You can read it for yourself here
starting at page 121 . I became aware of this letter thanks to the assiduous research and
writings of Charles Ortel (he wrote about this recently
at the American Thinker ).
The letter explains in great detail how Hillary and her cabal of sychophants used an
unclassified system to disseminate Top Secret and Secret intelligence. But the Senior Diplomat
did not stop there. He explained carefully and specifically who the FBI needed to interview and
the questions they needed to ask. You do not need to take my word for it. You can read the
letter for yourself.
And what did the sanctimonious, smug buffoon heading up the FBI do? Nothing. But this senior
Foreign Service Officer was dogged in making sure the FBI had the information. He called FBI
Headquarters and could not get any confirmation that his letter was accepted. Not satisfied, he
walked into the FBI's Washington Field Office. The results of this meeting were reported to
three FBI Agents working on the Hillary Clinton investigation. Named in the report are Peter
Strzok and Jonathan Moffa (the third name is blacked out).
Here is the report in its entirety. Please note that the State Department official delivered
the information on the 27th of January 2016, but the report was not written up until four weeks
later–22 February 2016. (You can see the original on the
FBI website here starting at page 11.)
I do not know if John Durham has seen these documents. I am posting to make sure that he
does. There is no evidence that Inspector General Horowitz examined these documents or
interviewed the Foreign Service Officer. With Secretary of State Pompeo's promise that Hillary
emails will be forthcoming, I think it is worthwhile to revisit what this brave whistleblower
tried to bring to the attention of the FBI, who clearly was hellbent on protecting Hillary
rather than pursing justice and upholding the law. Shameful.
Unfortunately the formatting on this website cuts off the sides of the letter and makes it
unreadable for me - anyone else having this problem? (MacAirBook- Safari)
Great find and wish I could read it. Thanks, LJ. Share your appreciation of the American
Thinker website.
Sad but I suspect that the shear number of those in Government that have a vested interest
in this will ensure that nothing continues to be the outcome.
Deap: I had the same formatting problem. But you can find the letter by clicking on the
link in the post which states "here starting at p. 121."
When you get to the FBI Vault, click on the PDF on the left side of the page, near the
top, entitled "Hillary Rodham Clinton part 23 of 23.pdf."
When the PDF opens, scroll down to page 121. The letter will be found at pp. 121 to 131.
Page 132 (HRC 10114) may be the postage receipt for the letter when it was originally sent,
but it is illegible.
I haven't tried to find the American Thinker article which is referenced in this post, but
it may provide context.
I found the Ortel article at American Thinker. Google "Charles Ortel American Thinker" and
you can find a page with Ortel's articles and blogs. The article is entitled "James Comey and
Robert Mueller have Massive Clinton Foundation Problems." It appears that Mr. Ortel has a
significant interest in the Clinton Foundation.
Carter Page is interviewed by Sharyl Atkinsson on C-Span 2/ Book TV this weekend.
Chilling, interesting perspective. Page's book is out: Abuse and Power.
Apparently Atkinson, of Sinclair Broadcasting, has had her own troubles with illegal
surveillance.
Often Book tv replays programs, sometimes late, when it can be recorded.
Thanks all for the tips to access this link. Got it. All I can remember is Barry Soetoro
stating ...but Hilary didn't mean any harm running her separate insecure server.
The beginning pages of this link re-capping the strings of false and highly hedged
statements about Benghazi were bone chilling to read too. I guess we should be grateful Biden
did not pick Susan Rice for VP, but then he did much worse, he picked Kamala Harris.
And oh yeah, lock her up!
PS: is there some comfort seeing my spell check still does not recognize the word
"Kamala"? The gods of small favors strikes again.
am so very happy that you have been able to get the documents to prove what became so very
obvious to so many who did not have access to documents but who just had working brains. They
help us to understand what was going on with HRC's computer situation and with Jim Comey's
FBI.
You mention Hillary's "cabal of sychophants." There was no one more eager to become a
card-carrying member of that cabal than Comey himself. I do remember an interview on
television--don't have the date nor can I remember the media outlet that broadcast it--in
which Comey gushed about how wonderful it would be for Hillary to win since his wife and
daughters and even he himself were excited about possibly having the first female POTUS.
It seemed to me at the time that it was not an appropriate statement for the head of the
FBI to make on national television--especially with all the questions about Hillary's emails
and her obliterated computer--not to mention also the tarmac meeting in AZ between Bill and
Loretta Lynch (supposedly to discuss grandchildren). I thought then and still think that the
old Peter Principal was really being played out in the FBI at the time.
I don't remember the timeline of all this. But all I remember is how rotten things seemed
were the District of Columbia.
Gina Haspel is the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). Haspel is the first
career clandestine service officer to become director, and the first woman. She was the CIA
Chief of Station in London -- twice, and that repeat assignment is very unusual. What is most
interesting is the timing of Haspel's last tour as London Station Chief -- from 2014 to early
2017. That is the same timeframe (specifically, the late summer of 2016) when the FBI
approached foreign policy academic and "utility government operative" Stefan Halper to begin the operation targeting
Carter Page and George Papadopoulos in an FBI-designed foreign counterintelligence operation,
against Team Trump, to be launched in Cambridge, England.
Nothing speculative here -- the Justice Department Inspector General pegged the exact date
of the FBI/Halper meeting as August 10, 2016. Halper had been on contract (again) with the U.S.
government since the Iowa Caucuses began in October 2015. For the sake of brevity, I am not
discussing Halper's role in targeting former Defense Intelligence Agency Director, Lieutenant
General Mike Flynn. That is another column for another day -- and certainly Haspel knows a
great deal about that, as well.
The timeframe (2014-2017) matters, because Haspel, as London Station Chief would have been
briefed on the FBI's counterintelligence plan before any actions were approved to go forward.
The CIA Station Chief is the top intelligence official in any given country. The FBI must
inform the Station Chief of what they planned to do and get Station Chief approval. The FBI
hates that, but those are the rules.
Because the various intelligence agencies are sensitive, they do not use the word
"approved." Instead, they use the word "coordinated."
Jargon aside, nothing would have happened without Haspel's okay.
Think about this for a while : The current CIA director was an active, knowledgeable party
to the efforts to target candidate Trump with a contrived foreign counterintelligence
investigation. That carried forward to a more sophisticated and aggressive plan to carry out a
soft coup against President Trump. People around President Trump were prosecuted and/or had
their lives destroyed based on a scheme of U.S. government lies. Who appears to have been "in
on it" from day one? Gina Haspel.
So, when we read in an
article by Sean Davis, co-founder of The Federalist , that Haspel is personally resisting
the declassification and release of records on "Russiagate," we are not surprised. In fact, we
are relieved, because a few of us have been shouting from the mountaintops about Haspel for
years, to no avail. The smarmy James Comey is easier to identify and loathe than the elusive
Haspel.
For those seeking
more information on Haspel , Shane Harris of the Washington Post wrote a nauseating
hagiography of Haspel in July 2019. Consistent with WaPo 's standards there are several factual
errors and loads of opinion masquerading as "tough reporting." Harris (and one assumes Haspel)
makes sure readers know that Haspel and company "boils down" presidential intelligence
briefings to "a few key points that they think Trump absolutely needs to know." We are supposed
to also believe that "Trump favors pictures and graphics over text." Of course, the CIA
director's office did not cooperate with Harris. No, not at all.
The FBI is not allowed to penetrate and subvert a presidential campaign. Executive
Order 12333, Section 2.9 , "Undisclosed Participation in Organizations in the United
States," prohibits it in plain language. Historically, the prohibition is a consequence of U.S.
Army Counterintelligence penetrating Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) at the behest of
the FBI during the 1960s -- among other abuses of power and authority. That legal prohibition
is the reason the FBI felt the need to manufacture a "foreign counterintelligence threat" in
the UK and then "import" the investigation back into the United States.
The FBI plotters needed to establish a foreign counterintelligence "event" to run their
operation. The UK was the easiest and operationally safest/friendliest place to pull it off,
especially with Stefan Halper's connections to Cambridge. Haspel was clearly fully informed and
had "coordinated" the operation. She also enjoyed cordial relationships with MI6 and GCHQ. Now
we (largely, but imperfectly) know what transpired. Halper under oath, in public, would fill in
a lot of blanks. Gina Haspel, under the same circumstances and conditions, might just complete
the puzzle.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Should President Trump be reelected, it might just happen. A President Biden guarantees we
will never hear another syllable of the rest of the story.
Former FBI Director James Comey testified to Congress last Wednesday that he did not
remember much about what was going on when the FBI deceived the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) Court into approving four warrants for surveillance of Trump campaign
aide Carter Page.
Few outsiders are aware that those warrants covered not only Page but also anyone Page was
in contact with as well as anyone Page's contacts were in contact with – under the
so-called two-hop surveillance procedure. In other words, the warrants extend coverage two
hops from the target – that is, anyone Page talks to and anyone they, in turn, talk
to.
At the hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Lindsay Graham reviewed the facts (most
of them confirmed by the Department of Justice inspector general) showing that none of the
four FISA warrants were warranted.
Graham gave a chronological rundown of the evidence that Comey and his "folks" either
knew, or should have known, that by signing fraudulent FISA warrant applications they were
perpetrating a fraud on the court.
The "evidence" used by Comey and his "folks" to "justify" warrants included Page's
contacts with Russian officials (CIA had already told the FBI those contacts had been
approved) and the phony as a three-dollar bill "Steele dossier" paid for by the
Democrats.
Two Hops to the World
But let's not hop over the implications of two-hop surveillance , which apparently remains
in effect today. Few understand the significance of what is known in the trade as "two-hop"
coverage. According to a former NSA technical director, Bill Binney, when President Barack
Obama approved the current version of "two hops," the NSA was ecstatic – and it is easy
to see why.
Let's say Page was in touch with Donald Trump (as candidate or president); Trump's
communications could then be surveilled, as well. Or, let's say Page was in touch with
Google. That would enable NSA to cover pretty much the entire world. A thorough read of the
transcript of Wednesday's hearing, particularly the Q-and-A, shows that this crucial two-hop
dimension never came up – or that those aware of it, were too afraid to mention it. It
was as if Page were the only one being surveilled.
Here is a sample of The New York Times 's typical coverage
of such a hearing:
"Senate Republicans sought on Wednesday to promote their efforts to rewrite the
narrative of the Trump-Russia investigation before Election Day, using a hearing with the
former F.B.I. director James B. Comey to cast doubt on the entire inquiry by highlighting
problems with a narrower aspect of it.
"Led by Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary
Committee spent hours burrowing into mistakes and omissions made by the FBI when it applied
for court permission to wiretap the former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page in 2016 and
2017. Republicans drew on that flawed process to renew their claims that Mr. Comey and his
agents had acted with political bias, ignoring an independent review that debunked
the notion of a plot against President Trump."
Flawed process? Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz pinpointed no few
than 17 "serious performance failures" related to the four FISA warrant applications on Page.
Left unsaid is the fact that Horowitz's investigation was tightly circumscribed. Basically,
he asked the major players "Were you biased?" And they said "No."
Chutzpah-full Disingenuousness
Does the NYT believe we were all born yesterday? When the Horowitz report was
released in early December 2019, Fox News' Chris Wallace found those serious performance
failures "pretty shocking." He quoted an
earlier remark by Rep. Will Hurd (R,TX) a CIA alumnus:
"Why is it when you have 17 mistakes -- 17 things that are misrepresented or lapses --
and every one of them goes against the president and for investigating him, you have to say,
'Is that a coincidence'? it is either gross incompetence or intentionality."
Throughout the four-hour hearing on Wednesday, Comey was politely smug – a hair
short of condescending.
There was not the slightest sign he thought he would ever be held accountable for what
happened under his watch. You see, four years ago, Comey "knew" Hillary Clinton was a
shoo-in; that explains how he, together with CIA Director John Brennan and National
Intelligence Director James Clapper, felt free to take vast liberties with the Constitution
and the law before the election, and then launched a determined effort to hide their tracks
post election.
Trump had been forewarned. On Jan. 3, 2017, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY),
with an assist from Rachel Maddow, warned Trump not to get crosswise with the "intelligence
community," noting the IC has six ways to Sunday to get back at you.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/fotKK5kcMOg
Three days later, Comey told President-elect Trump, in a one-on-one conversation, what the
FBI had on him – namely, the "Steele Dossier." The media already had the dossier, but
were reluctant (for a host of obvious reasons) to publish it. When it leaked that Comey had
briefed Trump on it, they finally had the needed peg.
New Parvenu in Washington
After the tête-à-tête with Comey on Jan. 6, 2017, newcomer Trump didn't
know what hit him. Perhaps no one told him of Schumer's warning; or maybe he dismissed it out
of hand. Is that what Comey was up to on Jan. 6, 2017?
Was the former FBI director protesting too much in his June 2017 testimony to the Senate
Intelligence Committee when he insisted he'd tried to make it clear to Trump that briefing
him on the unverified but scurrilous information in the dossier wasn't intended to be
threatening?
It took Trump several months to figure out what
was being done to him.
Trump to NYT: 'Leverage' (aka Blackmail)
In a long Oval Office interview
with the Times on July 19, 2017, Trump said he thought Comey was trying to hold the
dossier over his head.
" Look what they did to me with Russia, and it was totally phony stuff. the dossier Now,
that was totally made-up stuff," Trump said. "I went there [to Moscow] for one day for the
Miss Universe contest, I turned around, I went back. It was so disgraceful. It was so
disgraceful.
"When he [Comey] brought it [the dossier] to me, I said this is really made-up junk. I
didn't think about anything. I just thought about, man, this is such a phony deal. I said,
this is – honestly, it was so wrong, and they didn't know I was just there for a very
short period of time. It was so wrong, and I was with groups of people. It was so wrong that
I really didn't, I didn't think about motive. I didn't know what to think other than, this is
really phony stuff."
The Steele dossier, paid for by the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign
and compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, includes a tale of Trump cavorting
with prostitutes, who supposedly urinated on each other before the same bed the Obamas had
slept in at the Moscow Ritz-Carlton hotel.
Trump told the Times : "I think [Comey] shared it so that I would think he had it
out there. As leverage."
Still Anemic
Even with that lesson in hand, Trump still proved virtually powerless in dealing with the
National Security State/intelligence community. The president has evidenced neither the skill
nor the guts to even attempt to keep the National Security State in check.
Comey, no doubt doesn't want to be seen as a "dirty cop," With Trump in power and Attorney
General William Barr his enforcer, there was always the latent threat that they would use the
tools at their disposal to expose and even prosecute Comey and his National Security State
colleagues for what the president now knows was done during his candidacy and presidency.
Despite their braggadocio about taking on the Deep State, and the continuing
investigations, it seems doubtful that anything serious is likely to happen before Election
Day, Nov. 3.
On Wednesday, Comey had the air of one who is equally sure, this time around, who will be
the next president. No worries. Comey could afford to be politely vapid for five more weeks,
and then be off the hook for any and all "serious performance failures" – some of them
felonies.
Thus, a significant downside to a Biden victory is that the National Security State will
escape accountability for unconscionable misbehavior, running from misdemeanors to
insurrection. No small thing.
Sen. Graham concluded the hearing with a pious plea: "Somebody needs to be held
accountable." Yet, surely, he has been around long enough to know the odds.
Given his disastrous presidency, either way the prospects are bleak: no accountability for
the National Security State, which is to be expected, or four more years of Trump.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the
Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as
Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President's Daily
Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). This
originally appeared at Consortium
News .
DNI Declassifies Brennan Notes; Briefed Obama On Intelligence That Hillary Clinton
Concocted Trump-Russia Allegations by Tyler Durden Tue, 10/06/2020 - 16:19
Twitter Facebook Reddit EmailPrint
Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe on Tuesday declassified several documents,
including handwritten notes from former CIA John Brennan after he briefed former President
Obama on an alleged plot by Hillary Clinton to tie then-candidate Donald Trump to Russia as "a
means of distracting the public from her use of a private email server" ahead of the 2016 US
election, according to Fox News .
Ratcliffe declassified Brennan's handwritten notes – which were taken after he
briefed Obama on the intelligence the CIA received – and a CIA memo, which revealed
that officials referred the matter to the FBI for potential investigative action.
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence transmitted the declassified documents
to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees on Tuesday afternoon.
"Today, at the direction of President Trump, I declassified additional documents relevant
to ongoing Congressional oversight and investigative activities ," Ratcliffe said in a
statement to Fox News Tuesday. - Fox News
" We're getting additional insight into Russian activities from [REDACTED], " read Brennan's
notes. "CITE [summarizing] alleged approved by Hillary Clinton a proposal from one of her
foreign policy advisers to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal claiming interference
by the Russian security service."
On September 7, 2016, US intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to
former FBI officials James Comey and Peter Strzok concerning allegations that Hillary Clinton
approved a plan to smear then-candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Russian President Vladimir
Putin and Russian hackers , according to information given to Sen. Lindsey Graham by the
Director of National Intelligence.
According to Fox News' Chad Pergram, "In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained
insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary
Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate
Donald Trump," after one of Clinton's foreign policy advisers proposed vilifying Trump "by
stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services."
U.S. Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe recently declassified information
indicating the CIA obtained intelligence in 2016 that the Russians believed the Clinton
campaign was trying to falsely associate Russia with the so-called hack of DNC computers. CIA
Director John Brennan shared the intelligence with President Obama. They knew, in other words,
that the DNC was conducting false Russian flag operation against the Trump campaign . The
following is an exclusive excerpt from The Russia Lie that tells the amazing story in
detail:
On March 19, 2016, Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, surrendered his emails
to an unknown entity in a "spear phishing" scam. This has been called a "hack," but it was not.
Instead, it was the sort of flim-flam hustle that happens to gullible dupes on the
internet.
The content of the emails was beyond embarrassing. They
showed election fraud and coordination with the media against the candidacy of Bernie
Sanders. The DNC and the Clinton campaign needed a cover story.
Blaming Russia would be a handy way to deal with the Podesta emails. There was already an
existing Russia operation that could easily be retrofitted to this purpose. The problem was
that it was nearly impossible to identify the perpetrator in a phishing scheme using computer
forensic tools.
The only way to associate Putin with the emails was circumstantially.
The DNC retained a company that called itself "CrowdStrike" to provide assistance.
CrowdStrike's chief technology officer and co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, is an anti-Putin,
Russian expat and a senior fellow at the Atlantic
Council .
With the Atlantic Council in 2016, all roads led to Ukraine. The Atlantic Council's list of
significant contributors includes
Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk.
The Ukrainian energy company that was paying millions to an entity that was funneling large
amounts to Hunter Biden months after he was discharged from the US Navy for drug use, Burisma,
also appears prominently on the Atlantic Council's donor list.
Arseniy Yatsenyuk, the Western puppet installed in Ukraine,
visited the Atlantic Council's Washington offices to make a speech weeks after the
coup.
Pinchuk was also a
big donor (between $10 million and $20 million) to the Clinton Foundation. Back in '15, the
Wall Street Journal published an investigative
piece , " Clinton Charity Tapped Foreign Friends ." The piece was about how Ukraine was
attempting to influence Clinton by making huge donations through Pinchuk. Foreign interference,
anyone?
On June 12, 2016, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
announced : "We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton . . . We have emails
pending publication."
Two days later, CrowdStrike fed the Washington Post a
story , headlined, "Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on
Trump." The improbable tale was that the Russians had hacked the DNC computer servers and got
away with some opposition research on Trump. The article quoted Alperovitch of CrowdStrike and
the Atlantic Council.
The next day, a new blog – Guccifer 2.0 – appeared on the
internet and announced:
Worldwide known cyber security company CrowdStrike announced that the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) servers had been hacked by "sophisticated" hacker groups.
I'm very pleased the company appreciated my skills so highly))) But in fact, it was easy,
very easy.
Guccifer may have been the first one who penetrated Hillary Clinton's and other Democrats'
mail servers. But he certainly wasn't the last. No wonder any other hacker could easily get
access to the DNC's servers.
Shame on CrowdStrike: Do you think I've been in the DNC's networks for almost a year and
saved only 2 documents? Do you really believe it?
Here are just a few docs from many thousands I extracted when hacking into DNC's
network.
Guccifer 2.0 posted hundreds of pages of Trump opposition research allegedly hacked from the
DNC and emailed copies to Gawker and The Smoking Gun . In raw form, the opposition research was
one of the documents obtained in the Podesta emails, with a notable difference: It was widely
reported the document now contained "
Russian fingerprints ."
The three-parenthesis formulation from the original post ")))" is the Russian version of a
smiley face used
commonly on social media. In addition, the blog's author deliberately used a Russian
VPN service visible in its emails even though there would have been many options to hide
any national affiliation.
Under the circumstances, the FBI should have analyzed the DNC computers to confirm the
Guccifer hack. Incredibly, though, the inspection was done by CrowdStrike, the same Atlantic
Council-connected private contractor paid by the DNC that had already concluded in The
Washington Post that there was a hack and Putin was behind it.
CrowdStrike would declare the "hack" to be the work of sophisticated Russian spies.
Alperovitch described it as, " skilled
operational tradecraft ."
There is nothing skilled, though, in ham-handedly disclosing a Russian identity when trying
to hide it. The more reasonable inference is that this was a set-up. It certainly looks like
Guccifer 2.0 suddenly appeared in coordination with the Washington Post 's article that
appeared the previous day.
FBI Director James Comey
confirmed in testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee in January 2017 that the FBI's
failure to inspect the computers was unusual to say the least. "We'd always prefer to have
access hands-on ourselves if that's possible," he said.
But the DNC rebuffed the FBI's request to inspect the hardware. Comey added that the DNC's
hand-picked investigator, CrowdStrike, is "a highly respected private company."
What he did not reveal was that CrowdStrike never corroborated a hack by forensic analysis.
In testimony released in 2020, it was revealed that CrowdStrike
admitted to Congressional investigators as early as 2017 that it had no direct evidence of
Russian hacking.
CrowdStrike's president Shawn Henry testified, "There's not evidence that [documents and
emails] were actually exfiltrated [from the DNC servers]. There's circumstantial evidence but
no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS
MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The circumstantial evidence was Guccifer 2.0.
This was a crucial revelation because the thousand ships of Russiagate launched upon the
positive assertion that CrowdStrike had definitely proven a Russian hack. Yet this fact was
kept from the American public for more than three years.
The reasonable inference is that the DNC was trying to frame Russia and the FBI and
intelligence agencies were going along with the scheme because of political pressure.
Those who assert that it is a "conspiracy theory" to say that CrowdStrike would fabricate
the results of computer forensic testing to create a false Russian flag should know that it was
caught doing exactly that around the time it was inspecting the DNC computers.
On Dec. 22, 2016, CrowdStrike caused an international stir when it claimed to have uncovered
evidence that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery computer app to help pro-Russian
separatists. Voice of America later determined the claim
was false , and CrowdStrike retracted its finding.
Ukraine's Ministry of Defense was forced to eat crow and admit that the hacking never
happened.
If you wanted a computer testing firm to fabricate a Russian hack for political reasons in
2016, CrowdStrike was who you went out and hired.
"... The REASON they won't release them: The TRUMP Collusion wasn't with the Russians , but with APARTHEID Isra-h-e-l-l. But NO ONE will investigate that. M.A.G.A. is out. M.I.G.A is in. ..."
"... 'Bloody Gina' is Trump's loyalist appointee, following through on what loyalist Pompeo started to protect Trump Crime Family Corruption, Chabad Mafia, and ZOG. ..."
"... please allow me to still congratulate Gina on reducing the almighty Third Option into the Toiletpaper Option. ..."
"... 2018, BREAKING: Trump appoints Haspel as first female CIA director ..."
"... 2017: Breaking: CIA Director Mike Pompeo appoints Haspel as the first female CIA officer to be named deputy director. ..."
"... Fathead and Esper were best buds at West Point.. ..."
"... Evidence destruction was one the main purposes of the Mueller "investigation". ..."
"... Please. If you can see what Trump has done, basically bending the US and its taxpayers over for Israel, you'd realize he's just another in a long line of AIPAC Presidents. Ain't nobody opposing him. CIA knows what Russia knows about him, and they're just using him as bait. ..."
"... proof is in the pudding, Hillary still walks free, none of the corrupt ones are in jail and won't ever go to jail. Face it, Biff has many fooled. ..."
"... U.S. Navy Reserve Doctor on Gina Haspel Torture Victim: "One of the Most Severely Traumatized Individuals I Have Ever Seen" ..."
"... What bothers me more is how deep the Deep State goes in Washington. They totally control the government and without mass firings it is impossible to even make a dent in it. This country is gone and just doesn't know it yet. Once Kamala is crowned as queen reality will come slamming home pdq. By the time the country realizes what has happened to them it will be way too late, no matter how many guns they have at home. Once they cut off access to your money, very few people will be independent enough to survive on their own. ..."
"... Trump has opened the eyes of more Americans to the simple fact that an unelected bureaucracy is running the country ..."
"... DJT hired this c8nt, sure, but the pool of candidates equipped to take over the CIA is very small, and all are career swamp things. If DJT put in a true outsider, the ranks would close and the "Director" would know nothing, could do nothing, and nothing would change. The ranks would just wait for another President. Trump is powerless over the CIA. After all, they could easily have him 'accidentally' killed; they've done it before. ..."
"... The CIA just needs to be dissolved in acid. The political, psychological and historical deep-rooted corruption isn't fixable by anyone. ..."
"... McConnell would never confirm a "true outsider". Mitch is the real problem here, he tells Trump who he will and will not confirm, so Trump has to accept one of Mitch's choices. ..."
"... He could put in Mike Flynn. And any vested employee who "closed ranks" would go on immediate and permanent furlough. ..."
"... Here's something we Americans can learn from the Russians. In August 1991 after Gorbachev left to the Black Sea for a short vacation, the heads of the USSR "power ministries" (KGB chairman, armed forces chief of staff, Minister of Interior, etc. etc.) formed the "State Committee for Extrordinary Situation" ( G.K.Ch .P.) and tried to overthrow the government. ..."
"... That's what happened in Washington in 2016-2018 - "GKChP Lite." ..."
"... After the putsch attempt failed, the leaders were arrested and the power ministries reorganized - the KGB was split into several departments including the FSB and SVR for internal and external intelligence. ..."
"... Trump can declassify these personally if he wants, at any time. He could even go live on air and read portions of it to the public. He has the power, but he refuses to use it. ..."
"... Trumps entire cabinet is full of Goldman Sachs, Skull and Bones, CFR, Pentagon, CIA, Career politicians... at what point do you realize he was never going to drain the swamp? Both candidates are a joke and so is this website for becoming a Big R Republican website. ..."
"... This is all kabuki theater because Trump could have signed an Executive Order releasing everything back to JFK 3 years ago instead of flapping his yap. Comey has a Hollywood movie coming out this fall, As Biden said, "Shut up, man". ..."
"... No one is going to prison that deserves to over this. They'll crucify some desk monkey or intern, pat each other on the back and brag about a job well done. We've seen it the last four years, some low level schmuck changes the footer on some emails and the DOJ is all over it like white on rice. Totally ignoring the fact there is a seditionist movement, maybe even treasonous, happening at a systemic level throughout government. Four years is enough time to build a case, lord knows any one with half a mind can find all the evidence needed in four damned days. ..."
"... The a-holes running the DOJ won't prosecute Comey, or Clinton, or Brennan or any other name we know. Because they're doing dirty deeds themselves and don't want to set the precedent in fear those who come after them might in turn prosecute them ..."
"Federalist" co-founder Sean Davis reports that CIA Director Gina Haspel is personally
blocking the release of documents that will show "what actually happened" with Russiagate.
" This isn't just a scandal about Democrat projection, this is a scandal about what was a
coup planned against the incoming administration at the highest levels and I can report here
tonight that these declassifications that have come out," Davis told FOX News host Tucker
Carlson on Wednesday. "Those weren't easy to get out and there are far more waiting to get
out."
"Unfortunately those releases and declassifications according to multiple sources I've
talked to are being blocked by CIA director Gina Haspel who herself was the main link between
Washington and London ," Davis said.
"As the London station chief from John Brennan's CIA during the 2016 election. Recall, it
was London where Christopher Steele was doing all this work. And I'm told that it was Gina
Haspel personally who is blocking a continued declassification of these documents that will
show the American people the truth of what actually happened."
Watch:
pier , 1 hour ago
The REASON they won't release them: The TRUMP Collusion wasn't with the Russians , but with APARTHEID Isra-h-e-l-l. But NO ONE will investigate that. M.A.G.A. is out.
M.I.G.A is in.
Joseph Sullivan , 1 hour ago
No. This is all the UK. And Brit east India/pharma complex I'm serious. Israel is a UK proxy.
tion , 1 hour ago
True. 'Bloody Gina' is Trump's loyalist appointee, following through on what loyalist
Pompeo started to protect Trump Crime Family Corruption, Chabad Mafia, and ZOG.
My last
comment including my sentiments towards Gina got eaten by censorship for reasons obvious to
me, but please allow me to still congratulate Gina on reducing the almighty Third Option into
the Toiletpaper Option.
acetrumchura , 1 hour ago
2018, BREAKING: Trump appoints Haspel as first female CIA director
acetrumchura , 1 hour ago
2017: Breaking: CIA Director Mike Pompeo appoints Haspel as the first female CIA officer
to be named deputy director.
BGen. Jack Ripper , 49 minutes ago
Fathead and Esper were best buds at West Point..
NoWorries77 , 1 hour ago
Evidence destruction was one the main purposes of the Mueller "investigation".
realitybiter , 2 hours ago
Trump Has played like Tom Brady. Without either guard or tackle. Take the CIA and the FBI. They are both still ran by rats. Tree of liberty is VERY thirsty.
eatapeach , 1 hour ago
Please. If you can see what Trump has done, basically bending the US and its taxpayers
over for Israel, you'd realize he's just another in a long line of AIPAC Presidents. Ain't
nobody opposing him. CIA knows what Russia knows about him, and they're just using him as
bait.
GreatUncle , 57 minutes ago
Either they are accountable or they are treasonous. CIA is the globalist intelligence agency now.
MAGAMAN , 2 hours ago
It will happen, the fuse just keeps getting shorter. Nobody even refutes that Obama is a
traitor that spied on Trump's campaign and tried to overthrow the President. The evidence is
overwhelming and continues to snow ball.
ChiangMaiXPat , 1 hour ago
It will never happen as Trump appointed these Clowns. Imagine appointing people working
DIRECTLY against your self interest. Does this sound logical or even remotely plausible? I
don't recall it EVER happening in any other administration.
spqrusa , 2 minutes ago
He cannot do anything without Consent from the Privy Council and the circle of demons.
ThaBigPerm , 2 hours ago
Aaaand Trump can just order declassification over "her" head. Do it.
Lather Rinse Repeat , 1 hour ago
Surfaces the cabal's foot soldiers. CIA Director Haspel was a great leader when appointed. But when process drives Haspel to
block an action, the message is that Haspel is rot and so is Haspel's network. These networks run deep and wide and prosecuting 1 or 10 does nothing - you need them all,
or the problem comes back in 5 years.
Lokiban , 2 hours ago
He won't
proof is in the pudding, Hillary still walks free, none of the corrupt ones are in jail
and won't ever go to jail. Face it, Biff has many fooled.
spam filter , 2 hours ago
The way he's constantly saying, "someone should do something about this" ...Tells my
spidey sense that he has little power in the swamp.
Propaganda Phil , 2 hours ago
Isn't she the same chick who destroyed all the torture tapes? Good luck.
Mr. Bones , 1 hour ago
All power of classification is derived from the office of the executive.
He could do exactly this, unilaterally.
Farmer Tink , 1 hour ago
First, normal people who consume news from the networks, particularly those that get their
news from MSNBC and social media, would never hear this. Second, if they did find out about
this, they'd never believe it. It would cause too much cognitive dissonance for them to
believe.
They wouldn't believe it unless the four legacy broadcast media told them so. They
just live in a land of Orange Man Bad as far as news go. A plot to overthrow the US
government by Obama and the Brits would be unfathomable to them.
Someone Else , 2 hours ago
Trump had an abrasive demeanor during the debate and in general.
How could he not, when truly everybody for four years HAS fought him tooth and nail? Few
would have had the ability to stand up to what he has stood up to.
Quia Possum , 1 hour ago
He had that demeanor before he was president too, so I don't accept that excuse.
desertboy , 27 minutes ago
U.S. Navy Reserve Doctor on Gina Haspel Torture Victim: "One of the Most Severely
Traumatized Individuals I Have Ever Seen"
justyouwait , 2 hours ago
All this crap needs to come out. Any date for the release before the election will have
the Dems and their media lap dogs crying foul. It just doesn't matter. They will NEVER
support the release of any documents that are damming to them. He should release it all right
up to the day of the election. This country needs to know all the criminality that went down.
That goes for the so called Durham report too, of which there have been so many rumors. That
one is likely to be a huge zero though by the time Barr gets done with it and then tells us
there were "improprieties" but nothing really bad. What a joke.
What bothers me more is how deep the Deep State goes in Washington. They totally control
the government and without mass firings it is impossible to even make a dent in it. This
country is gone and just doesn't know it yet. Once Kamala is crowned as queen reality will
come slamming home pdq. By the time the country realizes what has happened to them it will be
way too late, no matter how many guns they have at home. Once they cut off access to your
money, very few people will be independent enough to survive on their own.
John Couger , 2 hours ago
Trump has opened the eyes of more Americans to the simple fact that an unelected
bureaucracy is running the country
Sigh. , 2 hours ago
DJT hired this c8nt, sure, but the pool of candidates equipped to take over the CIA is
very small, and all are career swamp things. If DJT put in a true outsider, the ranks would
close and the "Director" would know nothing, could do nothing, and nothing would change. The
ranks would just wait for another President. Trump is powerless over the CIA. After all, they
could easily have him 'accidentally' killed; they've done it before.
The CIA just needs to be dissolved in acid. The political, psychological and historical
deep-rooted corruption isn't fixable by anyone.
Mclovin , 1 hour ago
McConnell would never confirm a "true outsider". Mitch is the real problem here, he tells
Trump who he will and will not confirm, so Trump has to accept one of Mitch's choices.
gcjohns1971 , 1 hour ago
He could put in Mike Flynn. And any vested employee who "closed ranks" would go on immediate and permanent
furlough.
There are only a couple or three thousand CIA agents and analysts. The rest are
contractors.
To bypass the swamp things you sideline them and put your own people in charge of the
contracts.
otschelnik , 1 hour ago
Here's something we Americans can learn from the Russians. In August 1991 after Gorbachev
left to the Black Sea for a short vacation, the heads of the USSR "power ministries" (KGB
chairman, armed forces chief of staff, Minister of Interior, etc. etc.) formed the "State
Committee for Extrordinary Situation" ( G.K.Ch
.P.) and tried to overthrow the government.
That's what happened in Washington in 2016-2018 - "GKChP Lite."
After the putsch attempt failed, the leaders were arrested and the power ministries
reorganized - the KGB was split into several departments including the FSB and SVR for
internal and external intelligence.
Trump has to do the same thing - break them up.
Occams_Razor_Trader , 1 hour ago
Kennedy wasn't a big fan................. look where it got him......................
Back and to the left.................................
LostinRMH , 2 hours ago
Trump can declassify these personally if he wants, at any time. He could even go live on
air and read portions of it to the public. He has the power, but he refuses to use it.
LostinRMH , 2 hours ago
The only timing Trump is interested in is running out the clock. If he get's a second term, a lot of these current issues will magically vanish, and new
ones will appear. This is just a scripted political show for the sheeple. It's all fake.
Oldwood , 2 hours ago
The swamp owns the government's employment agency. All hires come from within the swamp.
LooseLee , 1 hour ago
Sorry Old Man. Trump could have handled this sooooo much better and differently. I call
BS.
knightowl77 , 50 minutes ago
Here is the "B.S."
80 to 90% of the Federal Government are swamp creatures or friendly to the swamp...90 out
of 100 U.S. Senators are either swamp members or at least friendly to the swamp....Trump can
only get people confirmed to certain agencies who are Not hostile to the swamp...McConnell
and company are blocking the draining....The Dems would be even worse or just impeach
Trump....
No One else has even tried...I doubt anyone else could've survived the swamp as long as
Trump has....So you tell us HOW he could have done it better and differently?????????
AlexTheCat3741 , 1 hour ago
Not one person who has had a prior association with John Brennan should be doing anything
in the Trump Administration. And if that person cannot be fired, then reassign them to
cleaning toilets or picking up trash.
WHERE IS PRESIDENT TRUMP GETTING HIS PERSONNEL CHOICES FROM? We know Chris Cristie was one
who recommended director of the "Fibbers Bureau of Insurrection", Chris Wray and he is an
absolute disaster AND NEARLY AS BAD AS JAMES COMEY WHO MUST BE SUFFERING FROM DEMENTIA TOO AS
HE CANNOT SEEM TO REMEMBER ANYTHING WHILE UNDER OATH BEFORE A SENATE COMMITTEE.
And now we have this Gina Haspel running the CIA? ARE YOU F CKING KIDDING??
The first person to next get the ax in the Trump Administration is whoever it is that is
giving him these personnel choices, e.g., Rex Tillerson, James Matis, John Kelly, Kirsten
Nielson, Mark Esper, Mark Miley..........WHO IS PICKING THIS TRASH WHEN THE PRESIDENT NEEDS
REAL HELP PERFORMING A COLON FLUSH ON THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO GET THE GARBAGE OUT AND TO
UNDO THE DAMAGE DONE BY 8 YEARS OF BARACK O'DINGLEBARRY AND SLOW JOE BIDEN??
Citi The Real , 1 hour ago
Trumps entire cabinet is full of Goldman Sachs, Skull and Bones, CFR, Pentagon, CIA,
Career politicians... at what point do you realize he was never going to drain the swamp?
Both candidates are a joke and so is this website for becoming a Big R Republican
website.
DeeDeeTwo , 1 hour ago
This is all kabuki theater because Trump could have signed an Executive Order releasing
everything back to JFK 3 years ago instead of flapping his yap. Comey has a Hollywood movie
coming out this fall, As Biden said, "Shut up, man".
Alfred , 2 hours ago
The Director of the CIA is a cabinet position. If she doesn't want to take direction from POTUS, she should be fired.
Wild Bill Steamcock , 53 minutes ago
Yeah, there's a reason she's blocking it. If those papers are released, it'll lead to
someone high up the food chain facing a courtroom out of necessity because people will lose
their goddamed ****.
Once that happens, you'll by necessity have to go after six more. Then six more. Then
everyone in D.C., their families, friends, and pet dogs are gonna be locked up.
They protect themselves. "Obeyance of the law is for thee, not for me."
Wild Bill Steamcock , 41 minutes ago
No one is going to prison that deserves to over this. They'll crucify some desk monkey or
intern, pat each other on the back and brag about a job well done. We've seen it the last
four years, some low level schmuck changes the footer on some emails and the DOJ is all over
it like white on rice. Totally ignoring the fact there is a seditionist movement, maybe even
treasonous, happening at a systemic level throughout government. Four years is enough time to
build a case, lord knows any one with half a mind can find all the evidence needed in four
damned days.
The a-holes running the DOJ won't prosecute Comey, or Clinton, or Brennan or any other
name we know. Because they're doing dirty deeds themselves and don't want to set the
precedent in fear those who come after them might in turn prosecute them
radical-extremist , 1 hour ago
Be aware CIA people stick together like glue. They're more loyal to each other than they
are the US or any president. Once you're in the CLUB, you're in the CLUB for life. Trump was
absolutely right about not trusting "our intelligence agencies".
12Doberman , 1 hour ago
I hate the CIA...and it's been a power unto itself for a very long time. The idea that it
is under civilian oversight is a joke.
Max21c , 1 hour ago
the CIA...and it's been a power unto itself for a very long time. The idea that it is
under civilian oversight is a joke.
Quite true there is no oversight and the secret police community and intelligence
community are presently and have been for a long time above the law, above the Constitution,
above the very framework of government per above Congress & above the President and above
the Courts... and everybody just goes along with the pack of criminals in the security state
and accepts that they have the right to commit crimes, run criminal activities, and abuse
secret police powers... and nobody ever stands up to the Nazis and NeoNazis and these
radicals in the military secret police, military intelligence, Pentagon Gestapo, National
Security Council, FBI & CIA and the rest of the criminal underworld network inside and
around the organized criminal enterprises and organized criminal networks of the security
state...
12Doberman , 1 hour ago
That's right and the civilian government is largely just a facade.
ken , 1 hour ago
CIA wasn't W-A-S for preventing 9/11...or were they involved in it? Did the missing
trillions go to Israel, and that other country, as payment for services???
_arrow
protrumpusa , 2 hours ago
Someone asked in previous post - why do democrats hate Trump? Good question.
It can't be his policies - who except illegals don't want secure borders, who doesn't want a
strong private buisiness economy, who doesn't want manufacturing jobs to be brought back from
China.
Our democrat leaders, plus Romney all have a connection to Ukraine's stolen treasury money
and Soros's money too, and Trump doesn't . This I believe is the reason democrats hate
President Trump
protrumpusa , 2 hours ago
The Obama administration and the FBI knew that it was they who were meddling in a
presidential campaign - using executive intelligence powers to monitor the president's
political opposition. This, they also knew, would rightly be regarded as a scandalous abuse
of power if it ever became public. There was no rational or good-faith evidentiary basis to
believe that Trump was in a criminal conspiracy with the Kremlin or that he'd had any role in
Russian intelligence's suspected hacking of Democratic Party email accounts.
[snip]
In the stretch run of the 2016 campaign, President Obama authorized his administration's
investigative agencies to monitor his party's opponent in the presidential election, on the
pretext that Donald Trump was a clandestine agent of Russia. Realizing this was a gravely
serious allegation for which there was laughably insufficient predication, administration
officials kept Trump's name off the investigative files. That way, they could deny that they
were doing what they did. Then they did it . . . and denied it.
LEEPERMAX , 30 minutes ago
Gina Haspel worked directly for the instigator of the Crossfire Hurricane operation
– John Brennan. It would have been impossible for Haspel not to have known about the
British spying from London since it was reported in UK newspaper on a weekly basis.
She certainly was controlling Stefan
Halper , Josef
Mifsud ,
Stephan Roh , Alexander Downer, Andrew Wood, John McCain, Mark Warner, Adam Schiff and
the other conspirators.
Kan , 2 hours ago
The FBI and CIA are the enemy of the people. There is little doubt at this point that they
serve nobody but the bankers that formed the organization and themselves.
Gunston_Nutbush_Hall , 2 hours ago
How convenient.
CIA operative Trump nominates Haspel to be the CIA director, after CIA Operative Trump
picked CIA chief Mike Pompeo to replace Rex Tillerson as secretary of state, thereafter
Epstein is Trumpincided on CIA Operatives Barr Pompeo Trump's watch, while running smoke
cover for the CIA's Obama's False Flag National Government.
Shortly after taking office in 1999, Jesse Ventura writes he was asked to attend a meeting
at the state Capitol. He says 23 CIA agents were waiting for him in a basement conference
room.
The greatest False Flag ever? Brainwashing Americans to think Constitutional Federal
Government exists.
Kefeer , 17 minutes ago
The people who want to know and care to know the truth already know the truth. It is
suspect that Trump appoints people like Christopher Wray and Gina Haspel and I really do not
know what to make of it - is he part of the swamp or making bad decisions? I honestly do not
know, but my biblical lens filter tells me we are in trouble regardless of the outcomes
because so many of the institutions in government and industry are so corrupt.
Maltheus , 29 minutes ago
Trump is absolutely incompetent, when it comes to selecting people. He always has been.
Flynn was one of the few, who was halfway decent, and he got thrown to the wolves. Pretty
much everyone else, he's ever chosen, has knifed him in the back, and most of us saw it
coming a mile away.
Tuffmug , 13 minutes ago
The Swamp is deep and has had twenty + years to grow . Trump had to chose the ones who
stunk least from a slimy pool of corrupted officials and fight against every agency, each
filled with deep state snakes. I'm just surprised he is still breathing.
Kinskian , 29 seconds ago
So his incompetence begins and ends with "selecting people" and that gets no downvotes
from the 'tards. I understand why. You're still blaming other people for Trump's failures in
office instead of placing the blame squarely with HIM. He is incompetent in his role as
President, and that is his responsibility.
LEEPERMAX , 36 minutes ago
Gina Haspel would have known about the coup. If she has not reported all of this to the
President Trump, she is complicit in the overthrow attempt and is guilty of HIGH TREASON.
Wild Bill Steamcock , 49 minutes ago
Spooks run this world. And they certainly like power, and money. But do you want to know
what they like most of all?
Information.
Control of information drives everything else. And anyone who has even sniffed that world
knows to get quality information you can't buy it. Instead you have to trade information of
equal value.
We're not important enough to have the opportunity to know what they know. I don't know
about you, but I'm a little angry about that.
StealthBomber , 30 minutes ago
That is because they are un-accountable.
Wild Bill Steamcock , 30 minutes ago
and untouchable.
Take one out and the whole thing collapses.
insanelysane , 51 minutes ago
Don't think we need declassifications to know what happened. We know what
happened.
as I've stated many times, governments would be completely unstable if the government
legally proved that organizations within the government were involved is sedition. With the
IRS scandal the deflection was that a few rogue employees did some things even though the
entire IRS was involved in harassing far right and far left organizations.
The problem with Russiagate is that none of the rogue employees are willing to to go down
without taking everyone involved down. The IRS rogues got nice payouts and no prison
time.
radical-extremist , 1 hour ago
She doesn't want them released because obviously it implicates her in Strzok's Crossfire
Hurricane scheme. It also puts mud on the face of MI6, which is why Trump might be
hesitant.
October is young.
12Doberman , 1 hour ago
Haspel is also likely a figurehead in many respects. From what I've read about CIA over
the years those at the top have competing agendas and don't trust and share information with
each other. The idea that a president is sworn in ever 4-8 years and is brought up to speed
on everything they are doing is laughable...and likely impossible. No president fully
controls the CIA and it has it's own agenda that runs across and through
administrations...may as well call it the head of the deep state snake.
Felix da Kat , 2 hours ago
Haspel is a Brennan redux.
The deep state is much deeper than anyone dare thought.
If Trump cannot do unwind the DS,then all is lost.
If Biden gets in, he will only serve to further entrench DS operatives.
Looking bleak out there, folks.
1nd1v1s1ble1 , 3 hours ago
*sigh* As if anything is going to come of this...when has any high ranking politician EVER
been taken to task or incarcerated for their crimes? It's the same political theater brought
to you by the MSM/Jesuit/Jooish/Freemason cult who ritually perform their televised 'skits'
to the masses to make it appear as if justice exists or better yet, we have a Republic-
newsflash: it died a long, long time ago. The frightened mask-wearing, compliant sheeple lap
it up every f'n time-when do you awake and realize there is no bi-partisan political machine,
there is no blue versus red, just like their cronies in Hollyweird, these politicians are
simply actors who were too ugly to make it there, orange man aint gonna save ya, bumbling joe
aint gonna save ya, understand Stockholm Syndrome-survivors of 'merica....they DO NOT GIVE A
F#*K ABOUT YOU OR YOUR FAMILY and would prefer you were dead.
Even the POTUS cannot do anything in DC alone, no matter what he wants to do. He needs
people to cooperate or follow orders. It seems many or most of the people around him are deep
state spies. I think they are scared ****less of what Trump might try to declassify. I think
the CIA would destroy evidence before providing proof of a seditious coup. If you've
committed murder or treason, destroying evidence seems like jaywalking.
Now we know Haspel is personally involved and we probably know exactly why she is blocking
the release of this information.
Jack_Ewing , 17 minutes ago
Trump was supposed to drain the swamp but surrounded himself with the scariest of swamp
creatures, this Medusa-like entity being one of the most terrifying. Pompeo, Mnuchin, Wray,
Miller, Haspel, Kushner, and the chief of the all, the official cover-upper for the Deep
State for the last 40 years, William Barr.
donkey_shot , 45 minutes ago
surprise, surprise: one-time iraqi detainee torturer and current CIA chief gina haspel is
a nasty piece of work: geez, whodathunk?
The only reason I can think of for holding these documents is that the conspiracy is so
vast and intricate, it might destroy 80 plus percent of the government! If that's what it
comes down to, so be it! Blow the whole PHUCKING thing to kingdom come!
Philthy_Stacker , 45 minutes ago
An accurite assumption.
LOL123 , 1 hour ago
Gina Haspel doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.
"The most explosive revelation was that the dossier was
bought and paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee , a
fact that the Clinton campaign took pains to hide, that Clinton officials lied about, and
that Fusion GPS refused to reveal on its own. It wasn't an intelligence report at all. It was
a political hit job paid for by Trump's opponent."
Political issues " incorporated" into public stock holding corporations.
"Individual shareholders cannot generally sue over the deprivation of a corporation's
rights; only the board of directors has the standing to assert a corporation's constitutional
rights in court. [7]
-USA
Ever since Citizens United, the Supreme Court's 2010 decision allowing unlimited
corporate and union spending on political issues, Americans have been debating whether, as
Mitt Romney said, "Corporations are people, my friend."
The question came to the Supreme Court in a challenge to regulations implementing
President Obama's landmark health care law. Those regulations require employers with 50 or
more employees to provide those employees with comprehensive health insurance, which must
include certain forms of contraception. The contraception requirement was designed to protect
the rights of women. Studies show that access to
contraception has positive benefits for women's education, income, mental health, and family
stability.
since a political entity ( DNC and Hillary Campaign funded a public corporation which
is a " corporate personhood" and can be sued it is open to discovery in a court of
law.
the chickens have come home to roost....as Mitt Romney says....corporations are the
citizens "best friend".
R.G. , 1 hour ago
Citizens ARE corporaions.
4Y_LURKER , 1 hour ago
Finkel is Einhorn!
Einhorn is Finkel!
Totally_Disillusioned , 1 hour ago
If Sean Davis was able to unearth this, President Trump, Pompeo have known this for some
time and Ratcliffe certainly knows this. the question is "why is she allowed to block
disclosure?". None of the players are currently in service and would not be at risk if their
involvement was disclosed. What possibly is the excuse? Are they using the old excuse of not
revealing sources and methods?
All these people need a stern reminder the govt is owned by the people...they work for us.
So far we are the only people kept in the dark. Breakup the intel 17 agencies and re-engineer
down to two - one domestic and one international.
SirBarksAlot , 1 hour ago
It's always a national security issue when it's your responsibility to release the
documents that would incriminate you.
Gunston_Nutbush_Hall , 3 hours ago
Exactly why CIA Trump hand selected her. Exactly for the same reason CIA Trump hand
selected BARR.
TO PROVIDE CLEAN SMOKE N COVER FOR THEIR CIA NATIONAL GOVERNMENT.
Barr: CIA operative
It is a sobering fact that American presidents (many of whom have been corrupt) have gone
out of their way to hire fixers to be their attorney generals.
Consider recent history: Loretta Lynch (2015-2017), Eric Holder (2009-2015), Michael
Mukasey (2007-2009), Alberto Gonzales (2005-2007), John Ashcroft (2001-2005),Janet Reno
(1993-2001), **** Thornburgh (1988-1991), Ed Meese (1985-1988), etc.
Barr was a full-time CIA operative, recruited by Langley out of high school, starting
in 1971. Barr's youth career goal was to head the CIA.
CIA operative assigned to the China directorate, where he became close to powerful CIA
operative George H.W. Bush, whose accomplishments already included the CIA/Cuba Bay of
Pigs, Asia CIA operations (Vietnam War, Golden Triangle narcotics), Nixon foreign policy
(Henry Kissinger), and the Watergate operation.
When George H.W. Bush became CIA Director in 1976, Barr joined the CIA's "legal office"
and Bush's inner circle, and worked alongside Bush's longtime CIA enforcers Theodore "Ted"
Shackley, Felix Rodriguez, Thomas Clines, and others, several of whom were likely involved
with the Bay of Pigs/John F. Kennedy assassination, and numerous southeast Asian
operations, from the Phoenix Program to Golden Triangle narco-trafficking.
Barr stonewalled and destroyed the Church Committee investigations into CIA
abuses.
Barr stonewalled and stopped inquiries in the CIA bombing assassination of Chilean
opposition leader Orlando Letelier.
Barr joined George H.W. Bush's legal/intelligence team during Bush's vice presidency
(under President Ronald Reagan) Rose from assistant attorney general to Chief Legal Counsel
to attorney general (1991) during the Bush 41 presidency.
Barr was a key player in the Iran-Contra operation, if not the most important member of
the apparatus, simultaneously managing the operation while also "fixing" the legal end,
ensuring that all of the operatives could do their jobs without fear of exposure or
arrest.
In his attorney general confirmation, Barr vowed to "attack criminal organizations",
drug smugglers and money launderers. It was all hot air: as AG, Barr would preserve,
protect, cover up, and nurture the apparatus that he helped create, and use Justice
Department power to escape punishment.
Barr stonewalled and stopped investigations into all Bush/Clinton and CIA crimes,
including BCCI and BNL CIA drug banking, the theft of Inslaw/PROMIS software, and all
crimes of state committed by Bush
Barr provided legal cover for Bush's illegal foreign policy and war crimes
Barr left Washington, and went through the "rotating door" to the corporate world,
where he took on numerous directorships and counsel positions for major companies. In 2007
and again from 2017, Barr was counsel for politically-connected international law firm
Kirkland &
Ellis . Among its other notable attorneys and alumni are Kenneth Starr, John Bolton,
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and numerous Trump administration attorneys.
K&E's clients include sex trafficker/pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and Mitt Romney's Bain
Capital.
A strong case can be made that William Barr was as powerful and important a figure in the
Bush apparatus as any other, besides Poppy Bush himself.
...Shortly after taking office in 1999, Jesse Ventura writes he was asked to attend a
meeting at the state Capitol. He says 23 CIA agents were waiting for him in a basement
conference room.
Bobby Farrell Can Dance , 3 hours ago
The Navalny "incident" is the latest pathetic CIA and British MI6 operation and the
Belarus incitement. Sloppy, unoriginal and going to backfire in their stupid faces.
Everybody knows the evil empire wants Nordstream II dead, Navalny is the latest lever and
that woman they recognized as leader of Belarus is as laughable as that Guaido goon they
recognized in Venezuela, but he's actually outside of Venezuela - yeah that's how popular he
is. Western intelligence agenices are hacks, they are past their peak.
John Hansen , 3 hours ago
The real stupid thing is the West will succeed.
Spinifex , 20 minutes ago
Christopher Steele is THE GUY who 'doctored all this up'. Why has he not been bought
before congress and asked questions?
Sergi Scripal worked for Christopher Steele. Sergi Scripal earned tens of thousands of
pounds 'providing information' to Christopher Steele. Why is he 'not being asked questions?
He's not 'dead'. Sergi Scripal is 'alive and well' and 'being hidden' by the U.K. Government
'for his own safty.' The U.K. can provide 'access to Sergi Scripal.
Pablo Miller worked for Christopher Steele. Pablo Miller was Sergi Scripals 'handler' with
MI6. Pablo Miller was also the 'last person to talk to Sergi Scripal' before Sergi Scripal
'surccumed to Novichok poison.' Why is Pablo Miller (aka: Antonio Alvarez de Hidalgo -
https://gosint.wordpress.com/2019/02/02/who-is-mi6-officer-pablo-miller/
All three worked for Orbis Business Intelligence the company that wrote the 'Steele
Dossier' that Gina Haspel had access to and 'approved' sending onto the FBI and CIA. All
three, Christopher Steele, Sergi Scripal and Pablo Miller are 'alive and well' and all three
are able to provide information about the Steele Dossier, what was in the Steele Dossier, and
WHERE the information in the Steele Dossier came from. Ask the questions dammit, and you'll
get the answers.
headless blogger , 58 minutes ago
Not a fan of Trump, although I voted for him the first time, but he will be in serious
trouble if Biden gets into office as there are too many vengeful people on that side of the
isle. They attempted a coup d'etat which is the worse treason, where most of these people
would be executed in "normal" times.
So, they HAVE TO win at all costs, in their thinking. They will then turn the tables on
Trump as well as the entire Conservative camp. It looks like an ugly future if they win. If
Trump wins, it will be ugly too.
Sure signs to get the hell out now if you can.
The Technocracy crowd is behind all of this, btw. They are waiting for the full collapse
at which time we will be inundated with Tech Billionaires coming forward to "save us".
BEWARE!!
4 play_arrow 1
1nd1v1s1ble1 , 1 hour ago
*sigh* As if anything is going to come of this...when has any high ranking politician EVER
been taken to task or incarcerated for their crimes? It's the same political theater brought
to you by the MSM/Jesuit/Jooish/Freemason Satanic cult who ritually perform their televised
'skits' to the masses to make it appear as if justice exists or better yet, we have a
Republic- newsflash: it died a long, long time ago. The frightened mask-wearing, compliant
sheeple lap it up every f'n time-when do you awake and realize there is no bi-partisan
political machine? There is no blue versus red, just like their cronies in Hollyweird, these
colluding politicians are simply actors who were too ugly to make it there, orange man aint
gonna save ya, bumbling joe aint gonna save ya, understand Stockholm Syndrome-survivors of
'merica....they DO NOT GIVE A F#*K ABOUT YOU OR YOUR FAMILY and would actually prefer you
were dead.
Better/cheaper than sending US military to fight in another useless war.
headless blogger , 1 hour ago
Gina Haspel was selected by Trump!! When you take into consideration Trump's selections of
Haspel, Bolton, and many others, it becomes obvious there is someone in his admin that is
directing him to bring these people on. He brings them on and then they betray him.
5onIt , 1 hour ago
Pence is the dude you are looking for.
Haspel was the CIA Station Chief in London, when this was all going down.
Be sure, she has chit to hide.
LEEPERMAX , 1 hour ago
John Brennan led the coup this side of the Atlantic, while Gina Haspel , who was in the
CIA London office at the time, worked the coup from London as the CIA chief in cooperation
with GCHQ and Robert Hannigan. Both are creepy, corrupt traitors of America.
The current head of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gina Haspel, oversaw one such site
where torture was carried out. ... Abu Zubaydah, Courtesy Professor Mark P. Denbeaux, Seton
Hall University ...
y_arrow
Mister Delicious , 2 hours ago
She was Brennan's London pet.
She should be fired and escorted from the building, and then DOJ NSD should open an
investigation into her contacts with Brennan.
Think there might be a Demstate coup attempt?
Well, don't you imagine any friend of John Brennan's is not a friend of Trump.
I don't care how much you love Orange Jesus - he has picked absolutely terrible people
over and over and over.
Good DNI now but he needs to take charge.
richsob , 3 hours ago
Orange Fat Boy is getting played like a violin. You and I both know it. Does he? Probably
because you can see it on his face but he's just not willing to do what it would take to get
everything out into the open. And if he tries to expose everything after he's lost the
election nobody will listen to him......even you and I. It will be too late then.
We would think that the New York Slimes would know something about losses. After all, they
paid $1.1 Billion in 1993 for The Boston Globe and in 2013, sold it for $70 Million to
businessman John Henry, the principal owner of the Boston Red Sox, and a massive 93%
loss.
But it's worse than that because included in that sale is BostonGlobe.com ; Boston.com ; the direct-mail marketing company Globe Direct; the
company's 49 percent interest in Metro Boston, a free daily paper; Telegram.com and The Worcester Telegram & Gazette. The Times
bought the Telegram & Gazette for $295 million in 1999.
We should be convinced to pay any attention to Fake News Tabloid, The New York Slimes,
given that kind of Business Acumen? I don't think so.
rwe2late , 3 hours ago
Hope & Change, Drain the swamp, End the wars
Angelic Obama allegedly prevented from saving us by "deep state" Republicans.
Angelic Trump allegedly prevented from saving us by "deep state" Democrats.
Poor us, our chosen leaders and parties are always so blameless in failing us.
protrumpusa , 4 hours ago
President Trump has gotten rid just about everyone in this article I found 3 years ago
> The ATLANTIC COUNCIL is funded by BURISMA, GEORGE SOROS OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATION &
others. It was a CENTRIST, MILITARISTIC think tanks,now turned leftist group
> JOE BIDEN extorted Ukraine to FIRE the prosecutor investigating BURISMA, HUNTER's
employer.
> LTC VINDMAN & FIONA HILL met MANY TIMES with DANIEL FRIED of the ATLANTIC
COUNCIL. FIONA HILL is a former CoWorker of CHRISTOPHER STEELE !
> AMBASSADOR YOVANOVITCH is connected to the ATLANTIC COUNCIL, is PRAISED in their
documents, gave Ukraine a "do not prosecute" list, was involved in PRESSURING Ukraine to not
prosecute GEORGE SOROS Group.
> BILL TAYLOR has a financial relationship with the ATLANTIC COUNCIL and the US UKRAINE
BUSINESS COUNCIL (USUBC) which is also funded by BURISMA.
> TAYLOR met with THOMAS EAGER (works for ADAM SCHIFF) in Ukraine on trip PAID FOR by
the ATLANTIC COUNCIL. This just days before TAYLOR first texts about the "FAKE" Quid Pro Quo
!
> TAYLOR participated in USUBC Events with DAVID J. KRAMER (JOHN MCCAIN advisor) who
spread the STEELE DOSSIER to the media and OBAMA officials.
> JOE BIDEN is connected to the ATLANTIC COUNCIL, he rolled out his foreign policy
vision while VP there, He has given speeches there, his adviser on Ukraine, MICHAEL CARPENTER
(heads the Penn Biden Center) is a FELLOW at the ATLANTIC COUNCIL.
> KURT VOLKER is now Senior Advisor to the ATLANTIC COUNCIL, he met with burisma
During a 33-year career at the Central Intelligence Agency, I served presidents of both parties -- three Republicans and three
Democrats. I was at President George W. Bush's side when we were attacked on Sept. 11; as deputy director of the agency, I was with
President Obama when we killed Osama bin Laden in 2011.
I am neither a registered Democrat nor a registered Republican. In my 40 years of voting, I have pulled the lever for candidates
of both parties. As a government official, I have always been silent about my preference for president.
No longer. On Nov. 8, I will vote for Hillary Clinton. Between now and then, I will do everything I can to ensure that she is
elected as our 45th president.
Two strongly held beliefs have brought me to this decision. First, Mrs. Clinton is highly qualified to be commander in chief.
I trust she will deliver on the most important duty of a president -- keeping our nation safe. Second, Donald J. Trump is not only
unqualified for the job, but he may well pose a threat to our national security.
I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In
these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her
mind if presented with a compelling argument.
I also saw the secretary's commitment to our nation's security; her belief that America is an exceptional nation that must lead
in the world for the country to remain secure and prosperous; her understanding that diplomacy can be effective only if the country
is perceived as willing and able to use force if necessary; and, most important, her capacity to make the most difficult decision
of all -- whether to put young American women and men in harm's way.
Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important
colleagues on the National Security Council. During the early debates about how we should respond to the Syrian civil war, she was
a strong proponent of a more aggressive approach, one that might have prevented the Islamic State from gaining a foothold in Syria.
I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid
by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, "Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner."
In sharp contrast to Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Trump has no experience on national security. Even more important, the character traits
he has exhibited during the primary season suggest he would be a poor, even dangerous, commander in chief.
These traits include his obvious need for self-aggrandizement, his overreaction to perceived slights, his tendency to make decisions
based on intuition, his refusal to change his views based on new information, his routine carelessness with the facts, his unwillingness
to listen to others and his lack of respect for the rule of law.
The dangers that flow from Mr. Trump's character are not just risks that would emerge if he became president. It is already damaging
our national security.
President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia was a career intelligence officer, trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual
and to exploit them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities by complimenting
him. He responded just as Mr. Putin had calculated.
Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded
two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American,
interests -- endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia's annexation of Crimea and giving a green light
to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.
In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.
Mr. Trump has also undermined security with his call for barring Muslims from entering the country. This position, which so clearly
contradicts the foundational values of our nation, plays into the hands of the jihadist narrative that our fight against terrorism
is a war between religions.
In fact, many Muslim Americans play critical roles in protecting our country, including the man, whom I cannot identify, who ran
the C.I.A.'s Counterterrorism Center for nearly a decade and who I believe is most responsible for keeping America safe since the
Sept. 11 attacks.
My training as an intelligence officer taught me to call it as I see it. This is what I did for the C.I.A. This is what I am doing
now. Our nation will be much safer with Hillary Clinton as president.
Michael J. Morell was the acting director and deputy director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 2010 to 2013.
"... In the infamous Steele dossier , prepared for the Clinton campaign by a 'former' British spy, the first entry that is tying the Trump campaign to the 'Russian DNC hack' was allegedly written on July 28 2016. ..."
"... The president of Crowdstrike, the cybersecurity company which investigated the DNC leak, later said that his company never found any proof that Russia had hacked the DNC. ..."
"... The claims made in the Ratcliffe letter fit the timeline of the scandal as it developed. They supports the assertion that the Clinton campaign made up 'Russiagate' from whole cloth. It was supported in that by a myriad of media and by dozens of high level anti-Trump activists in the FBI and CIA. ..."
"... "There was no transition because they came after me trying to do a coup. They came after me spying on my campaign. They started from the day I won and even before I won. From the day I came down the escalator with our First Lady. They were a disaster. They were a disgrace to our country. And we've caught 'em. We've caught 'em all. We've got it all on tape. We've caught 'em all." ..."
"... The need to then cover for murder added to the urgency to propagate the whole "Russiagate" fiction. The US' misnamed "intelligence community" and mass media both were complicit in the murder of Rich, so they had additional motivation to lead the public off the scent with an entirely fabricated false narrative. ..."
"... I doubt that it was solely a Clinton operation. After all, CIA director Mike Morrell kicked it off with his piece in the NY Times, which signaled some significant level of support at least parts of the intelligence community. ..."
"... The whole Russiagate affaire was very reminiscent of the Ken Starr inquisition, which yielded nothing until Bubba cavalierly incriminated himself with Monica. Trump has yet to prove himself that stupid. ..."
"... Remember when Tulsi Gabbard called out Hillary Clinton about getting the media to support her Russiagating of her? ..."
"... "Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption, and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why. Now we know -- it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It's now clear that this primary is between you and me. Don't cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly." ..."
"... Seriously, Mr. President? You have been given a personal intelligence briefing from your CIA Director that one of the candidates to succeed you in the Presidency is an actual, bought and paid-for agent of Russia? And you don't go public because Ole Meanie Mitch won't let you ? ..."
"... This said to me that Obama knew it was all BS from the beginning. Of course, there have been gobs of disclosures and evidence since that it was fake and BS, and none whatsoever that it was real. ..."
"... Thanks to Wikileaks, we have a copy of an email exchange between Hillary's Campaign Manager, John Podesta and longtime Democratic operative Brent Budowsky talking about how Hillary should take on The Donald. Budowski tells Podesta: "Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting on Putin re Syria."" ..."
"... The Russiagate fabrication was a political convenience for the Dems, but it allowed Trump and his NATO/EU agents to sanction, pressurise, interfere with Russia in every dimension, because Trump 'had to' to show they he was not Russia's sock puppets! ..."
"... The video I just watched and linked to on the Week in Review thread makes this observation: The Ds burned the US-Russia relationship while the Rs made no real protest; now we have the Rs burning the US-China relationship while the Ds make no real protest. ..."
"... Assange announced on June 12, 2016 that a new tranche of DNC emails had been leaked to Wikileaks and was being prepared for publication. The effort to manufacture the false narrative about Russian hacking began immediately after that, likely within minutes of the announcement. ..."
"... A "populist outsider" will NEVER be allowed to win the Presidency. It was claimed that Obama was also a "populist outsider" yet he served the Deep State/Empire and the US establishment very well. ..."
"... Russiagate was primarily a means of initiating a new McCarthyism as part of a plan to counter Russia and China. ..."
Where the allegations that Russia intervened in the 2016 presidential elections made up by
the Clinton campaign?
A letter sent by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe seems
to suggest so :
On Tuesday, Ratcliffe, a loyalist whom Trump placed atop U.S. intelligence in the spring,
sent Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) a letter claiming that in late July 2016, U.S. intelligence
acquired "insight" into a Russian intelligence analysis. That analysis, Ratcliffe summarized
in his letter, claimed that Clinton had a plan to attack Trump by tying him to the 2016 hack
of the Democratic National Committee.
...
Ratcliffe stated that the intelligence community "does not know the accuracy of this
allegation or to the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect
exaggeration or fabrication."
The letter says that then CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama on the
intelligence. He reported that the Russians believed that Clinton approved the campaign plan on
July 26 2016.
So U.S. intelligence spying on Russian intelligence analysts found that the Russians
believed that Clinton started a 'Trump is supported by the Russian hacking of the DNC'
campaign. The Russian's surely had reason to think that.
Emails from the Democratic National Committee were published by Wikileaks on July 22
2016, shortly before the Democratic National Convention. They proved that during the primaries
the DNC had actively worked against candidate Bernie Sanders.
On July 24 Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook went on CNN and made, to my knowledge,
the very first
allegations (video) that Russia had 'hacked' the DNC in support of Donald Trump.
It is likely that the Russian analysts had seen that.
Mook's TV appearance was probably a test balloon raised to see if such claims would
stick.
Two days later Clinton allegedly approved campaign plans to emphasize such claims.
In the infamous Steele
dossier , prepared for the Clinton campaign by a 'former' British spy, the first entry that
is tying the Trump campaign to the 'Russian DNC hack' was allegedly written on July 28
2016.
The president of Crowdstrike, the cybersecurity company which investigated the DNC leak,
later said that his company
never found any proof that Russia had hacked the DNC.
There are suspicions that Seth Rich, an IT administrator for the DNC and Bernie Sanders
supporter, has leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks . Rich was murdered on July 10 2016 in
Washington DC in an alleged 'robbery' during which nothing was stolen.
The claims made in the Ratcliffe letter fit the timeline of the scandal as it developed.
They supports the assertion that the Clinton campaign made up 'Russiagate' from whole cloth. It
was supported in that by a myriad of media and by dozens of high level anti-Trump activists in
the FBI and CIA.
Posted by b on September 30, 2020 at 16:04 UTC |
Permalink
Are you trying to tell me b that "We came, we saw, he died" Clinton is suspected of
wrongdoing?/snark
I am all for bringing down the whole house of corrupt cards that fronts for the private
finance cult. The Clintons are just examples of semi-recent to recent corruption. Obama is in
that boat as is Biden and others.
But just remember that Trump was already entirely corrupt before (s)elected into power.
Trump is just another front for global private finance evil that humanity must face.
Another "conspiracy theory" turned into conspiracy fact.
With regards to Killary being "supported in that by a myriad of media and by dozens of
anti-Trump activists...", well, it's a pay-to-play world and CGI was the
piggybank at that particular time...
thanks b... the timeline certainly fits and is consistent here.... larry johnson at sst has
an article up on the same topic... how much of this is coming out now due the election and
how much of it is coming out now, just because it happens to be coming out now??
It's hard to tell when Trump is ever being truthful, but in last night's debate he clearly
stated:
"There was no transition because they came after me trying to do a coup. They came after
me spying on my campaign. They started from the day I won and even before I won. From the day
I came down the escalator with our First Lady. They were a disaster. They were a disgrace to
our country. And we've caught 'em. We've caught 'em all. We've got it all on tape. We've
caught 'em all."
Whether that is indicative of an imminent substantial October surprise i guess we will all
have to wait and see.
The murder/robbery of Seth Rich has frequently been described as "botched" , which I
have always felt was a strange way to describe a murder. It is as if the mass media were
trying to exculpate the murderer even though we are supposed to not know who the murderer
actually is.
So nothing was taken from Rich, but perhaps that is because the murderer couldn't find
what he was looking for? The USB thumb drive with the purloined emails, maybe? Of course, by
the time Rich was murdered the emails had already been passed along to Wikileaks, but I
suppose the murderer might not have known that at the time. That would make an effort to
retrieve the emails "botched" , wouldn't it? This suggested to me from the moment that
I heard it that those in the mass media who seeded the story of a robbery being
"botched" in fact were knowingly covering for the effort to control the leak which was
what was "botched" .
The need to then cover for murder added to the urgency to propagate the whole
"Russiagate" fiction. The US' misnamed "intelligence community" and mass media
both were complicit in the murder of Rich, so they had additional motivation to lead the
public off the scent with an entirely fabricated false narrative.
With no evidence at all my suspicion is that Rich was killed as a crime of passion committed
by a hotheaded member of his own family, which would explain both the family's reticence and
the somewhat muted investigation.
There are suspicions that Seth Rich, an IT administrator for the DNC and Bernie Sanders
supporter, has leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks. Rich was murdered on July 10 2016 in
Washington DC in an alleged 'robbery' during which nothing was stolen.
That explains why Bernie Sanders suddenly became the "sheep dog". He flat out doesn't want
to be assassinated and doesn't want his family to be also assassinated.
While it would be a boon for the nation, I rather doubt Trump will have Barr indict the
Clintons for their crimes or go after the daily fraud committed at the Fed or on Wall Street.
I doubt Trump has any inkling that in order to truly make America Great Again he must first
destroy the Financial Parasites who caused America's downfall in the first place. Thirty-four
days to go.
Assange repeatedly stated russia didn't leak the emails. i saw no compelling reason to think
he would lie about it. then when the steel dossier came out it was so over the top and reeked
of fabrication. the whole thing was so far fetched and then ratcheted up 1000 fold after she
lost the election as an excuse. she never took any responsibility for her loss.
i think what amazes me most is how the media, and everyone following along, believed this
story that drove the narrative for years. this ridiculous obsession with russia was all part
of a coverup to distract the public from how rotten to the core the dnc is.
The mention of Seth Rich in connection with Russiagate prompted a hazy recollection of an
article over at SST by Larry C Johnson (LCJ), who has been exposing flaws in the Russiagate
fiasco for several years. LCJ deduced from the publicly-available Wikileaks/DNC files that
they couldn't have been hacked over the WWW because the timestamp for each file indicated
that those files came from a portable device, a thumb drive. From that info, and Assange
being very upset about the murder of Seth Rich, LCJ concluded that Rich sent the DNC files to
Wikileaks.
I looked up SST's "Russiagate" files and found the relevant article dated August 28, 2019
from which the following brief extract is the section mentioning file-types which LCJ found
so compelling...
... An examination of the Wikileaks DNC files shows they were created on 23 and 25 May and 26
August respectively. The fact that they appear in a FAT system format indicates the data was
transfered to a storage device, such as a thumb drive.
How can you prove this? The truth lies in the "last modified" time stamps on the
Wikileaks files. Every single one of these time stamps end in even numbers. If you are not
familiar with the FAT file system, you need to understand that when a date is stored under
this system the data rounds the time to the nearest even numbered second.
Bill examined 500 DNC email files stored on Wikileaks and found that all 500 files
ended in an even number -- 2, 4, 6, 8 or 0. If a system other than FAT had been used, there
would have been an equal probability of the time stamp ending with an odd number. But that is
not the case with the data stored on the Wikileaks site. All end with an even number.
...
I doubt that it was solely a Clinton operation. After all, CIA director Mike Morrell kicked
it off with his piece in the NY Times, which signaled some significant level of support at
least parts of the intelligence community.
The whole Russiagate affaire was very reminiscent of the Ken Starr inquisition, which
yielded nothing until Bubba cavalierly incriminated himself with Monica. Trump has yet to
prove himself that stupid.
I suspect that Hillary was delighted at the prospect of revenge for all she and Bubba had
gone through in the 1990s...except that she totally blew it...
Remember when Tulsi Gabbard called out Hillary Clinton about getting the media to support her
Russiagating of her? Here it is, you can see she blames Hillary as the source of the story:
"Great! Thank you @HillaryClinton You, the queen of warmongers, embodiment of corruption,
and personification of the rot that has sickened the Democratic Party for so long, have
finally come out from behind the curtain. From the day I announced my candidacy, there has
been a concerted campaign to destroy my reputation. We wondered who was behind it and why.
Now we know -- it was always you, through your proxies and powerful allies in the corporate
media and war machine, afraid of the threat I pose. It's now clear that this primary is
between you and me. Don't cowardly hide behind your proxies. Join the race directly."
The Ballad of Tulsi and Hillary shows us how much the US and the world lost by the media
supporting Hillary in her plan to Russiagate the world.
The letter says that then CIA Director John Brennan briefed President Obama on the
intelligence. He reported that the Russians believed that Clinton approved the campaign plan
on July 26 2016.
I was one of those who thought that the whole Russia conspiracy was dubious from day one,
although I might have been kind of, "Well, maybe " for a day or so.
But that line from your post I quoted above points to one of the earliest and most
convincing pieces of evidence to me that the whole thing was fake. It was reported early on
that Obama had been briefed on the Russian interference and he wanted to go public to the
American people about what was going on, but Senator Mitch McConnell wouldn't agree to
it!
Seriously, Mr. President? You have been given a personal intelligence briefing from your
CIA Director that one of the candidates to succeed you in the Presidency is an actual, bought
and paid-for agent of Russia? And you don't go public because Ole Meanie Mitch won't let
you ?
This said to me that Obama knew it was all BS from the beginning. Of course, there have
been gobs of disclosures and evidence since that it was fake and BS, and none whatsoever that
it was real.
Even with all the revelations debunking the whole Russiagate narrative, the Deep State has
been successful in instilling in the news media, Hollywood, political elites of both parties,
and the overwhelming base of the democratic party that Russia somehow "installed" Trump, that
he is a Putin "puppet/puppy" (your choice), and any resistance to establishment democratic
party power is due to Russian manipulation of social media, and in general Russia (etc.) is
fundamental to causing social and political problems. It took America about seven years to
get over McCarthyism. Russiagate will stay in American discourse for a long time.
The dangerous part of Russiagate is that it has reached the level of hysteria that it can
be used by American Deep State to justify direct and dangerous confrontations with Russia up
to and including war. Russiagate pales the propaganda about Saddam and WNDs. Let us remember
that two days into the US invasion of Iraq, the invasion had a 72% approval rating according
to Gallup. Any conflict with Russia will probably have even higher approval levels.
Between Trump and Biden, it is Biden who will be the most likely to start the final
conflagration.
@hoarsewhisperer I trust that the time stamps indicates that a FAT format was used at a
certain stage. What I don't recall is that how this would exclude workflows which involve an
USB stick at any later stage after a hack. I think this technical proof is not as decisive as
it seems and calculating huge statistical odds does not change that. The fact that the NSA
has not come up with proof, now that does mean something. Something Baskervillish.
Found it interesting that in the very mainstream 'Friends' sitcom it was already a joke in
the 90s that "gi joe looks after american foreign oil interests".
Except for a few conflict sitreps there really hasn't been much of note posted here this
year.
Former NSA Technical Director Bill Binney has also argued that the data could not have been
hacked because internet speeds at the time were not sufficient for the transfer of the data
when it was extracted. He claims that the speed was consistent with saving to a thumb drive.
The word "botched" could have been invented to explain why nothing was stolen, in order to
put off those who questioned the motive.
No witness came forward but it could be that someone saw the shooting from a distance and
yelled at the perp.
"Ratcliffe's letter, which is based on information obtained by the CIA, states that Hillary
decided on 26 July 2016 to launch the Russia/Trump strategem. But the CIA was mistaken. The
Clinton effort started in 2015--December 2015 to be precise.
Thanks to Wikileaks, we have a copy of an email exchange between Hillary's Campaign
Manager, John Podesta and longtime Democratic operative Brent Budowsky talking about how
Hillary should take on The Donald. Budowski tells Podesta:
"Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin, but not go too far betting
on Putin re Syria.""
Larry Johnson wrote today in his article "I Told You Long Ago, Hillary's Team Helped
Fabricate the Trump Russia Collusion Lie by Larry C Johnson"
If I remember correctly Obummer signed legislation making it ok for the press to openly lie
to everyone in the us! HR4310, legalized propaganda for US consumption. He gave us fake news!
The constant stream of US, UK, NATO, EU fabrications framing Russia, from MH17, Skripal,
'interfering in elections' garbage, the Navalry poisoning, coupled with endless provocations
like interfering in the Syrian settlement, twisting the OPCW work, attempting to destroy the
Iran nuclear agreement and so much more appear to -finally - running out Russia's strategic
patience with the Trump administration.
1. 24 September Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov:
"...the incumbent US administration has lost its diplomatic skills almost for good."
"we have come to realise that in terms of Germany and its EU and NATO allies' conduct, ...it
is impossible to deal with the West until it stops using provocations and fraud and starts
behaving honestly and responsibly."
The Russiagate fabrication was a political convenience for the Dems, but it allowed Trump
and his NATO/EU agents to sanction, pressurise, interfere with Russia in every dimension,
because Trump 'had to' to show they he was not Russia's sock puppets!
Looks like Russia might be shifting strategy from strictly going through the defined and
agreed processes in relation to problems with the West to perhaps not engaging so
meticulously.
After all, what's the point when the agreed processes are ignored by the other party?
So, does "impossible to deal with" mean "will not deal with"?
The video I just watched and linked to on the Week in Review thread makes this observation:
The Ds burned the US-Russia relationship while the Rs made no real protest; now we have the
Rs burning the US-China relationship while the Ds make no real protest.
Many other nations
are watching, some already having joined the China-Russia bloc while others get ready as they
watch what little remains of US soft power go down the tubes thanks to Imperial tactics being
deployed onto US streets. Meanwhile, lurking not too far away is the coming escalation of the
financial crisis which Trump's Trade War has exacerbated. Those running this show are myopic
to the max--in order to post an economic recovery, the markets existing in those nations now
being alienated will be essential since the domestic market will be far too weak to fuel a
recovery by itself, even with enlightened leadership.
"On July 24 Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook went on CNN and made, to my knowledge, the
very first allegations (video) that Russia had 'hacked' the DNC in support of Donald
Trump."
It is not the case that it was the first such allegation. To my knowledge, the first such
allegation that was published was published on 14 June 2016 in the Washington Post,
headlining "Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump"
and I provide here an archived link to it instead of that newspaper's link, so that no
paywall will block a reader from seeing that article: https://archive.is/T4C2G
powerandpeople @28: "So, does "impossible to deal with" mean "will not deal with"?"
Highly unlikely. The Russians will continue to pursue reason even after the war on Russia
goes hot. If the Russians give up on diplomacy then that means Lavrov is out of a job. The
Russians are capable of walking and chewing gum, or shooting and talking as the case may be,
at the same time.
By the way, I think the same is true for the Chinese, even if they have not done much
shooting lately. When America's war against them goes hot they will keep the door to
diplomacy open throughout the conflict. Neither of these countries wants a war and it is the
US that is pushing for one. They will be happy to stop the killing as soon as the US does.
Personally I think that may be a mistake because when the war goes hot and the US suffers
some military defeats and sues for peace, if America still has the capability to wage war
then the peace will just be temporary. The US will use any cessation of hostilities to rearm
and try to catch its imagined enemies off guard.
Whether or not the US will be able to rearm after significant military defeats in its
current de-industrialized condition is another matter.
How can the US possibly contemplate a war with China? The US cannot function without China's
production. To cite just one example; eighty percent of US pharmaceuticals are produced in
China. The US needs China far more than China needs the US. A war with China is a war the US
cannot win.
Assange announced on June 12, 2016 that a new tranche of DNC emails had been leaked to
Wikileaks and was being prepared for publication. The effort to manufacture the false
narrative about Russian hacking began immediately after that, likely within minutes of
the announcement.
We already knew that Hillary had engaged Steele in Spring 2016 as what was termed an
"insurance policy". This "insurance" angle makes no sense: 1) Hillary was the overwhelming
favorite when she engaged Steele and had virtually unlimited resources that she could call
upon. And, 2) the bogus findings in Steele's dossier could easily be debunked by any
competent intelligence agency so it wasn't any sort of "insurance" at all.
<> <> <> <> <>
That Hillary started Russiagate is not surprising. This limited hangout, which is
so titillating to some, is meant to cover for a far greater conspiracy than Hillary's
vindictiveness.
We should first recognize a few things:
the Empire is a bi-partisan affair;
the Presidency is the lynch-pin of the Empire;
it became apparent in 2013-14 that the Empire (aka "World Order") was at grave risk as
Russia's newfound militancy showed that her alliance with China had teeth.
the 2016 race was KNOWN to be rigged via Hillary's collusion with DNC and Sanders'
sheepdogging (Note: After the collusion became know, Hillary gave disgraced Debra
Wasserman-Shultz a high-level position within Hillary's campaign - further angering
progressives). Why does it surprise anyone that the General Election was also rigged?
These facts lead to the following conclusions:
A "populist outsider" will NEVER be allowed to win the Presidency. It was claimed that
Obama was also a "populist outsider" yet he served the Deep State/Empire and the US
establishment very well.
Hillary's 2016 "campaign mistakes" were likely deliberate/calculated to allow Trump to
win. MAGA Nationalist Trump was the Deep State's favorite. This explains why Trump
announced that he would not investigate the Clintons within days of his being elected and
why Trump picked close associates of all his 'Never Trump' Deep State enemies to fill key
posts in his Administration such as: John Brennan's gal Gina Haspel for CIA Director; John
McCain's guy Mike Pence as VP; the Bush's guy William Barr for Attorney General; and the
neocon's John Bolton for NSA.
Russiagate was primarily a means of initiating a new McCarthyism as part of a plan to
counter Russia and China.
David @32: "How can the US possibly contemplate a war with China?"
Sadly, the United States is suffering from delusions of exceptionality. Mass psychosis.
The importance of industrial capacity is radically underestimated by the top economic
theorists (and thus advisors) in the West, and except for some of the deplorable working
people in America and perhaps about five or six Marxists in the country, the rest of the
American population is equally delusional. "Well, if we can't get it from China then we
will just order it from Amazon!
I hope you are sitting down and prepared to go into shock. Breaking news--""In late July
2016, US intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging
that US Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a
scandal against US Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians'
hacking of the DNC." If you are not a regular reader of SST, yes, you will be shocked. But for
you old timers, you already knew this.
Yes. I am taking another well earned victory lap. I was the first to write about this. You
can find my piece here (
published on 6 May 2019 ). Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe gave Senator
Lindsey Graham a letter today detailing recently declassified intelligence outlining the
Clinton Campaign's effort to manufacture a collusion narrative featuring Donald Trump and
Vladimir Putin. Here's the letter:
Ratcliffe's letter, which is based on information obtained by the CIA, states that Hillary
decided on 26 July 2016 to launch the Russia/Trump strategem. But the CIA was mistaken. The
Clinton effort started in 2015--December 2015 to be precise. Thanks to Wikileaks, we have a
copy of an email exchange between Hillary's Campaign Manager, John Podesta and longtime
Democratic operative Brent Budowsky talking about how Hillary should take on The Donald.
Budowski tells Podesta:
" Best approach is to slaughter Donald for his bromance with Putin , but not go too far
betting on Putin re Syria ."
This was more then opposition research by Hillary's campaign. It entailed an extensive
weaponization of U.S. and foreign law enforcement and intelligence assets that set out to
identify and target members of Trump's campaign who could be used to feed the Russian collusion
meme. Hillary, for example, had a powerful and dangerous ally in a London firm comprised of
former MI6 assets–
Hakluyt:
there was a second, even more powerful and mysterious opposition research and intelligence
firm lurking about with significant political and financial links to former Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton and her 2016 campaign for president against Donald Trump.
Meet London-based Hakluyt & Co. ,
founded by three former British intelligence operatives in 1995 to provide the kind of
otherwise inaccessible research for which select governments and Fortune 500 corporations pay
huge sums. . . .
Hakluyt is described by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism's
Henry Williams as " one of the more secretive firms within the corporate investigations
world " and as "a retirement home for ex-MI6 [British foreign intelligence] officers, but
it now also recruits from the worlds of management consultancy and banking "
It is no mere coincidence that Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, who was credited by
the FBI as serving up the predicate to launch the investigation into
George Papadopolous, also was closely tied to the Clinton Foundation and funneling
Austailian money to the Clinton's. Back in 2006, Downer was Australia's Foreign Minister when
he and Bill Clinton signed a $25 million Memorandum of Understanding, marking the first round
of Australian taxpayer donations to the Clinton Foundation.
The timing of Alexander Downer's "sudden concern" about Papadopolous is very suspect. Downer
waited two months before informing US authorities about Papadopoulus's alleged drunken bragging
about the Trump team working with the Russians to get Hillary. But why wait two months? Should
we take it as nothing more than this being a coincidence with the fact that Hillary at the same
time approved an effort by her campaign to tie Trump to Russia in order to divert attention
from her email scandal. The alleged Russian hacking of DNC emails was front-page news around
the world by June 15. Why did it take Downer four more weeks to comprehend the dire
implications of Papadopoulus's intoxicated ramblings? Papadopoulos disputes Downer's account.
Yet, per Mueller, this was one more event justifying the Russian interference meme.
It was Downer who told the FBI of Papodopoulos' comments, which became one of the "driving
factors that led the FBI to open an investigation in July 2016 into Russia's attempts to
disrupt the election and whether any of President Trump's associates conspired," The Times
reported.
Downer, a long-time Aussie chum of Bill and Hillary Clinton, had been on Hakluyt's advisory
board since 2008. Officially, he had to resign his Hakluyt role in 2014, but his informal
connections continued uninterrupted, the News Corp. Australian Network
reported in a January 2016 exclusive:
But it can be revealed Mr. Downer has still been attending client conferences and gatherings
of the group, including a client cocktail soirée at the Orangery at Kensington Palace a
few months ago.
His attendance at that event is understood to have come days after he also attended a
two-day country retreat at the invitation of the group, which has been involved in a number of
corporate spy scandals in recent times.
The Clinton Plot, aided and abetted by the CIA and the FBI, to destroy Donald Trump
continues to chug along. But it is no longer avoiding scrutiny. The truth is coming out, albeit
slowly. But this latest revelation should be considered in the context of news that John Durham
also is taking a fresh look at the criminal conduct of the Clinton Foundation. I do not think
these matters are unrelated.
"..Russian intelligence analysis alleging that US Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton
had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against US Presidential candidate Donald
Trump by tying him to Putin and the Russians' hacking of the DNC."
Larry,
So what analysis did the US IC have not just in the Obama administration but also in the
Trump administration? Why didn't they get the intel on Hillary's plan?
All Trump appointees were in place by early 2017 - AG, DAG, FBI & CIA Director, DNI.
Is the story now that the Russian IC knew about Hillary's plan but the Trump IC did not?
A well earned victory lap. It looks like Trump finally got some people who were willing to
go there.
In saying that, in the past, or at least immediately after he assumed office, he was
reluctant to go after Hillary. And I think she has too much dirt on other people, too much
leverage to be put down.
I like this direction and I hope to see something happen.
Blue Peacock
The fact that this was hidden is further evidence that the Deep State was hiding this info
and trying to suppress it. The Russian meme is bullshit. What I mean by that is the narrative
that Trump was colluding with the Russians. He wasn't. It was a fabricated narrative and the
evidence was being withheld. If Trump interfered in trying to release that info they were
going to use it as evidence of "obstruction of justice."
Good News, Mr. Johnson. Politico reports that Ratcliffe duped by Russian Disinformation.
Source: SSCI. Warner and his succubus Richard Burr investigated the matter. Nothing to see.
Russian disinformation. Nothing to see here.
James,
Appreciate your humor. Politico is a disgrace. Ignore reality and whistle past the graveyard.
We'll see if the Little Old Lady from South Carolina finds his testicles tomorrow and presses
the issue with Jimmy Comey. But facts are facts. There is zero evidence that the Russians
hacked the DNC.
I recall Comey reporting he took a disturbing "letter" he had received to Loretta Lynch,
when he was agonizing over either (1) disclosing the Carlos Danger Weiner emails or (2) the
fake "exoneration" over the original Clinton email debacle.
Can't remember which event. . I believe Comey explained to Lunch, see what i am up
against?
Lynch apparently only gave Comey a very jaundiced eye, and made no comment. So Comey went
ahead and did what he did on his own -either (1) re-open the Weiner emails; or (2) go forward
with the pre-judged "exoneration". (Memory fritz here)
Does this ring a bell? Was this Clinton instigated Trump Russia hoax claim in the "letter"
to Comey? Did this have anything to do with Bill Clinton's "random" tarmac meeting with Lynch
in this same time frame?
The tarmac Lynch meeting would have coincided with the "exoneration" move by Comey.
PS, thanks for keeping us on top of this still very evolving and breaking story - 3.5
years later. Way too many loose ends that have not yet come together, but odd events when put
into relationship with other later disclosures help clear the fog.
......."
" To be clear, this is not Russian disinformation and has not been assessed as such by
the Intelligence Community. I'll be briefing Congress on the sensitive sources and methods by
which it was obtained in the coming days," he (Radcliffe) wrote.........
It gets better, Facebook labels the DNI's letter as false information, and it only took
them an hour to do so. Of course they turned it over to CNN's former reporter Alan Duke,
Editor-in-Chief & co-founder of "Lead Stories".
Congratulations on your early discernment of the centrality of the Clinton Group in this
conspiracy. What was the date of your first piece on this? I would like to re-publish it.
It's seems that every time that investigation/prosecution of those involved in the Seth
Rich murder is brought up, D.C. looks and runs the other way as fast as possible. What do you
think is going on? Was Rich one more of the Clinton Group's body count?
Yes, you DO deserve a victory lap. It's too bad that your right to a victory lap is now
confirmed so much later than it should have been. We could have had saved lots and lots of
time and newsprint if others had listened earlier. D.C. really is full of swamp gas that the
truth is often clouded over and ignored for a long time.
So much time wasted and so much in the way of tax payors' money spent over the years only
to have this finally confirmed years later. My greatest wish would be that we never have to
hear a word from HRC ever again.
Thanks for taking "no quarter" on the perpetrators of this attempt to subvert our
government.
"[A]betted by the CIA and the FBI" and legions of MSM types tripping over each other to
get their daggers bloody. If indictments go out (a big "if") the people coordinating the MSM
should be served, too.
"It gets better, Facebook labels the DNI's letter as false information, and it only took
them an hour to do so. Of course they turned it over to CNN's former reporter Alan Duke,
Editor-in-Chief & co-founder of "Lead Stories". "
The burden of proof is on your side. A letter is not proof. Anyone can write one.
Clinton approved an advisor's proposal to "vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal
claiming interference by Russian security services" in July 2016, according to information
declassified on Tuesday by Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe. The bombshell
revelation was made public in a letter to Senate Judiciary Committee chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.
Carolina), in response to a request for information related to the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane
(i.e. Russiagate) probe.
By the end of July 2016, US intelligence agencies had picked up chatter that their Russian
counterparts not only knew of the scheme, but that Clinton was behind it – though the
declassified material stresses that the American intelligence community "does not know the
accuracy" of the claim that Clinton had green-lighted such a plan, or whether the Russians
were exaggerating. However, then-CIA director John Brennan apparently followed up that
assessment by briefing then-President Barack Obama on Clinton's Russian smear scheme, according
to his handwritten notes – suggesting the spy agencies were very much aware what was
going on.
The news made a splash among the president's supporters and other Russiagate skeptics, one
of whom observed the timing of the events described in the declassified material dovetailed
seamlessly with the timetable in which Russiagate was unveiled to the public. Clinton staffer
Robby Mook appeared on CNN on July 24, 2016 to claim that "Russian state
actors broke into the [Democratic National Committee]" and "stole" the campaign's
emails "for the purpose of actually helping Donald Trump."
Former British intelligence agent Christopher Steele filed his report around the same date,
accusing the Trump campaign of colluding with Russian security services to hack the DNC and
dump the emails via Wikileaks. The false information that made up the infamous "peepee
dossier" – collected under contract from opposition research firm Fusion GPS –
was used to justify securing a FISA warrant for Trump campaign aide Carter Page. That warrant,
and others that followed, have since been declared invalid, as it was discovered the Obama
administration had "violated its duty of candor" on its application for every
warrant.
Just a month before the 2016 election, Obama's intelligence agencies announced that they
believed Russia was responsible for hacking the DNC – allegations it has since emerged
were made without even examining the server on which the emails were stored.
More than a year after the release of special counsel Robert Mueller's report shocked
Russiagate true believers with the absence of the promised proof of collusion, the colossal
conspiracy theory has all but unraveled.
Update (1712ET): Online sleuths such as The Last Refuge are already connecting dots between
when the Trump-Russia allegations surfaced and the newly released briefing timeline
.
TheLastRefuge
@TheLastRefuge2 ·
Sep 29, 2020 This is additionally important for a specific reference point. Clinton ally,
and former acting CIA Director Mike Morell first published the Clinton created Russia narrative
(in the New York Times) less than a week after this July 26, 2016, briefing by Brennan.
The Reckoning @sethjlevy This conversation between
@jaketapper and
@RobbyMook happened on July 25th. The Reckoning @sethjlevy On day 1 of the Democrat
Convention as Wikileaks began their DNC releases Mook's interview uses the release to begin
spinning the Trump Russia tale. This was planned, prepared, purposeful and the beginning of one
of the most damaging psy op disinformation campaigns in US history.
https://twitter.com/sethjlevy/status/963977316547399680?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1311019881039618049%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fus-intelligence-investigated-hillary-clinton-over-alleged-plan-smear-trump-russia
Sean Davis @seanmdav ·
Sep 29, 2020 Replying to @seanmdav Today's declassification confirms that from the
beginning, the FBI knew its anti-Trump investigation was based entirely on Russian
disinformation. Brennan and Comey were personally warned. They responded by fabricating
evidence and defrauding the courts. https:// judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
09-29-20_Letter%20to%20Sen.%20Graham_Declassification%20of%20FBI's%20Crossfire%20Hurricane%20Investigations_20-00912_U_SIGNED-FINAL.pdf
BenTallmadge @BenKTallmadge https:// twitter.com/benktallmadge/
status/1310676483501768705?s=21 BenTallmadge @BenKTallmadge Replying to @BenKTallmadge
Alexander Vindman was working at thé US embassy in Moscow when the wife of former mayor
wired $3.5M to Hunter Biden, right before Russia took Crimea H/t @grabaroot https://
twitter.com/playstrumpcard /status/1310648949393502214?s=21 https:// twitter.com/playstrumpcard
/status/1310648949393502214
Meanwhile, this is being downplayed by intelligence officials as Russian disinformation,
which DNI Ratcliffe has refuted.
Chuck Ross @ChuckRossDC · 3h Intel officials came out
within minutes to claim Russian disinfo in the Ratcliffe letter. We didn't find out for nearly
three years that Russian disinfo might have been in the dossier.
https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-4&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1311056956023595009&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fus-intelligence-investigated-hillary-clinton-over-alleged-plan-smear-trump-russia&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=219d021%3A1598982042171&width=550px
Jeremy Herb @jeremyherb New statement from Ratcliffe on unverified Russian intel: "To be
clear, this is not Russian disinformation and has not been assessed as such by the Intelligence
Community. I'll be briefing Congress on the sensitive sources and methods by which it was
obtained in the coming days."
5:35 PM · Sep 29, 2020
* * *
On September 7, 2016, US intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to
former FBI officials James Comey and Peter Strzok concerning allegations that Hillary Clinton
approved a plan to smear then-candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Russian President Vladimir
Putin and Russian hackers , according to information given to Sen. Lindsey Graham by the
Director of National Intelligence.
According to Fox News' Chad Pergram, "In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained
insight into Russian intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary
Clinton had approved a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate
Donald Trump," after one of Clinton's foreign policy advisers proposed vilifying Trump "by
stirring up a scandal claiming interference by Russian security services."
Chad Pergram @ChadPergram ·
Sep 29, 2020 Replying to @ChadPergram 5) DNI info to Grahm: On 07 September 2016, U.S.
intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to FBI Director James Comey and
Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok regarding 'U.S. Presidential
candidate Hillary Clinton's approval of a plan..
Chad Pergram @ChadPergram 6) DNI info to Graham:...concerning U.S. Presidential candidate
Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of distracting the
public from her use of a private mail server.'"
2:51 PM · Sep 29, 2020
In response to your request for Intelligence Community (IC) information related to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Crossfire Hurricane Investigation, I have declassified
the following:
In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian intelligence
analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved a campaign plan
to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by tying him to Putin and
the Russians' hacking of the Democratic National Committee. The IC docs not know the accuracy
of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect
exaggeration or fabrication.
According to his handwritten notes, former Central Intelligence Agency Director Brennan
subsequently briefed President Obama and other senior national security officials on the
intelligence, including the "alleged approval by Hillary Clinton on July 26. 2016 of a proposal
from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump by stirring up a scandal
claiming interference by Russian security services."
On 07 September 2016. U.S. intelligence officials forwarded an investigative referral to FBI
Director James Comey and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Peter Strzok
regarding "U.S. Presidential candidate I lillary Clinton's approval of a plan concerning U.S.
Presidential candidate Donald Trump and Russian hackers hampering U.S. elections as a means of
distracting the public from her use of a private mail server."
As referenced in his 24 September 2020 letter to your Committee, Attorney General Ban has
advised that the disclosure of this information will not interfere with ongoing Department of
Justice investigations. Additional declassification and public disclosure of related
intelligence remains under consideration; however, the IC welcomes the opportunity to provide a
classified briefing with further detail at your convenience.
Respectfully,
i RatcliiTc
https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=false&embedId=twitter-widget-8&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1311021129981734912&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fpolitical%2Fus-intelligence-investigated-hillary-clinton-over-alleged-plan-smear-trump-russia&siteScreenName=zerohedge&theme=light&widgetsVersion=219d021%3A1598982042171&width=550px
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Wikileaks
In 2017, it was claimed that the "blame Russia" plan was hatched "within twenty-four hours"
of Clinton losing the election - while the US intelligence investigation predates that by
several months.
New book by 'Shattered' by Clinton insiders reveals that "blame Russia" plan was hatched
"within twenty-four hours" of election loss.
The authors detail how Clinton went out of her way to pass blame for her stunning loss on
"Comey and Russia."
"She wants to make sure all these narratives get spun the right way," a longtime Clinton
confidant is quoted as saying.
The book further highlights how Clinton's Russia-blame-game was a plan hatched by senior
campaign staffers John Podesta and Robbv Mook. less than "within twenty-fourhours" after she
conceded:
That strategy had been set within twenty -four hours of her concession speech. Mook and
Podesta assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters to engineer the case
that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple ofhours, with Shake Shack
containers littering the room, they went over the script theywould pitch to the press and
the public. Already. Russian hacking was the centerpieceof the argument.
The Clinton camp settled on a two-pronged plan -- pushing the press to cover how"Russian
hacking was the major unreported story of the campaign, overshadowed by thecontents of stolen
e-mails and Hillary*s own private-server imbroglio.'' while"hammering the media for focusing
so intently on the investigation into her e-mail, whichhad created a cloud over her candidacy
." the authors wrote.
US intelligence believed Clinton plot to 'stir up a scandal' was a 'means of distracting
the public from her use of a private mail server.'
"In late July 2016, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained insight into Russian
intelligence analysis alleging that U.S. Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton had approved
a campaign plan to stir up a scandal against U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump by
tying him to Putin and the Russians' hacking of the Democratic National Committee," Ratcliffe
wrote Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Lindsey Graham. "The IC does not know the accuracy
of this allegation or the extent to which the Russian intelligence analysis may reflect
exaggeration or fabrication
####
The chronology of events supports something like this. It seems to me t that when it was
evident that t-Rump might win the election, the Dems prepared the ground for a 'poison pill'
to leave behind. Ultimately this is what O-Bomber signed off when t-Rump won. What this does
tell us is that the Dems have become as well verse in the black arts of political sabotage at
least as well as what the Reps have done since the 1990s and onwards.
This is the basis of the current undeclared civil war in America. It was driven from the
top down by corrupt elites who never imagined that it would gain traction below ground as
globalization would cement the West's Fukuyamiyan superioritiy in to the foreseeable future.
Then there was 9/11, 2008 and a further self-made quagmire in more sensless Do
Something interventions around the world.
The funny thing here is now the Repubs are trying to spin it that Putin was actually
trying to hurt t-Rump! What's thre phrase, a day late and a dollar short ?
The detail was previously redacted from a footnote in Justice Department inspector
general Michael Horowitz's 2019 report on four Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA)
court warrant applications
the investigation was opened "based on information by the FBI indicating that the
Primary Sub-source may be a threat to national security." The investigation was closed in
2011 and not reopened.
####
I had assumed that anyone of Russian origin who is in contact with certain American
officials/agencies is automatically probed. Not much of a surprise.
That the Steele dossier was potentially based on the words of a Russian spy should have been
a red flag against its use. It seems that the FBI had not informed the FISA court about the
dubious sourcing of the dossier allegations.
Igor Danchenko, the premier sub-source for the Steele dossier, had
earlier worked for the Democrat affiliate Brookings Institute:
New information strikes the strongest blow yet at the foundations of the Russian collusion
narrative. April 4, 2019: A protestor outside the White House demanding the release of the full
Mueller Report. (By
bakdc/Shutterstock)
In a September 24th letter to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham (R-SC),
Attorney General Bill Barr
revealed that the "primary sub-source" for the Steele dossier was the subject of an FBI
counterintelligence investigation in 2009. The source's Russian ties had been called into
question, and the individual was considered a possible national security threat, according to
Attorney General Barr's letter. This sub-source has elsewhere been identified as
Russian national Igor Danchenko.
This latest revelation in the Russiagate saga lands just over a month before the election,
chipping away further at one of the main lines of criticism that many on the left have leveled
against President Trump -- and bolstering suggestions from the president's own camp that the
FBI and other executive agencies engaged in substantial misconduct during the transition period
in 2016. Allegations contained in the Steele dossier justified FISA warrants against Trump
campaign advisor Carter Page and inspired many of the collusion claims that have been floated
in the four years since Trump's election victory.
The attorney general's letter attributes the finding to a now-declassified footnote in the
inspector general's report on the dubious FISA warrants. The footnote reports that the
individual later identified as Christopher Steele's primary source was under FBI investigation
from 2009 to 2011; the investigation was terminated because the subject "had apparently left
the United States."
The FBI found that Danchenko had been in contact with two known Russian intelligence
officers in 2005 and 2006. In his exchanges with one of these contacts, the Steele sub-source
openly expressed his desire to join the Russian diplomatic service. All of this was known to
the FBI's Crossfire Hurricane team as early as December 2016 -- five months before Robert
Mueller was even appointed to investigate collusion charges originating from Danchenko.
A few other interesting details:
Specifically, the FBI received reporting indicating a research fellow for an influential
foreign policy advisor in the Obama Administration was at a work-related event in late 2008
when they were approached by another employee of the think tank ("the employee"). The
employee reportedly indicated that if the two individuals at the table "did get a job in the
government and had access to classified information" and wanted "to make a little extra
money," the employee knew some people to whom they could speak. According to the research
fellow, there was no pretext to the conversation; the employee had not been invited to the
table
And if that weren't enough, "one interviewee did note that the Primary Sub-source
persistently asked about the interviewee's knowledge of a particular military vessel." Real
subtle there, Igor.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.411.1_en.html#goog_956560325 Ad ends in 52s
Next Video × Next Video J.d. Vance Remarks On A New Direction For Pro-worker, Pro-family
Conservatism, Tac Gala, 5-2019 Cancel Autoplay is paused
It now seems likely that the panic about foreign influence which swept over our politics for
four years rested on the word of not just a Russian spy, but the worst Russian spy of all time.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Declan Leary is the Collegiate Network Fellow at The American Conservative and a
graduate of John Carroll University. His work has been published at National Review ,
Crisis, and elsewhere.
"... In pretending to be the statesman to bring China to heel, this gangster of a statesman manifested the loss of diplomatic skill almost for good. ..."
"... The scheme smells of rotten fish and there's an attempt to deflect attention from the real problem which centers on a corrupt 'secret society' of jurists. The right waves its hands in our faces while the left plunges the knives in our backs. Who are Donald Trump's handlers? ..."
A number of recent document releases shine new lights on 'Russiagate'. That conspiracy
theory, peddled by the Obama administration, the Democratic Party aligned media and 'deep
state' actors opposed to President Trump, alleged that Trump was in cahoots with Russia. The
disinformation campaign had the purpose of sabotaging his presidency.
To some extend it has worked as intended. But due to the legal investigation of the whole
affair much more is now known about those who conspired against Trump. Some of them are likely
to end up in legal jeopardy.
Some of those are the agents under FBI director Comey who used the easily debunked Steele
dossier, paid for by the Democratic party, to gain a FISA court warrants that allowed them to
spy on the Trump campaign. It now turns out that the main source for the dossier they used was
a shady actor who the FBI
had earlier investigated for an alleged connection to Russian intelligence:
The primary sub-source for the Steele dossier was the subject of an earlier
counterintelligence investigation by the FBI, and those facts were known to the Crossfire
Hurricane team as early as December 2016, according to newly released records from the
Justice Department that were first reported by CBS News.
The timing matters because the dossier was first used two months earlier, in October 2016,
to help secure a surveillance warrant for former Trump campaign aide Carter Page, and then
used in three subsequent surveillance renewals.
"Between May 2009 and March 2011, the FBI maintained an investigation into the individual
who later would be identified as Christopher Steele's Primary Sub-source," the two page FBI
memo states. "The FBI commenced this investigation based on information by the FBI indicating
that the Primary Sub-source may be a threat to national security."
That the Steele dossier was potentially based on the words of a Russian spy should have been
a red flag against its use. It seems that the FBI had not informed the FISA court about the
dubious sourcing of the dossier allegations.
Igor Danchenko, the premier sub-source for the Steele dossier, had
earlier worked for the Democrat affiliate Brookings Institute:
Danchenko worked at the time as a Russia analyst for the Brookings Institution, a prominent
liberal foreign policy think tank.
An employee of the think tank said that another employee, seemingly Danchenko, told others
that if they got jobs in the government and obtained classified security clearances, they
might be put them in touch with people so they could "make a little extra money."
"The coworker did express suspicion of the employee and had questioned the possibility
that the employee might actually be a Russian spy," the FBI memo says.
Danchenko may or may not have been a Russian spy. But the fact the FBI had once opened a
full counter-intelligence investigation of him which was never concluded shines a very bad
light on the dossier peddlers.
Shortly before Trump was inaugurated the Obama administration released an 'Intelligence
Community Assessment', concocted by hand-selected agents under CIA director John Brennan, that
claimed that Russia hade preferred Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. That had never made
sense. Clinton was a well known factor to the Kremlin while Trump was a wild card that
potentially would cause chaos - which is what he ended up doing. It only now turns out that
several CIA analysts had come to that conclusion but that there thinking was excluded from the published analysis :
Former CIA Director John Brennan personally edited a crucial section of the intelligence
report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and assigned a political ally to take a
lead role in writing it after career analysts disputed Brennan's take that Russian leader
Vladimir Putin intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump clinch the White House ,
according to two senior U.S. intelligence officials who have seen classified materials
detailing Brennan's role in drafting the document.
The explosive conclusion Brennan inserted into the report was used to help justify
continuing the Trump-Russia "collusion" investigation, which had been launched by the FBI in
2016. It was picked up after the election by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who in the end
found no proof that Trump or his campaign conspired with Moscow.
The Obama administration publicly released a declassified version of the report -- known
as the "Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent
Elections (ICA)" -- just two weeks before Trump took office, casting a cloud of suspicion
over his presidency. Democrats and national media have cited the report to suggest Russia
influenced the 2016 outcome and warn that Putin is likely meddling again to reelect
Trump.
The ICA is a key focus of U.S. Attorney John Durham's ongoing investigation into the
origins of the "collusion" probe. He wants to know if the intelligence findings were juiced
for political purposes.
Around the same time the ICA was written FBI agents involved in the anti-Trump investigation
were messaging each other about Russiagate issues. A
new release of parts of their conversations is
quite damaging :
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents tasked by fired former Director James Comey to
take down Donald Trump during and after the 2016 election were so concerned about the
agency's potentially illegal behavior that they purchased liability insurance to protect
themselves less than two weeks before Trump was inaugurated president, previously hidden FBI
text messages show. The explosive new communications and internal FBI notes were disclosed in
federal court filings today from Sidney Powell, the attorney who heads Michael Flynn's legal
defense team.
...
The new disclosures made by DOJ also show that the FBI used so-called national security
letters (NSLs) to spy on Flynn's finances. Unlike traditional subpoenas, which require
judicial review and approval before authorities can seize an innocent person's property and
information, NSLs are never independently reviewed by courts. One of the agents noted in a
text message that the NSLs were just being used as a pretext by FBI leadership to buy time to
find dirt on Flynn after the first investigation of him yielded no derogatory
information.
...
In one series of texts sent the same day as the infamous Jan. 5 Oval Office meeting between
Obama, Biden, Comey, Sally Yates, and Susan Rice , one agent admits that "Trump was right"
when he tweeted that the FBI was delaying his briefings as incoming president so they could
cook up evidence against him. As The Federalist first reported last May, that Jan. 5 meeting
was the key to understanding the entire anti-Trump operation run out of Obama's FBI.
"The 'Intelligence' briefing on so-called 'Russian hacking' was delayed until Friday,
perhaps more time needed to build a case," Trump tweeted on January 3. "Very strange!"
Brennan's 'Intelligence Community Assessment' was published on January 5. The White House
round also led to a renewal of the investigation of Trump's incoming National Security Advisor
General Michael Flynn. That investigation, codenamed 'razor', had had no results and was
supposed to be closed. The FBI agents did not like the White House plans at all:
"So razor is going to stay open???" an agent wrote on Jan. 5.
"[Y]ep," another FBI agent responded. "[C]rimes report being drafted."
"F," the first agent wrote back.
"[W]hat's the word on how [Obama's] briefing went?" one agent asked, referring to the Jan.
5 meeting.
"Dont know but people here are scrambling for info to support certain things and its a mad
house," an FBI agent responded.
"[J]esus," an agent wrote back. "[T]rump was right. [S]till not put together . why do we
do this to ourselves. [W]hat is wrong with these people[?]
Last but not least the Durham investigation into the FBI's operation against Trump released
a
protocol of an interview with an FBI agent who was
involved in the investigation against General Flynn and in the later Mueller investigation
against Trump:
A 13-page summary of an interview with Flynn case agent William Barnett, made public in a
court filing by prosecutors just before midnight Thursday, [..] revealed that the veteran
agent harbored deep doubts and skepticism about the merits of the investigation into Flynn's
potential ties with Russia -- at least in its early stages -- and questioned the Mueller
team's tactics in the broader probe of the Trump campaign's contacts with Russians, known as
Crossfire Hurricane.
Though Barnett said he repeatedly expressed those doubts to colleagues and superiors --
and says he feared groupthink and a "get Trump" attitude was driving the investigation
forward -- he continued to be included in the work of Mueller's attorneys during sensitive
interviews.
All together those releases by the Justice Department and the new reports again demonstrate
that there was no legit Russiagate and no reason to investigate the Trump campaign. It was all
a conspiracy theory concocted to make it more difficult for Trump to pursue the policies he had
advocated during his election campaign.
It was even more than that. Mike Whitney is right in calling it an illicit coup
attempt. Obama, his éminence grise John Brennan, and all those willing minions who were
part of it should be in jail.
If all the energy wasted on peddling Russiagate had instead been used to push real political
alternatives to Trump's programs the Democrats and their voters would likely be in a better
position.
Posted by b on September 25, 2020 at 16:52 UTC |
Permalink
The significance of the FBI opening a counterintelligence file on Danchenko based on one item
of gossip depends entirely upon how many such files it opens on such evidence. The
significance of the file staying open depends on how quickly the FBI closes such files. My
knowledge, such as it is, is that the FBI is quick to open "investigations" on any evidence,
including simple gossip and habitually leaves them open to provide an opening for later
pursuit (i.e., a serious investigation) if it wishes. That is, the claim the source is
tainted is very weak. The added conclusion that a tainted source cannot provide correct
information means essentially no informant subject to a possible criminal charge should serve
as motive for an investigation. This is an absurdity, indulged as special pleading for Trump.
The argument reduces to, "Danchenko" is a Russian, thus may be a Russian spy. This kind of
nonsense is what many Democrats rely on, ironically.
The claim that of course it would make no sense for Putin et al. to favor Trump because
Clinton was a "known quantity" is shameless nonsense. If the quantity known is a relentless
hostility, even the unknown Trump would promise the chance of a more favorable US foreign
policy. There are two further points here. First, the tacit admission that Putin didn't get a
favorable outcome from Trump concedes all claims about Trump's less warlike, more pacific
foreign policy are more shameless nonsense. Second, the phony logic offered to defend Trump
proves Trump has always had significant support in the so-called Deep State. Brennan may have
had other motives in editing this BS out, but no one will ever prove it wasn't dropped
because it was blatantly stupid pro-Trump twaddle.
Similarly, the breathless report of January 5 meeting ignores how James Comey, a man
notorious for intervening in the election by announcing yet another nothingburger
investigation into email servers, was part of the meeting. It simply was not a meeting of
Obama conspirators. The indignant comments by disloyal FBI agents merely concedes again that
the supposed Deep State conspiracy was also in favor of Trump. I have no idea why Deep State
conspirators favoring Trump would buy liability insurance against being charged with
conspiring *against* Trump. Pretending their actions were justified by the pro-Democratic
Party faction of the Deep State could easily impel them to make things look better. I would
really like to see the actual terms of the policy, though. I suspect it was meant to cover
their asses if they were called out by their boss Comey for violating confidentiality,
playing partisan politics on the job, all manner of illegal and immoral acts.
The inclusion of a vocal Trump defender in the Mueller investigation of Flynn ("at least
in the early stages...") is not, *not,* *NOT,* an indication of hanky panky. It is evidence
of an honest investigation. Though hardly conclusive evidence, trying to pretend it is proof
of the opposite is a shameless perversion of reason.
Trumpery, Trumpery, Trumpery.
Even the seemingly high-minded conclusion about pushing real political alternatives to
Trump's programs fails to merit respect. There is only a limited amount of disagreement on
policy issues between Trump (and his Republic Party---not a democracy!---tail) and the
Democratic Party. Trumpery about how there is a real difference of principle driving the Deep
State conspiracy is unbelievable even when spouting more Trumpery.
PS Real evidence for Obama's anti-Trump campaign would be about how he encouraged Clinton to
contest Trump's loss of the vote. She had vastly more ground for refusing to concede than
Trump does. And unlike this BS, this anti-Trump campaign doesn't violate any laws or even
regulations. It would even be a principled stand for majority rule. Every single person who
upheld the legitimacy of minority rule because, Electoral College, is dedicated to Trump's
legitimacy. Rube Goldberg conspiracy theories purporting to show Trump is a victim of the
Deep State determined to fight his salvation of humanity are refuted by this alone.
True enough. Luckily for us, that was just the beginning of their increasingly bizzare
behavior. It's been quite a show so far, and they haven't even finished figuring out how to
hang this election yet...
More to come, surely.
Good article B.
Thanks again.
So we are to believe that Russia can't kill their targets and that the US Deep State can't
prevent an unwanted "populist" from being President despite the ease of manipulating the USA
money-driven selection of a President?
Really?
Well, it was NOT an "anti-Trump campaign". It was an anti-Russia campaign flavored with
"Trump is a populist!" sweetener.
Because the US Deep State WANTED to initiate a new McCarthyism AND to elect MAGA
Nationalist Trump.
Obama himself was a Deep-State approved faux populist Presidential stooge that
conducted secret wars and betrayed his 'base' to advance the interests of the establishment.
Trump is merely the Republican Obama.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
The US Presidency is the lynchpin of the Empire. No true "populist outsider" will EVER be
allowed to occupy that office.
It's difficult to fathom why smart people can't see this.
If all the energy wasted on peddling Russiagate had instead been used to push real
political alternatives to Trump's programs the Democrats and their voters would likely be in
a better position.
The Ds defeated that possibility when they conspired to derail Sanders and promote
Clinton. As a result, Obama's legacy is Trump. But there was a Deep State faction pulling
Obama's strings that's likely supporting the attempt to foment a domestic Color Revolution,
yet for the life of me I can't see why as all the grifters are getting billions--unless--it's
perceived that Trump's stalled their imperialist projects or stopped what they hoped to
accomplish via JCPOA. In other words, we need a better motive for Russiagate than the mere
disruption of Trump's administration.
The Nexus is Ukraine, where the DNC, Obama and others were heavily involved with corruption,
money into their pockets and money laundered for campaign uses, illegally brought back into
the US.
It was never Russia or Russians. It was always the Podesta-Clinton-Obama operatives and
their true believers in FBI and DOJ, working with the Russophobes in NGOs and the State
Dept.
The desperation as Trump became a real possible President and then an actual elected
President was to cover their crimes in Ukraine and the illegal actions to spy on Trump and
set up Trump campaign associates.
The difficult call now is how high up do the present investigators have cover to save the
institutions of the FBI and DOJ? A real take down would go to Obama, Biden, Clapper, Comey,
Brennan, Podesta, Clinton and all their lieutenants. It would collapse the CIA, State, FBI,
DOJ, and all the lying experts on Russia who perjured to Congress.
Red Ryder gets it -- Ukraine is the specific catalyst, linked to the New Cold War against
Russia and the corruption of the Democrats involved in that conflict.
There is also Flynn and his dirt on Obama's Syria/ISIS policy -- remember his Al Jazeera
interview about Obama's "wilful decision" to ignore DIA reports on ISIS. Flynn knows the US
and its allies had some kind of links to ISIS and Nusra Front (Al Qaeda) in Syria.
And there is also the more general concern, raised by Karlof1, about the Presidency and
the empire.
I have been reading and nodding in agreement with Mike Whitney since his work started showing
up on counterpunch. Does counterpunch still feature his work? My guess is not. Mike Whitney
is a full-blown unapologetic Trump-defender and has consistently and very clearly shown that
the recent BLM and urban riots are entirely funded and sewn by Democratic-party alligned
elite.
I'm glad b can agree with some things the above writer has put-forth. I wonder if b knows
about the den of vipers brooding here at the bar, spouting off about white-supremacists and
other fictions designed to obfuscate the clear and present danger to our duly-elected POTUS
and to render his supporters as racist fascists.
I wish b would just come out and say it. There is a real difference btw the two options on
Nov. 3. Yes, both parties are elites and not in any way to be given cart blanche with our
trust, but only one party has proven that it has attempted to usurp our democracy, infiltrate
and hijack and make partisan the checks and balances of our government and FBI, and call 50%
of the population "deplorables."
My only question to the idiots still holding onto their noble quest of dethroning POTUS
because he is immoral: what do you think will happen after? At some point it becomes
imperative for you to think about that and wonder if DJT really is the only one standing btw
the people and utter tyranny.
I found this barb delivered by Lavrov during his presser with Zarif I linked to on the open
thread to be very curious when thought about in the context of Russiagate:
"The fact that the United States has threatened to impose sanctions on those who defy the
American interpretation of the current situation serves as further proof of Washington's
desire to move like a bull in a china shop, putting ultimatums to everyone and punishing
everyone indiscriminately because, in my view, the incumbent US administration has lost
its diplomatic skills almost for good ." [My Emphasis]
Red Ryder @8 & profk @10 connect Ukraine and the outing of the Empire's role in the
creation of Daesh. Yes, it seems much is related to Russia's Phoenix-like rise and outwitting
the Empire's buffoons beginning in 2013 that's generated the above behavior noted by Lavrov.
If TrumpCo does get a second term, unless the entire foreign policy team is dumped and
replaced, its agenda will go nowhere other than further into the hole they've dug for
themselves over the past 20 years--almost every nation is now against Bush's USA as many now
know who the terrorists really are and where they live.
What if the goal of 2016 election was to set up the 2020 American color revolution? If so
Trump needed to win. Obama and the FBI did the groundwork here at home. There is some debate
if the first Trump dossier was actually the second one to cover for the Cody Shearer one that
was given to Strobe Talbot to give to Christopher Steele. Still it had the same goal as to
foster doubt about the legitimacy of 2016 that is currently culminating with the gun toting,
fire bombing hissy fit of the children of liberal privilege. Now if those blasted supreme
righties would just show up, and the whole thing can go really hot like it did in Ukraine,
Libya, Egypt, almost Syria, and any country I might be forgetting. Notice the Trump
administration is parroting the left's white supremacist conspiracy. Its all really bad
theater, but does anyone really care the crumbing infrastructure and the looming economic
collapse when you can instead root for your team. Yes, I am guilty of the later too. Added
bonus we already have a twofer of enemies (Russian and China) for yet another elitist war.
I very doubt that it was "Russiagate" who make it difficult for Trump to pursue the policies
he had been advocating during his election campaign...In fact, "Russiagate" has long ago been
debunked and we have not seen Trump worrying a bit about the average American Joe, most
flagrant during this pandemic...I doubt he would had behaved different were the "Russiagate"
to have never existed..
Simply, electoral "promises" almost never are fullfilled in the already dating decades
neoliberal order, both from the right or the "alleged" liberal left...
On the same grounds, we could affirm then that conspiracy theories about Obama´s
birth place made it difficult for Obama to pursue the policies he had been advocating during
his election campaign....
That Trump has ties to Russian oligarchs is, to my view, out of doubt for anyone following
a bit some writers who use to deeply research their analyses out there like John Helmer....
That these oligarchas had anything to do, in this respect, with the Kremlin, it is doubtful,
but highly likely related to business shenanigans amongst them and Trump & Co...related
to illegal bribes and money laundering...
What have been largely proved is that Trump and his administration have been using big
data management corporations and social networks engineering to manipulate elections and give
coups eveywhere ( as the thorough research I posted at the Week in Review leaves in evidence
it happened in several countries in Latin America , which leads us to suspect that they would
not resist the desire to use the same methods in the US...before...and after the 2016
elections...having Bannon ad chief of campaign and then as chief of staff in 2016 so as that
does not add for tranquility, with what legal methods is respected for achieving whatever
goal..as the last events have clearly showed...
It was during Trump´s mandate that the war on Yemen continued towards total
erradication of Yemenis, especially of Shia belief, by indiscriminate bombing and blockade of
essential goods...that Qasem Soleimani was murdered without any justified reason...that NATO
started a cheeky build up in Russian borders who remained still free of it...that the US
withdrew from most international agreements leaving US/Russia, US/Iran, US/LatinAmerican
relations at its lowest levels, by underminig any remaining trust...Trump reinstated and made
even harsher sanctions against everybody who was not already a "puppet regime", including
Venezuela, Cuba, Argentina, Russia, Iran, China, and, even looping the loop, against puppet
governments in the EU...
I very doubt it was Russiagate which kept him from releasing his tax records as requested
by governance transparecny, returning the ammounts of money defrauded in the "University
Loans" affair, clarifying his ties to Epstein network, stopping sowing hatred and divide
amongst US population, build the most world wide network of far-right extremists since post
WWII around the world but especially in Europe to undermine what of "democracy" remains left,
labeled and declared as "terrorists" any political party abroad who does not go along and
oppose his puppet government´s corrupt policies anywhere, lit the Middle East on fire
by continuously provoking Iran, Lebanon, Syria, sent his regime envoys to the EU to twist arm
so that the European countries dedicate more budget to buy provedly ineffective arms from the
US when the money is most needed for socio-economic and health issues in the middle of a
pandemic, not to mention the requisition of health supplies´ cargos in the very Chinese
tarmac which had been previously ordered and bought by European countries which needed them
urgently, criminalized, and tried to label them as second cathegory citizens, a great part of
US population of non-white foreign descent through whose hard work and shameful labor
conditions US thrived along all these decades, well, you name it, the list would be almost
for a book...or two...
To blame all this mess on "Russiagate" is, well, in the best case, underestimating the
readership here...
Oh please, b: "legal jeopardy", don't make me laugh. It's been four years . The whole
political part of Trump's career he's been under the tutelage of mafia consigliere Roy Cohn.
Even better known, he's flown on the Lolita Express, and the FBI has a trove of videos etc
from Epstein's safe (hmm, what else does the latter have in common with Roy Cohn besides the
Trump connection). Bottom line, he's a deeply compromised individual who's concluded long
ago, and correctly, that he's in over his head and better off just playing along. He's had no
reservations appointing professional Russophobes like Fiona Hill; in fact, which of his
appointees has not been a Cold Warrior besides perhaps T-Rex, who was a mere Venezuela
hawk because of some old Exxon bad blood, and who was quickly ditched anyway. Even now, his
own FBI director spouts RussiaGate red meat, and the Donald is doing squat about it.
What does it all matter to Trump? He doesn't have a good name to clear. He didn't run for
president expecting to win, let alone to carry out this or that specific program. This
Vale Tudo carnival atmosphere clearly suits him: if his opponents can make baseless
accusations, so can he. If they can expect to skate beyond some meaningless fall guys, so can
he. To actually uphold the law--it's just not how he rolls.
Had he mostly contented himself with playing president on TV and enjoying the perks of the
office, and understood you can't just let a pandemic kill off your own voters, all would've
been dandy. But, predictably, his ego got the better of him, and he just had to be the
statesman who was finally going to bring China to heel. Again, merely tweeting about it
could've been ignored, but by appointing an array of rabid ideologues who went to work on
"decoupling", he's sided with a Deep State which will hate him regardless, against
Corporate America which went into China to, you know, make money. In this way, he's made
himself enemies a Republican can ill afford; combine this with his personal style (or lack of
it), and just about nobody has his back any more. So the machine goes about purging this
alien body from its system.
when do the American people get to investigate Truman, Ike, John McCain, JFK, Johnson, Bush,
Obama, FBI, Trump, 9/11, CIA, invasion of Iraq, wall street, the US Treasury, the military,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and the like..?
,==He did it==> he did not do it, <=someone else did it, ==>avoids the basic
problem:
America has a government that
a.) conducts wars to protect the economic interest of its favored few.
b.) uses law , to grant feudal lords wealth creating by extracting bits of wealth from
Americans.
c.) conducts nearly all its affairs in classified secret..
d.) is un accountable for the money it spends.
e.) is un accountable for the genocides it conducts in foreign lands.
f.) has two crime families which divide and conquer the citizens to control all election
outcomes
g.) has given to private bankers, its power to print money, control the economy, and tax the
people.
h.) has not adhered to the Bill of Rights or the un amended constitution.
i.) refuses to require private media to speak only the truth.
j.) Refuses to comply with and orto enforce the 1st and 4th amendment<=papers and effects
t/b secure
expand this list as you like
and
Americans have
a.) no access to the USA. <= 3 votes, insolation of state or voting district,
out 527 positions don't get it & none for the President
b.) must pay to the USA taxes and have no input as to how such taxes are collected or
used,
c.) must register their presence to the USA with id numbers
d.) must obey USA laws which Americans had no say in writing, or passing.
e.) must endure foreign wars and domestic programs that serve no legitimate domestic
interest.
expand this list as you like.
You are onto something there...I do not recall whose US think tank analyse I read about US
youth tending ideologically to the left...the same could be said of any youth around the
world after they have been left without future prospect and past opportunities to rise
through the social ladder by rampant savage neoliberal capitalism...
I said at the time that the Ukrainian experiment of 2014 was a general dressed rehearsal
for a future planned authoritarian fascist rule in most of the world, especially the West,
once the prospects, already known by the elites, of collapsing capitalism are obvious for the
general public and cause the consequent uprising..It is in this context that the pandemic and
its sudden impoverishing outcome fits, along with the "orchestrated" violent riots at various
locations, to justify martial law...
Notice that "rewritting of history of WWII" in favor of fascism is a feature of any US
administration since the fall of the USSR...
Past days I read that Roger Stone, former Trump advisor, if i am not wrong also implied in
a corruption case, advised Trump to declare martial law after winning in Novemeber...It is in
that context that all the noise we have been hearing all these past months about the riots,
militias, coups, and so on fit...What we have not heard about is about hundreds of thousands
of evictions, inacabable line ups for food banks, and the total socio-economic disaster more
than anything willingly built by TPTB...
Recal that they "built their own reality, and when you are catching up with that reality,
they build another one"...
Right on money, man! I can't help but chuckle and recall a quote from Agatha Christie's
A Mirror Crack'd : "Yes, you can see her. You seem to-understand her very well." Here,
change 'her' to 'him' and you pretty much summed up how Trump stumbling into that house on
Penn Ave. and his antics in office since. In pretending to be the statesman to bring China to
heel, this gangster of a statesman manifested the loss of diplomatic skill almost for
good.
Chances are he stands a good chance of stumbling into the same office again in Nov. Heaven
help the US of A in diplomacy for the next four years.
Old and Grumpy @14: "What if the goal of 2016 election was to set up the 2020 American
color revolution?"
But to what end? If you can control the outcome of the election sufficiently to pick the
winner, then what point does a color revolution serve? You put a candidate in office just so
that you can then remove him with a coup? This just injects tremendous expense and
uncertainty into the management of the empire.
I realize that there are some who are deeply invested in the notion that the establishment
wanted a Trump win, despite all of the opposition from them that Trump ended up facing, but
it makes no sense. PNAC , the former
roadmap for the empire, is now all but dead and the establishment is grudgingly falling in
line behind the hail-mary play of a "Great Reset" . Most of the empire's proxies in
Syria have been wiped out, the US influence in Libya is likewise mostly gone, and Myanmar is
slipping away. Venezuela is still holding their own against the empire. The "Pivot to
Asia" is spinning in place and going nowhere fast, and Russia and China are
diplomatically outmaneuvering the US before the eyes of the rest of the world. This is
definitely not where the elites wanted things to end up four years after 2016.
The efforts to foster a color revolution in the US are just signs of panicked desperation.
It is not what they were aiming for in 2016.
Assuming your question is rhetorical, no it isn't. My question is whether or not the FISA
court is culpable in this event. While we repeat the mantra that the FBI didn't inform the
court about the dubious source, it is apparent to me the court failed in proper diligence.
The scheme smells of rotten fish and there's an attempt to deflect attention from the real
problem which centers on a corrupt 'secret society' of jurists. The right waves its hands in
our faces while the left plunges the knives in our backs. Who are Donald Trump's
handlers?
"recent BLM and urban riots are entirely funded and sewn by Democratic-party alligned
elite."
Prove it. Perhaps you're confusing the DNC BLM national organization withe the autonomous
BLM actions in the streets. Two very different animals.
Your problem is that you still think the two parties are separate entities. There is only
one party in this country, the Property Party, and it has two right wings, the Democrats and
the Republicans.
"At some point it becomes imperative for you to think about that and wonder if DJT really
is the only one standing btw the people and utter tyranny."
Only morons wonder about such things. No one here wants to read your delusional Qanon/MAGA
bullshit.
The fact that large part of population consider Democratic leadership criminal and anther
part Trump administration criminal is a new factor in 2020 elections. Look like neoliberal Dems
made another blunder in unleashing American Maidan in those circumstances.
Thanks to Judge Emmet Sullivan refusing the DOJ's request to drop the Michael Flynn case, a
cache of explosive documents has now been released to the public revealing that at least one
FBI agent on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's team thought the case was a politically motivated
"dead end," and others bought professional liability insurance as their bosses were continuing
the investigation based on " conspiracy theories. "
In one case, FBI agent William J. Barnett said
during a Sept. 17 interview that he believed Mueller's prosecution of Flynn was part of an
attitude to "get Trump," and that he didn't want to pursue the Trump-Russia collusion
investigation because it was "not there" and a "dead end," according to
Fox News .
Barnett, during his interview, detailed his work at the FBI, and his assignment to the
bureau's original cases against Flynn and former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.
Barnett said the Flynn investigation was assigned the code name "Crossfire Razor," which was
part of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation -- the bureau's code name for the original
Trump-Russia probe.
Barnett told investigators that he thought the FBI's Trump-Russia probe was "opaque" and
"with little detail concerning specific evidence of criminal events."
" Barnett thought the case theory was 'supposition on supposition,'" the 302 stated, and
added that the "predication" of the Flynn investigation was "not great, " and that it "was
not clear" what the "persons opening the case wanted to 'look for or at.'"
After six weeks of investigating, Barnett said he was "still unsure of the basis of the
investigation concerning Russia and the Trump campaign working together , without a specific
criminal allegation." -
Fox News
When Barnett approached agents about what they thought the 'end game' was with Flynn -
suggesting they interview the former National Security Adviser "and the case be closed unless
derogatory information was obtained," he was cautioned not to conduct an interview, as it may
tip Flynn off that he was under investigation.
"Barnett still did not see any evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and the
Russian government," the 302 states. "Barnett was willing to follow any instructions being
given by the deputy director as long as it was not a violation of the law."
Insurance over "conspiracy theories"?
Another revelation from documents in the Flynn case comes in the form of text messages
released on Thursday in which agents bought liability insurance, fearing they would be sued
over an investigation into Flynn based on "conspiracy theories."
"We all went and purchased professional liability insurance," one analyst texted on Jan. 10,
2017 - 10 days before Trump was inaugurated, according to
Just The News .
"Holy crap," responded a colleague. "All of the analysts too?"
"Yep," replied the first analyst. "All the folks at the Agency as well."
"Can I ask who are the most likely litigators?" responded a colleague. "As far as
potentially suing y'all."
"Haha, who knows .I think the concern when we got it was that there was a big leak at DOJ
and the NYT among others was going to do a piece," the first analyst texted back.
NEVER
MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
The explosive messages were attached to a new filing by Flynn's attorney Sidney Powell,
who argued to the court that is considering dismissing her client's guilty plea that the
emails show "stunning government misconduct" and "wrongful prosecution."
A hearing is scheduled for next Tuesday.
" There was no case against General Flynn ," Powell wrote in the new motion. " There was
no crime. The FBI and the prosecutors knew that. This American hero and his entire family
have suffered for four years from public abuse, slander, libel, and all means of defamation
at the hands of the very government he pledged his life to defend." -
Just The News
Thanks to Judge Sullivan's hatred of Flynn, the world now knows how much more corrupt the
Mueller investigation was.
ay_arrow
novictim , 1 minute ago
"We all went and purchased professional liability insurance," one analyst texted on
Jan. 10, 2017 - 10 days before Trump was inaugurated, according to
Just The News .
Ok.
BUT NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THESE PROTECTORS OF THE CONSTITUTION BLEW THE WHISTLE.
None of these FBI agents seeing egregious abuse of power by the FBI leveled at a
decorated Lt. Gen. had the moral fortitude to stand up and say "NO!". They all hated Trump
so much that they simply bought protection insurance for themselves.
FIRE ALL OF THEM.
play_arrow
J J Pettigrew , 2 minutes ago
A soft coup attempt...
does this qualify as "swaying an election"? Like the 2018 election that gave the House
to the Dems and Pelosi her power?
Or is this an attempt to flip an election from 2016?
They always accuse others of that which they themselves are guilty...ALWAYS. At least
they let us know what they are up to. Like who is in bed with Russian oligarchs.....Hunter
gets the 3.5 million
play_arrow
Everybodys All American , 6 minutes ago
Judge Sullivan has no choice. If he does not drop this case now then he is in serious
violation of the law in a big time way. Anything is possible from this idiot but he will be
impeached and removed if he does not dismiss this case for sure now.
lay_arrow
whackedinflorida , 8 minutes ago
It has been fairly obvious that if Sullivan refused to dismiss the case and insists on
having a hearing, a large amount of government misconduct would ultimately be disclosed.
Leftists are willing to believe anything if it fits their narrative, and ignore second
order effects of what they do. By the end of this, the charges against Flynn will be
dismissed (or he will be pardoned), and the prosecutors will be the ones facing the justice
system. Its almost as if Sullivan is doing Trump's bidding.
Show More Replies
otschelnik , 10 minutes ago
To start going up the food chain as to how this ****show got started we need to know a
couple of pieces of information which the deep state is jealously hiding from us:
1) WHO WERE THE CONTRACTORS ACCESSING THE NSA DATABASE? This will draw a straight line
back to the Democrat party.
2) WHO WERE THE FBI AGENTS TAKING LIABILITY INSURANCE? These are the same as USSR NKVD
henchmen shooting kulaks and political prisoners in the back of the head.
ay_arrow
Fabelhaft , 8 minutes ago
Flynn's courage reduces Mueller's battlefield manner to the shell-shocked infirmaries of
WW1.
lay_arrow 1
Aubiekong , 16 minutes ago
If we lived in a country of law and order. The democratic leadership would all be in
prison along with all those involved in the "investigation".
gaaasp , 32 minutes ago
When can Flynn speak freely?
turbojarhead , 26 minutes ago
I think you nailed it-Flynn cannot interview due to his legal case-the man who knows
where ALL the bodies are buried, SPECIFICALLY in the Iran deal. It ALMOST seems like
Sullivan-maybe at the behest of others-has been desperate to keep Flynn from being able to
speak up for 4 years...
Maxter , 1 minute ago
It doesn't make much sense that Flynn knows where all the bodies are buried but never
told the Trump team before all this mess.
When intelligence honchos became politicians the shadow of Lavrentiy Beria emerge behind
them. while politization of FBI create political police like Gestapo, politization of CIA is much
more serious and dangerous. It creates really tight control over the country by shadow
intelligence agency. In a sense CIA and the cornerstone of the "deep state"
Former CIA Director John Brennan personally edited a crucial section of the intelligence
report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and assigned a political ally to take a
lead role in writing it after career analysts disputed Brennan's take that Russian leader
Vladimir Putin intervened in the 2016 election to help Donald Trump clinch the White House,
according to two senior U.S. intelligence officials who have seen classified materials
detailing Brennan's role in drafting the document.
John Brennan, left, with Robert Mueller in 2013: The CIA director's explosive conclusion in
the ICA helped justify continuing Trump-Russia "collusion" investigations, notably Mueller's
probe as special counsel. AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews
The explosive conclusion Brennan inserted into the report was used to help justify
continuing the Trump-Russia "collusion" investigation, which had been launched by the FBI in
2016. It was picked up after the election by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who in the end
found no proof that Trump or his campaign conspired with Moscow.
The Obama administration publicly released a declassified version of the report -- known as
the "Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent Elections
(ICA)" -- just two weeks before Trump took office, casting a cloud of suspicion over his
presidency. Democrats and national media have cited the report to suggest Russia influenced the
2016 outcome and warn that Putin is likely meddling again to reelect Trump.
The ICA is a key focus of U.S. Attorney John Durham's ongoing investigation into the origins
of the "collusion" probe. He wants to know if the intelligence findings were juiced for
political purposes.
RealClearInvestigations has learned that one of the CIA operatives who helped Brennan draft
the ICA, Andrea Kendall-Taylor, financially supported Hillary Clinton during the campaign and
is a close colleague of Eric Ciaramella,
identified last year by RCI as the Democratic national security "whistleblower" whose
complaint led to Trump's impeachment, ending in Senate acquittal in January.
John Durham: He is said to be using the long-hidden report on the drafting of the ICA as a
road map in his investigation of whether the Obama administration politicized intelligence.
Department of Justice via AP
The two officials said Brennan, who openly supported Clinton during the campaign, excluded
conflicting evidence about Putin's motives from the report , despite objections from some
intelligence analysts who argued Putin counted on Clinton winning the election and viewed Trump
as a "wild card."
The dissenting analysts found that Moscow preferred Clinton because it judged she would work
with its leaders, whereas it worried Trump would be too unpredictable. As secretary of state,
Clinton tried to "reset" relations with Moscow to move them to a more positive and cooperative
stage, while Trump campaigned on expanding the U.S. military, which Moscow perceived as a
threat.
These same analysts argued the Kremlin was generally trying to sow discord and disrupt the
American democratic process during the 2016 election cycle. They also noted that Russia tried
to interfere in the 2008 and 2012 races, many years before Trump threw his hat in the ring.
"They complained Brennan took a thesis [that Putin supported Trump] and decided he was
going to ignore dissenting data and exaggerate the importance of that conclusion, even though
they said it didn't have any real substance behind it," said a senior U.S intelligence
official who participated in a 2018 review of the spycraft behind the assessment, which
President Obama ordered after the 2016 election.
He elaborated that the analysts said they also came under political pressure to back
Brennan's judgment that Putin personally ordered "active measures" against the Clinton campaign
to throw the election to Trump, even though the underlying intelligence was "weak."
Adam Schiff: Soon after the Democrat took control of the House Intelligence Committee, its
review of the drafting of the intelligence community assessment was classified and locked in a
Capitol basement safe. AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite
The review, conducted by the House Intelligence Committee, culminated in a lengthy report
that was classified and locked in a Capitol basement safe soon after Democratic Rep. Adam
Schiff took control of the committee in January 2019.
The official said the committee spent more than 1,200 hours reviewing the ICA and
interviewing analysts involved in crafting it, including the chief of Brennan's so-called
"fusion cell," which was the interagency analytical group Obama's top spook stood up to look
into Russian influence operations during the 2016 election.
Durham is said to be using the long-hidden report, which runs 50-plus pages, as a road map
in his investigation of whether the Obama administration politicized intelligence while
targeting the Trump campaign and presidential transition in an unprecedented investigation
involving wiretapping and other secret surveillance.
The special prosecutor recently interviewed Brennan for several hours at CIA headquarters
after obtaining his emails, call logs and other documents from the agency. Durham has also
quizzed analysts and supervisors who worked on the ICA.
A spokesman for Brennan said that, according to Durham, he is not the target of a criminal
investigation and "only a witness to events that are under review." Durham's office did not
respond to requests for comment.
The senior intelligence official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss
intelligence matters, said former senior CIA political analyst Kendall-Taylor was a key member
of the team that worked on the ICA. A Brennan protégé, she donated hundreds of
dollars to Clinton's 2016 campaign, federal records show. In June, she gave $250 to the Biden
Victory Fund.
Andrea Kendall-Taylor: A Brennan protégé, she donated hundreds of dollars to
Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign, and recently defended the ICA in a
"60 Minutes" interview . "60 Minutes"/YouTube
Kendall-Taylor and Ciaramella entered the CIA as junior analysts around the same time and
worked the Russia beat together at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va. From 2015 to 2018,
Kendall-Taylor was detailed to the National Intelligence Council, where she was deputy national
intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. Ciaramella succeeded her in that position at NIC,
a unit of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that oversees the CIA and the
other intelligence agencies.
It's not clear if Ciaramella also played a role in the drafting of the January 2017
assessment. He was working in the White House as a CIA detailee at the time. The CIA declined
comment.
Kendall-Taylor did not respond to requests for comment, but she recently defended the ICA as
a national security expert in a CBS "60 Minutes" interview on Russia's election activities,
arguing it was a slam-dunk case "based on a large body of evidence that demonstrated not only
what Russia was doing, but also its intent. And it's based on a number of different sources,
collected human intelligence, technical intelligence."
But the secret congressional review details how the ICA, which was hastily put together over
30 days at the direction of Obama intelligence czar James Clapper, did not follow longstanding
rules for crafting such assessments. It was not farmed out to other key intelligence agencies
for their input, and did not include an annex for dissent, among other extraordinary departures
from past tradecraft.
Eric Ciaramella: The Democratic national security "whistleblower," whose complaint led to
President Trump's impeachment, was a close colleague of Kendall-Taylor. It's not clear if
Ciaramella also played a role in the drafting of the January 2017 assessment.
whitehouse.gov
It did, however, include a two-page annex summarizing allegations from a dossier compiled by
former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele. His claim that Putin had personally
ordered cyberattacks on the Clinton campaign to help Trump win happened to echo the key finding
of the ICA that Brennan supported. Brennan had
briefed Democratic senators about allegations from the dossier on Capitol Hill.
"Some of the FBI source's [Steele's] reporting is consistent with the judgment in the
assessment," stated the appended summary, which the two intelligence sources say was written
by Brennan loyalists.
"The FBI source claimed, for example, that Putin ordered the influence effort with the aim
of defeating Secretary Clinton, whom Putin 'feared and hated.' "
Steele's reporting has since been discredited by the Justice Department's inspector general
as rumor-based opposition research on Trump paid for by the Clinton campaign. Several
allegations have been debunked, even by Steele's own primary source, who confessed to the FBI
that he ginned the rumors up with some of his Russian drinking buddies to earn money from
Steele.
Former FBI Director James Comey told the Justice Department's watchdog that the Steele
material, which he referred to as the "Crown material," was incorporated with the ICA because
it was "corroborative of the central thesis of the assessment "The IC analysts found it
credible on its face," Comey said.
Christopher Steele: His dossier allegations were summarized in a two-page annex to the
ICA, but dissenting views about the Kremlin's favoring Hillary Clinton over Trump were
excluded. Victoria Jones/PA via AP
The officials who have read the secret congressional report on the ICA dispute that. They
say a number of analysts objected to including the dossier, arguing it was political innuendo
and not sound intelligence.
"The staff report makes it fairly clear the assessment was politicized and skewed to
discredit Trump's election," said the second U.S. intelligence source, who also requested
anonymity.
Kendall-Taylor denied any political bias factored into the intelligence.
"To suggest that there was political interference in that process is ridiculous," she
recently told NBC News.
Her boss during the ICA's drafting was CIA officer Julia Gurganus. Clapper tasked Gurganus,
then detailed to NIC as its national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia, with
coordinating the production of the ICA with Kendall-Taylor.
They, in turn, worked closely with NIC's cybersecurity expert Vinh Nguyen, who had been
consulting with Democratic National Committee cybersecurity contractor CrowdStrike to gather
intelligence on the alleged Russian hacking of the Democratic National Committee computer
system. (CrowdStrike's president has
testified he couldn't say for sure Russian intelligence stole DNC emails, according to
recently declassified transcripts.)
Durham's investigators have focused on people who worked at NIC during the drafting of the
ICA, according to recent published reports.
No Input From CIA's 'Russia House'
The senior official who identified Kendall-Taylor said Brennan did not seek input from
experts from CIA's so-called Russia House, a department within Langley officially called the
Center for Europe and Eurasia, before arriving at the conclusion that Putin meddled in the
election to benefit Trump.
"It was not an intelligence assessment. It was not coordinated in the [intelligence]
community or even with experts in Russia House," the official said. "It was just a small
group of people selected and driven by Brennan himself and Brennan did the editing."
The official noted that National Security Agency analysts also dissented from the conclusion
that Putin personally sought to tilt the scale for Trump. One of only three agencies from the
17-agency intelligence community invited to participate in the ICA, the NSA had a lower level
of confidence than the CIA and FBI, specifically on that bombshell conclusion.
The official said the NSA's departure was significant because the agency monitors the
communications of Russian officials overseas. Yet it could not corroborate Brennan's preferred
conclusion through its signals intelligence. Former NSA Director Michael Rogers, who has
testified that the conclusion about Putin and Trump "didn't have the same level of sourcing and
the same level of multiple sources," reportedly has been cooperating with Durham's probe.
The second senior intelligence official, who has read a draft of the still-classified House
Intelligence Committee review, confirmed that career intelligence analysts complained that the
ICA was tightly controlled and manipulated by Brennan, who previously worked in the Obama White
House.
N
Brennan's tight control over the process of drafting the ICA belies public claims the
assessment reflected the "consensus of the entire intelligence community." His unilateral role
also raises doubts about the objectivity of the intelligence.
In his defense, Brennan has pointed to a recent Senate Intelligence Committee report that
found "no reason to dispute the Intelligence Community's conclusions."
"The ICA correctly found the Russians interfered in our 2016 election to hurt Secretary
Clinton and help the candidacy of Donald Trump," argued committee Vice Chairman Mark Warner,
D-Va.
"Our review of the highly classified ICA and underlying intelligence found that this and
other conclusions were well-supported," Warner added.
"There is certainly no reason to doubt that the Russians' success in 2016 is leading them
to try again in 2020, and we must not be caught unprepared."
Brennan, ex-Obama homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco and ex-national intelligence
director James Clapper, interviewed by Nicolle Wallace of MSNBC, right, at a 2018 Aspen
Instutute event. Aspen
Institute
However, the report
completely blacks out a review of the underlying evidence to support the Brennan-inserted
conclusion, including an entire section labeled "Putin Ordered Campaign to Influence U.S.
Election." Still, it suggests elsewhere that conclusions are supported by intelligence with
"varying substantiation" and with "differing confidence levels." It also notes "concerns about
the use of specific sources."
Adding to doubts, the committee relied heavily on the closed-door testimony of former Obama
homeland security adviser Lisa Monaco, a close Brennan ally who met with Brennan and his
"fusion team" at the White House before and after the election. The extent of Monaco's role in
the ICA is unclear.
Brennan last week pledged he would cooperate with two other Senate committees investigating
the origins of the Russia "collusion" investigation. The Senate judiciary and governmental
affairs panels recently gained authority to subpoena Brennan and other witnesses to
testify.
Several Republican lawmakers and former Trump officials are clamoring for the
declassification and release of the secret House staff report on the ICA.
"It's dynamite," said former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz, who reviewed the staff report while
serving as chief of staff to then-National Security Adviser John Bolton.
"There are things in there that people don't know," he told RCI.
"It will change the dynamic of our understanding of Russian meddling in the election."
However, according to the intelligence official who worked on the ICA review, Brennan
ensured that it would be next to impossible to declassify his sourcing for the key judgment on
Putin. He said Brennan hid all sources and references to the underlying intelligence behind a
highly sensitive and compartmented wall of classification.
He explained that he and Clapper created two classified versions of the ICA – a highly
restricted Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information version that reveals the sourcing,
and a more accessible Top Secret version that omits details about the sourcing.
Unless the classification of compartmented findings can be downgraded, access to Brennan's
questionable sourcing will remain highly restricted, leaving the underlying evidence
conveniently opaque, the official said.
The ICA is a key focus of U.S. Attorney John Durham's ongoing investigation into the
origins of the "collusion" probe. He wants to know if the intelligence findings were
juiced for political purposes.
No, you think? We fought all of WWII in less time than it takes to make the first
indictments of these ******* traitors. And that assumes they will happen EVENTUALLY,
which they won't.
lay_arrow
NoDebt , 1 hour ago
Used to be it would take somewhere from a couple months to a couple years for
conspiracy theory to be proven conspiracy fact around here.
Now it's four years and counting. Pretty soon it will be a decade or more. Then....
who really cares? Once you've successfully stretched something out that long who really
gives a **** anyway?
If the government finally admitted that Oswald didn't really shoot JFK and that it was
some CIA ***** from the grassy knoll, would you really care at this point? If the
government admitted that there really were aliens in Area 51, would your world really be
rocked by that revelation at this point? Something a little more contemporary, you say?
Fine. What about WTC 7? If conspiracy theories were all confirmed on that one would you
really have a hard time sleeping tonight?
On a long enough timeline everyone stops giving a **** about the truth.
y_arrow
Md4 , 2 hours ago
" The explosive conclusion Brennan inserted into the report was used to help justify
continuing the Trump-Russia "collusion" investigation, which had been launched by the FBI
in 2016. It was picked up after the election by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who in
the end found no proof that Trump or his campaign conspired with Moscow."
While wasting thirty million dollars...and two focking years of our
lives...
ay_arrow
NoDebt , 1 hour ago
It's not even done yet, man. Clock is still running. Four years and counting, end to
end. If Trump gets a second term, eight years, minimum. And as he leaves office they will
still be threatening indictments "any day now". And nobody will even remember why any of
this started, nor care.
I already don't care.
4 play_arrow
Politinaut , 46 minutes ago
Brennan and all of those involved, must pay.
z530 , 57 minutes ago
Unless the classification of compartmented findings can be downgraded, access to
Brennan's questionable sourcing will remain highly restricted, leaving the underlying
evidence conveniently opaque, the official said.
Complete 100% ********. Trump can declassify anything he wants, at anytime, for any
reason. If I were him, I would order everything related to Crossfire declassified
tomorrow, sit back and watch the fireworks.
y_arrow
wee-weed up , 1 hour ago
Brennan is TRUE deep-state scum.
My most fervent desire is to see that holier-than-thou...
lyin' Obozo-Hitlery protector, frog marched...
straight to prison on national TV...
And then forced to sing like a Canary.
1 play_arrow
Md4 , 1 hour ago
"He explained that he and Clapper created two classified versions of the ICA – a
highly restricted Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information version that reveals the
sourcing, and a more accessible Top Secret version that omits details about the
sourcing.
Unless the classification of compartmented findings can be downgraded, access to
Brennan's questionable sourcing will remain highly restricted, leaving the underlying
evidence conveniently opaque, the official said."
One of the most important objectives going forward from all this... has to be the
dismantling of the whole apparatus of security classification.
All of it must be overhauled and restructured.
We simply cannot have a regime of intelligence security so rigorous, as to be clearly
used as a means of tyrannizing the very nation it's supposed to serve.
No enemy on earth is worth that...
play_arrow
bkwaz4 , 1 hour ago
Rational people have always understood that any Russian or Chinese meddling in the
2016 election was done to get Hillary elected so that influence could be purchased
through the Clinton Foundation.
The criminals involved need to be executed.
ay_arrow
Max21c , 1 hour ago
So its the usual situ of all lies and distortions and more lies on top of still more
lies... all more lies made up by the secret police and Washington Gestapo...
ay_arrow
St. TwinkleToes , 1 hour ago
It's a small circle of friends at CIA with Brennan protégé, Andrea
Kendall-Taylor and NSA with Eric Ciaramella, the Democratic national security
"whistleblower," who are sleeping with their bosses for advancement and or given head
service to closet LGBTiQNPWXYZ government heads.
Their job literally "sucks" in order to exist.
_arrow
mikka , 2 hours ago
When this sort of thing happens in Russia, China etc., there is a purge, because the
country is more important than its actors. Not in USSA: because of the so called
"democracy", the usurpers get away with it, allowing them not only to survive but also to
try again when conditions improve.
lay_arrow
Max21c , 31 minutes ago
It is interesting to see some of the criminal activities of the rats, vermin, and scum
in the CIA Gestapo & FBI Gestapo and Pentagon Gestapo possibly coming to light... One
or two rays of light and all the cockroaches in the criminal gangs of "national security"
and the state security apparatus of the banana republic and police state start scurrying
about in a frenzy for awhile...
3 play_arrow
Max21c , 47 minutes ago
Notice how all these Nazis and NeoNazis such as Brennan, Steele, Clapper, Schiff,
Warner, Lisa Monaco, Andrea Kendall-Taylor, Eric Ciaramella, James Comey, Julia Gurganus,
Vinh Nguyen, Obama, Biden, Clinton are all elite gangsters, crooks, criminals and
hoodlums with ties to the Ivy League, CNN, MSNBC, CBS 60 Minutes, the Aspen Institute,
the secret police community, the Gestapo community, the intelligence community, the CFR,
Elite Think Tanks, the puppet press and official media and numerous other parts of the
criminal underworld of Washingtonian and their secret police & NeoNazi Gestapo...
They're all just gangsters like in any third world banana republic and police state...
just like all the rest of the goons and thugs and criminals in Washington DC..
y_arrow
GoldHermit , 58 minutes ago
If Brennan is not public enemy number one, he's certainly in the top 5.
Max21c , 45 minutes ago
Washington DC runs thick with animals and gangsters just like Brennan... he's common
to the criminal culture of the US government and the criminal culture and criminal nature
of US government officials and Washingtonians... They're all the same and they're all
Nazis and NeoNazis... US elites and Washingtonians are no different than the Soviet KGB,
East German Stasi, Nazi Gestapo or Nazi Waffen SS... just a pack of criminals the rob,
terrorize and persecute people... US government is just one big criminal network and
crime syndicate... all they do is rob people, cheat people, persecute people and
terrorize people... It's a Washingtonian thing and a US government thing...
play_arrow
rtb61 , 1 hour ago
Of course the Russian government favoured the Clintons, they had a ton of evidence of
corruption on them, they released that tape to prove it to them. They know every single
little thing the Klinton Krime Klan did in the Ukraine, everything, they had them cold,
anything they wanted the Clintons would have complied, they still would of course have
demanded to be paid.
Right now both China and Russia prefer the Clinton Corporation Party, they are much
easier to pay off. Too many heads in the Republican Party, too many pay offs, much easier
with the Clinton Foundation Party, the party the Klinton Krime Klan sold to the
corporations, calling it the Democrats is a lie, it is the Clinton Foundation Party,
selling governments to the highest bidder not just yours but with regime change any
country you choose.
It all keeps coming out for political theatre but yet, no even a hint of an arrest let
alone an actual prosecution. Good for votes from the stupids I suppose.
2 play_arrow
williambanzai7 , 1 hour ago
Brennan is a moron. A moron who takes orders from a gaggle of Marxists and a Former
Nazi.
TahoeBilly2012 , 1 hour ago
His little fake aristocratic tone is hilarious. As if a muslim Irish American was some
sort of delicate flower.
y_arrow 1
Patmos , 14 minutes ago
Tragically ironic how the CIA has in large part become the thing it was at least in
theory supposed to help protect against: Tyranny.
2 play_arrow
Soloamber , 34 minutes ago
Isn't it ironic that a report covering a political coup on a presidential campaign and
subsequent attack on an
elected President can't be divulged because it is considered "political ".
Durham reports to Barr and they know the truth will never come to light if Biden wins
.
What they choose to ignore is they work for and are obligated to protect the public
interest .
Not the Democrats , not the Republicans .
It's either that or they are just protecting their old boy netwirk .
Take your pick .
ay_arrow
Md4 , 2 hours ago
"The Obama administration publicly released a declassified version of the report --
known as the "Intelligence Community Assessment on Russian Activities and Intentions in
Recent Elections (ICA)" -- just two weeks before Trump took office, casting a cloud of
suspicion over his presidency. Democrats and national media have cited the report to
suggest Russia influenced the 2016 outcome and warn that Putin is likely meddling again
to reelect Trump.
The ICA is a key focus of U.S. Attorney John Durham's ongoing investigation into the
origins of the "collusion" probe. He wants to know if the intelligence findings were
juiced for political purposes."
Or... outright lies known by Blo to be lies?
Sounds like conjured red meat deliberately fed to the leftist House machine...
1 play_arrow
ComradePuff , 10 minutes ago
When I was getting my masters in 2017 at MGIMO, my instructors were as often diplomats
and politicians as they were professors. One, a member of Duma, told us that it was funny
they way the Americans were spinning the collusion angle, because the general consensus
at the Kremlin was that Clinton was preferable to Trump as she was known and they
understood how to deal with her, while Trump seemed like a loose cannon. I was the only
American in the class (in the whole school at that point) and he was not even talking to
me, so clearly this was just general knowledge here.
edit: The CIA must suck at their jobs if there was disagreement, because I learned
that in the first week without using a single bribe, rent boy, honey trap or fake
mustache. That or the CIA just lies, as they do with everything else. Most likely a mix
of both.
y_arrow
amanfromMars , 40 minutes ago
Have you ever thought on what kind of vital explosive intelligence, on the extremely
precarious state of the certainly not United States of America, the likes of a Russia or
a China receives whenever they can freely read, listen and see any/all of the fabricated
tales and phantom trails fed to media main streams ...... for, of course, they would know
immediately whenever such is reported and widely shared, it be wilfully untrue and
decidedly designedly false ..... and they be confronted by weak pathological liars in
international executive offices of a failed state, or a rapidly failing state in well
self-publicised terminal decline ..... for a fast approaching resulting death by suicide
‽ .
And what does it also tell one and all about the equally perverse and parlous state of
the national intelligence quotient of Five Eyes allies, whenever they be by virtue of
either their unquestioning support or deafening silence on such matters, no more than
co-conspirators on a similar sinister path.
Are they themselves incapable of better thinking for greater tinkering? Do they need
it to be freely provided by ..... well, what would they be? Private Contractors/Pirate
Operations/Alien Facilities/Out of this World Utilities?
You can surely be in no doubt that they certainly need something radically different,
considering the plain enough, destructive path that they be currently on, using what they
presently have.
play_arrow
Soloamber , 48 minutes ago
Clintons . They already had a business relationship .
Clintons pay to play was well known .
Strange how "donations " have dropped 90% after she blew the election .
ay_arrow
Mini-Me , 2 hours ago
When does Durham get off his arse and do his damn job?
US President Donald Trump said the FBI targeted him for a "coup" after newly released
documents showed that federal agents bought liability insurance over fears their handling of
the Trump-Russia probe could lead to legal trouble.
The new documents were disclosed in a
federal court filing on Thursday by Sidney Powell, defense attorney for former Trump
adviser Michael Flynn. Seizing on the new release, the president ran a victory lap at a
campaign rally in Florida, telling the crowd the FBI had been "caught" attempting a
"coup."
"Today a trove of text messages was released from FBI agents involved in the Russian
witch hunt. You gotta see this," Trump said, reading out a headline from the
Federalist .
These people are scum. They were trying to do a coup. And we've caught them before that, we
caught them spying on our nation Never forget: they are coming after me because I'm fighting
for you.
The documents, which largely consist of text messages between unnamed federal agents, reveal
that both FBI and CIA personnel purchased professional liability insurance days before Trump
took office, fearing that illicit media leaks at the Department of Justice could result in
lawsuits against many involved in the first leg of the Trump-Russia investigation – then
known by its FBI codename, "Crossfire Hurricane."
"We all went and purchased professional liability insurance," one agent said in a
text on January 10, 2017, some 10 days before Trump's inauguration.
"Holy crap. All the analysts too?" another agent said, prompting the first to reply
"Yep. All the folks at the Agency as well" – an apparent reference to the
CIA.
When the first agent was asked who might be filing lawsuits, he responded: "Haha, who
knows I think [the] concern when we got it was that there was a big leak at DOJ and the [New
York Times] among others was going to do a piece."
The thought was if that piece comes out, and Jan 20th comes around the new [attorney
general] might have some questions then yada yada yada we all get screwed.
The messages also indicate that the FBI's separate investigation into Michael Flynn, then
Trump's national security advisor, was kept alive long after senior figures in the bureau
ordered the probe closed, finding no "derogatory information" on Flynn. While one agent
expressed relief in early November 2016 that the Flynn probe – named "Crossfire
Razor" – was ordered shut, that order had been overturned by January 2017, bureau
personnel said in the messages.
Other texts show agents discussing the use of National Security Letters (NSLs) as a pretext
to 'buy time' and drag out the investigation, allowing the FBI to continue digging into Flynn's
finances with little judicial oversight, despite prior "traces" turning up
"nothing."
Flynn was forced to resign as national security advisor in 2017 and later charged for
misleading the FBI about his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, with whom he was
accused of discussing US sanctions on Russia prior to Trump's swearing-in as president. The DOJ
has since ordered Flynn's case closed after prior document dumps revealed misconduct at the
bureau, Flynn's judge has refused to comply with
the order.
Among other revelations, the new messages also show that some agents believed FBI officials
running the Trump-Russia investigation were biased in favor of then-Democratic candidate
Hillary Clinton, even hoping she would win the 2016 race.
"Doing all this election research – I think some of these guys want a Clinton
presidency," the agent said, prompting another to respond that "they seem to respect
that they know what they are gonna get."
"Haha, really. Instead of a wild card like Trump," the first agent said.
The FBI documents were not the only blockbuster publication on Thursday. A new DOJ memo made
public by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) suggests the FBI was aware that a primary
source for Christopher Steele – a former British intelligence operative hired by the
Clinton team to compile dirt on Trump in an infamous "dossier" – was the subject
of a counter-intelligence investigation in 2009. Despite deeming the source a potential Russian
spy, the bureau relied on Steele's dossier to obtain warrants to spy on the Trump campaign,
disregarding the questionable origins of his so-called intelligence.
The dossier compiled by British spy Christopher Steele, paid through the firm Fusion GPS by
Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, was used by the FBI to obtain a warrant to spy on
Trump campaign aide Carter Page in October 2016, prior to the presidential election. The
warrant was renewed after Donald Trump got elected president and finally expired sometime in
late 2017.
In a redacted,
two-page memo made public on Thursday by Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), the US
Department of Justice reveals that Steele's "primary sub-source" (PSS) had been under
FBI investigation in 2009 as a possible Russian agent. The FBI team going after Trump
("Crossfire Hurricane") became aware of this in December 2016 and interviewed the PSS in
January 2017 – then renewed the Page FISA warrant three more times anyway.
"In December 2016, the CROSSFIRE HURRICANE team identified the Primary Sub-source used by
Christopher Steele and, at that time, became familiar with the 2009 investigation. The
CROSSFIRE HURRICANE team interviewed the Primary Sub-source over the course of three sequential
days in January 2017. At that time, the 2009 investigation remained closed. The 2009
investigation remains closed to this day," says the DOJ memo.
The reason the FBI had closed the investigation, as the memo reveals, was that the PSS had
left the US in September 2010. The FBI said "consideration would be given to re-opening the
investigation in the event" the person returned to the US. For whatever reason, though the
PSS did return at some point, the investigation was never reopened.
While the DOJ memo does not name the PSS, some enterprising internet sleuths fingered him in
July as one Igor Danchenko. His attorney Mark E. Schamel confirmed the identification to the
New York
Times a day after RT reported on it. Danchenko had worked as a researcher for the Brookings
Institution until 2010. This lines up with the memo saying he was working at a think tank in
Washington, DC when some coworkers suspected him of being a "Russian spy."
The FBI's investigation came up with nothing much beyond a September 2006 "contact with a
known Russian intelligence officer," and him being "very familiar" with a
"Washington, DC–based Russian officer."
Flimsy as that seems now, it was a lot more than they ever had on Carter Page. It didn't
help that FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith had altered evidence to make Page look like a foreign
agent, when he in fact was not. In August, Clinesmith pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of
making a false statement.
When he sent over the memo to Graham, Attorney General Bill Barr wrote that additional
classified information that "bears upon the FBI's knowledge concerning the reliability" of the
Steele dossier may be declassified by the Director of National Intelligence soon, as it won't
interfere with the criminal investigation conducted by US Attorney John Durham.
The Steele Dossier has been the keystone of 'Russiagate' – the manufactured scandal
accusing Trump of having ties or "colluding" with Russia during the 2016 election – from
the very beginning. It had already emerged that the "Crossfire Hurricane" team had interviewed
Danchenko in January 2017 and established that the Dossier was fabricated, but proceeded to use
it to spy on Trump, framing Carter Page as a Russian agent anyway. At the time, they
already knew that Danchenko had been under FBI investigation as a suspected Russian agent
– but it didn't seem to bother them in the least.
Simply put, this means Crossfire Hurricane team members – such as former agent
Peter Strzok and his paramour Lisa Page, as well as FBI director James Comey and his deputy
deputy Andrew McCabe, ought to have some explaining to do.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
US Attorney John Durham is investigating how the FBI handled their investigation of bribery
and pay-to-play allegations against the Clinton Foundation .
Notably, former FBI Director James Comey's family
supported Clinton in the 2016 US election, while the wife of his #2, Andrew McCabe,
received roughly
$700,000 from Clinton allies in her failed bid for Virginia state office - all while the
FBI was handling the Clinton Foundation investigation.
In a Thursday report by the New
York Times that mounts a robust, editorialized defense of Clintonworld ('Durham's probe is
politically charged' - 'Durham is chasing down conspiracy theories,' etc) - we learn that
Durham has sought documents and interviews about how the FBI handled allegations of political
corruption at the Clinton Foundation .
Recall that nothing ever came of revelations that the Hillary Clinton-led State Department
authorized $151 billion in Pentagon-brokered deals to 16 countries that donated to the Clinton
Foundation - a 145% increase in completed sales to those nations over the same time frame
during the Bush administration, according to
IBTimes .
American defense contractors also donated to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton
was secretary of state and in some cases made personal payments to Bill Clinton for speaking
engagements. Such firms and their subsidiaries were listed as contractors in $163 billion
worth of Pentagon-negotiated deals that were authorized by the Clinton State Department
between 2009 and 2012. -
IBTimes
Then there was that $1 million check Qatar reportedly gave
Bill Clinton for his birthday in 2012, which the charity confirmed it
accepted . Coincidentally, we're sure, Qatar was one of the countries which gained State
Department clearance to buy US weapons while Clinton was Secretary of State, "even as the
department signaled them out of a range of alleged ills," according to IBTimes.
Then there was $145 million donated to
the Foundation from parties linked to the Uranium One deal prior to its approval through a
rubber-stamp committee .
"The committee almost never met, and when it deliberated it was usually at a fairly low
bureaucratic level," Richard Perle said. Perle, who has worked for the Reagan, Clinton and
both Bush administrations added, " I think it's a bit of a joke. " –
CBS
The Clinton Foundation, meanwhile, told the NY Times that it "has regularly been subjected
to baseless, politically motivated allegations, and time after time these allegations have been
proven false."
Oddly, however, donations to the foundation plummeted
90% after Hillary Clinton lost the 2016 election - which would be odd if it wasn't a
pay-for-play enterprise.
The Clinton Foundation operated as a foreign agent 'early in its life' and 'throughout it's
existence' and did not operate as a 501c3 charitable foundation as required, and is not
entitled to its status as a nonprofit, alleged two highly qualified forensic investigators,
accompanied by three other investigators, said in explosive testimony Thursday to the House
Oversight and Government Reform Committee.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
...
Doyle and Moynihan have amassed 6,000 documents in their nearly two-year investigation
through their private firm MDA Analytics LLC. The documents were turned over more than a year
and a half ago to the IRS, according to John Solomon, who first published the report last week
in
The Hill.
" The investigation clearly demonstrates that the foundation was not a charitable
organization per se, but in point of fact was a closely held family partnership ," said
Doyle, who formerly worked on Wall Street and has been involved with finance for the last ten
years conducting investigations.
"As such it was governed in a fashion in which it sought in large measure to advance the
personal interests of its principals as detailed within the financial analysis of this
submission and further confirmed within the supporting documentation and evidence
section."
Will Durham's inquiry into the FBI's handling of the Clinton Foundation result in anything?
If recent history is any indicator, don't hold your breath.
"... these "contested election" scenarios we are hearing so much about play perfectly into the Color Revolution framework sketched out Revolver News' first installment in the Color Revolution series. ..."
"... the man who implemented the David Brock blueprint for suing the President into paralysis and his allies into bankruptcy, who helped mainstream and amplify the Russia Hoax, who drafted 10 articles of impeachment for the Democrats a full month before President Trump ever called the Ukraine President in 2018, who personally served as special counsel litigating the Ukraine impeachment, who created a template for Internet censorship of world leaders and a handbook for mass mobilizing racial justice protesters to overturn democratic election results, there is perhaps no man alive with a more decorated resume for plots against President Trump. ..."
"... Indeed, the story of Norm Eisen – a key architect of nearly every attempt to delegitimize, impeach, censor, sue and remove the democratically elected 45th President of the United States ..."
"... In Norm Eisen's case, the "same people same playbook" refrain takes an arrestingly literal turn when one realizes that Norm Eisen wrote a classic Color Revolution regime change manual, and conveniently titled it "The Playbook." ..."
In our report on Never Trump State Department official George Kent, Revolver News first
drew attention to the ominous similarities between the strategies and tactics the United
States government employs in so-called "Color Revolutions" and the coordinated efforts of
government bureaucrats, NGOs, and the media to oust President Trump.
Our recent follow-up to this initial report focused specifically on a shadowy, George
Soros linked group called the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), which convened "war games"
exercises suggesting the likelihood of a "contested election scenario," and of ensuing chaos
should President Trump refuse to leave office. We further showed how these "contested election" scenarios we are hearing
so much about play perfectly into the Color Revolution framework sketched out Revolver News' first installment in the Color
Revolution series.
This third installment of Revolver News' series exposing the Color Revolution against
Trump will focus on one quiet and indeed mostly overlooked participant in the Transition
Integrity Project's biased election "war games" exercise -- a man by the name of Norm
Eisen.
As the man who implemented the David Brock blueprint for suing the President into
paralysis and his allies into bankruptcy, who helped mainstream and amplify the Russia Hoax,
who drafted 10 articles of impeachment for the Democrats a full month before President Trump
ever called the Ukraine President in 2018, who personally served as special counsel
litigating the Ukraine impeachment, who created a template for Internet censorship of world
leaders and a handbook for mass mobilizing racial justice protesters to overturn democratic
election results, there is perhaps no man alive with a more decorated resume for plots
against President Trump.
Indeed, the story of Norm Eisen – a key architect of nearly every attempt to
delegitimize, impeach, censor, sue and remove the democratically elected 45th President of
the United States – is a tale that winds through nearly every facet of the color
revolution playbook. There is no purer embodiment of Revolver's thesis that the very same
regime change professionals who run Color Revolutions on behalf of the US Government in order
to undermine or overthrow alleged "authoritarian" governments overseas, are running the very
same playbook to overturn Trump's 2016 victory and to pre-empt a repeat in 2020. To put
it simply, what you see is not just the same Color Revolution playbook run against Trump, but
the same people using it against Trump who have employed it in a professional capacity
against targets overseas -- same people same playbook.
In Norm Eisen's case, the "same people same playbook" refrain takes an arrestingly
literal turn when one realizes that Norm Eisen wrote a classic Color Revolution regime change
manual, and conveniently titled it "The Playbook."
Just what exactly is President Obama's former White House Ethics Czar (yes, Norm Eisen was
Obama's ethics Czar), his longtime friend since Harvard Law School, who recently partook in
war games to simulate overturning a Trump electoral victory, doing writing a detailed
playbook on how to use a Color Revolution to overthrow governments? The story of Norm Eisen
only gets more fascinating, outrageous, and indispensable to understanding the planned chaos
unfolding before our eyes, leading up to what will perhaps be the most chaotic election in
our nation's recent history.
... ... ...
A deep dive into Eisen's book would exceed the scope of this relatively brief exposé.
It is nonetheless important for us to draw attention to key passages of Eisen's book to
underscore how closely the "Playbook" corresponds to events unfolding right here at home. Indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to say that regime change professionals such as
Eisen simply decided to run the same playbook against Trump that they have done countless
times when foreign leaders are elected overseas that they don't like and want to remove via
extra-democratic means -- "peaceful protests," "democratic breakthroughs" and such. ... ... ...
"... Russian military leaders view the "colour revolutions" as a "new US and European approach to warfare that focuses on creating destabilizing revolutions in other states as a means of serving their security interests at low cost and with minimal casualties. ..."
"... the activities of radical public associations and groups using nationalist and religious extremist ideology, foreign and international nongovernmental organizations, and financial and economic structures, and also individuals, focused on destroying the unity and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, destabilizing the domestic political and social situation -- including through inciting "color revolutions" -- and destroying traditional Russian religious and moral values ..."
Worldwide media use the term Colour Revolution (sometimes Coloured Revolution
) to describe various
related movements that developed in several countries of the former Soviet Union , in the People's Republic of
China and in the Balkans during the early-21st century. The term has
also been applied to a number of revolutions elsewhere, including in the Middle East and in the
Asia-Pacific region,
dating from the 1980s to the 2010s. Some observers (such as Justin Raimondo and Michael Lind ) have called the events a
revolutionary
wave , the origins of which can be traced back to the 1986 People Power Revolution (also known
as the "Yellow Revolution") in the Philippines .
Participants in colour revolutions have mostly used nonviolent resistance , also called
civil resistance .
Such methods as demonstrations, strikes and interventions have aimed to
protest against governments seen as corrupt and/or authoritarian and to advocate democracy , and they have built up
strong pressure for change.
Colour-revolution movements generally became associated with a specific colour or flower as
their symbol. The colour revolutions are notable for the important role of non-governmental
organisations (NGOs) and particularly student activists in organising creative
non-violent resistance .
Such movements have had a measure of success as for example in the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia 's Bulldozer
Revolution (2000), in Georgia 's Rose Revolution (2003) and in Ukraine 's Orange Revolution (2004). In most but not
all cases, massive street-protests followed disputed elections or requests for fair elections
and led to the resignation or overthrow of leaders regarded by their opponents as authoritarian . Some events have been called "colour revolutions", but differ from the
above cases in certain basic characteristics. Examples include Lebanon's Cedar Revolution (2005) and
Kuwait 's Blue Revolution
(2005).
Russia and China share nearly identical views that colour revolutions are the product of
machinations by the United States and other Western powers and pose a vital threat to their
public and national security.
The 1986 People Power Revolution (also
called the " EDSA " or the "Yellow"
Revolution) in the Philippines was the first successful non-violent uprising in the
contemporary period. It was the culmination of peaceful demonstrations against the
rule of
then-President Ferdinand Marcos – all of which
increased after the 1983 assassination of
opposition Senator Benigno S. Aquino,
Jr. A contested snap election on 7 February 1986 and a
call by the powerful Filipino Catholic
Church sparked mass protests across Metro Manila from 22–25 February.
The Revolution's iconic L-shaped Laban sign comes from the Filipino term for
People Power, " Lakás ng Bayan ", whose acronym is " LABAN " ("fight").
The yellow-clad protesters, later joined by the Armed Forces , ousted
Marcos and installed Aquino's widow Corazón as the country's eleventh
President, ushering in the present Fifth
Republic .
Long-standing secessionist sentiment in Bougainville eventually led to conflict with
Papua New Guinea. The inhabitants of Bougainville Island formed the Bougainville
Revolutionary Army and fought against government troops. On 20 April 1998, Papua New
Guinea ended the civil war. In 2005, Papua New Guinea gave autonomy to Bougainville.
in 1989, a peaceful demonstration by students (mostly from Charles University ) was attacked by
the police – and in time contributed to the collapse of the communist government in
Czechoslovakia.
The 'Bulldozer Revolution' in 2000, which led to the overthrow of
Slobodan Milošević . These demonstrations are usually considered to be the
first example of the peaceful revolutions which followed. However, the Serbians adopted an
approach that had already been used in parliamentary elections in Bulgaria (1997) ,
Slovakia (1998) and
Croatia (2000) ,
characterised by civic mobilisation through get-out-the-vote campaigns and unification of
the political opposition. The nationwide protesters did not adopt a colour or a specific
symbol; however, the slogan " Gotov je " (Serbian Cyrillic:
Готов је , English: He is finished
) did become an aftermath symbol celebrating the completion of the task. Despite the
commonalities, many others refer to Georgia as the most definite beginning of the series of
"colour revolutions". The demonstrations were supported by the youth movement Otpor! , some of whose members
were involved in the later revolutions in other countries.
Following the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the
Adjara
crisis (sometimes called "Second Rose Revolution" or Mini-Rose
Revolution ) led to the
exit of Chairman of the Government Aslan Abashidze from office.
Purple
Revolution was a name first used by some hopeful commentators and later picked up by
United States President George W. Bush to describe the coming of
democracy to Iraq following the 2005 Iraqi
legislative election and was intentionally used to draw the parallel with the Orange
and Rose revolutions. However, the name "purple revolution" has not achieved widespread use
in Iraq, the United States or elsewhere. The name comes from the colour that voters' index
fingers were stained to prevent fraudulent multiple voting. The term first appeared shortly
after the January 2005 election in various weblogs and editorials of individuals supportive
of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The term
received its widest usage during a visit by U.S. President George W. Bush on 24 February 2005 to
Bratislava , Slovak
Republic, for a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin . Bush stated: "In recent
times, we have witnessed landmark events in the history of liberty: A Rose Revolution in
Georgia, an Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and now, a Purple Revolution in Iraq."
The Tulip
Revolution in Kyrgyzstan (also sometimes called the "Pink Revolution") was more violent
than its predecessors and followed the disputed 2005 Kyrgyz
parliamentary election . At the same time, it was more fragmented than previous
"colour" revolutions. The protesters in different areas adopted the colours pink and yellow
for their protests. This revolution was supported by youth resistance movement KelKel .
The Cedar
Revolution in Lebanon between February and April 2005 followed not a disputed election,
but rather the assassination of opposition leader Rafik Hariri in 2005. Also, instead of the
annulment of an election, the people demanded an end to the Syrian occupation of
Lebanon . Nonetheless, some of its elements and some of the methods used in the
protests have been similar enough that it is often considered and treated by the press and
commentators as one of the series of "colour revolutions". The Cedar of Lebanon is the symbol of the
country, and the revolution was named after it. The peaceful demonstrators used the colours
white and red, which are found in the Lebanese flag. The protests led to the pullout of
Syrian troops
in April 2005, ending their nearly 30-year presence there, although Syria retains some
influence in Lebanon.
Blue Revolution was a term used by some Kuwaitis to refer to
demonstrations in Kuwait in support of women's suffrage
beginning in March 2005; it was named after the colour of the signs the protesters used. In
May of that year the Kuwaiti government acceded to their demands, granting women the right
to vote beginning in the 2007 parliamentary elections. Since there was
no call for regime change, the so-called "blue revolution" cannot be categorised as a true
colour revolution.
In Belarus, there have been a number of protests against President Alexander Lukashenko , with
participation from student group Zubr . One round of
protests culminated on 25 March 2005; it was a self-declared attempt to emulate the
Kyrgyzstan revolution, and involved over a thousand citizens. However, police severely
suppressed it, arresting over 30 people and imprisoning opposition leader Mikhail Marinich .
A second, much larger, round of protests began almost a year later, on 19 March 2006,
soon after the presidential
election . Official results had Lukashenko winning with 83% of the vote; protesters
claimed the results were achieved through fraud and voter intimidation, a charge echoed
by many foreign governments.
Protesters camped out in October Square in Minsk over the next week, calling variously for
the resignation of Lukashenko, the installation of rival candidate Alaksandar
Milinkievič , and new, fair elections.
The opposition originally used as a symbol the white-red-white former flag of Belarus ; the
movement has had significant connections with that in neighbouring Ukraine, and during
the Orange Revolution some white-red-white flags were seen being waved in Kiev. During
the 2006 protests some called it the " Jeans Revolution " or "Denim
Revolution",
blue jeans being considered a symbol for freedom. Some protesters cut up jeans into
ribbons and hung them in public places. It is
claimed that Zubr was responsible for coining the phrase.
Lukashenko has said in the past: "In our country, there will be no pink or orange, or
even banana revolution." More recently he's said "They [the West] think that Belarus is
ready for some 'orange' or, what is a rather frightening option, 'blue' or ' cornflower blue '
revolution. Such 'blue' revolutions are the last thing we need". On
19 April 2005, he further commented: "All these coloured revolutions are pure and simple
banditry."
In Myanmar (unofficially called Burma), a series of anti-government protests were
referred to in the press as the Saffron Revolution
after Buddhist monks ( Theravada Buddhist monks normally
wear the colour saffron) took the vanguard of the protests. A previous, student-led
revolution, the 8888
Uprising on 8 August 1988, had similarities to the colour revolutions, but was
violently repressed.
The opposition is reported to have hoped for and urged some kind of Orange revolution,
similar to that in Ukraine, in the follow-up of the 2005 Moldovan
parliamentary elections , while the Christian
Democratic People's Party adopted orange for its colour in a clear reference to the
events of Ukraine.
A name hypothesised for such an event was "Grape Revolution" because of the abundance
of vineyards in the country; however, such a revolution failed to materialise after the
governmental victory in the elections. Many reasons have been given for this, including a
fractured opposition and the fact that the government had already co-opted many of the
political positions that might have united the opposition (such as a perceived
pro-European and anti-Russian stance). Also the elections themselves were declared fairer
in the OSCE election monitoring reports than had been the case in other countries where
similar revolutions occurred, even though the CIS monitoring mission strongly condemned
them.
Green Movement is a term widely used to describe the 2009–2010
Iranian election protests . The protests began in 2009, several years after the main
wave of colour revolutions, although like them it began due to a disputed election, the
2009 Iranian
presidential election . Protesters adopted the colour green as their symbol because it
had been the campaign colour of presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi , whom many
protesters thought had won the elections .
However Mousavi and his wife went under house arrest without any trial issued by a
court.
The Kyrgyz Revolution of 2010 in
Kyrgyzstan (also sometimes called the "Melon Revolution") led to the
exit of President Kurmanbek Bakiyev from office. The
total number of deaths should be 2,000.
Jasmine Revolution was a widely used term for the
Tunisian
Revolution . The Jasmine Revolution led to the exit of President Ben Ali from office and
the beginning of the Arab Spring .
Lotus Revolution was a term used by various western news sources to describe the
Egyptian Revolution of 2011
that forced President Mubarak to step down in 2011 as part of the Arab Spring , which followed the Jasmine
Revolution of Tunisia. Lotus is known as the flower representing resurrection, life and the
sun of ancient Egypt. It is uncertain who gave the name, while columnist of Arabic press,
Asharq Alawsat, and prominent Egyptian opposition leader Saad Eddin Ibrahim claimed to name
it the Lotus Revolution. Lotus Revolution later became common on western news source such
as CNN. Other names,
such as White Revolution and Nile Revolution, are used but are minor terms compare to Lotus
Revolution. The term Lotus Revolution is rarely, if ever, used in the Arab world.
In February 2011, Bahrain was also affected by protests in Tunisia and Egypt. Bahrain
has long been famous for its pearls and Bahrain's speciality. And there was the Pearl
Square in Manama, where the demonstrations began. The people of Bahrain were also
protesting around the square. At first, the government of Bahrain promised to reform the
people. But when their promises were not followed, the people resisted again. And in the
process, bloodshed took place (18 March 2011). After that, a small demonstration is taking
place in Bahrain.
An anti-government protest started in Yemen in 2011. The Yemeni people sought to resign
Ali Abdullah Saleh as the ruler. On 24 November, Ali Abdullah Saleh decided to transfer the
regime. In 2012, Ali Abdullah Saleh finally fled to the United States(27 February).
A call which first appeared on 17 February 2011 on the Chinese language site Boxun.com in the United States
for a "Jasmine revolution" in the People's Republic of China and repeated on social
networking sites in China resulted in blocking of internet searches for "jasmine" and a
heavy police presence at designated sites for protest such as the McDonald's in central
Beijing, one of the 13 designated protest sites, on 20 February 2011. A crowd did gather
there, but their motivations were ambiguous as a crowd tends to draw a crowd in that area.
Boxun experienced a denial of service attack
during this period and was inaccessible.
Protests started on 4 December 2011 in the capital, Moscow against the results of the parliamentary
elections, which led to the arrests of over 500 people. On 10 December, protests erupted in
tens of cities across the country; a few months later, they spread to hundreds both inside
the country and abroad. The name of the Snow Revolution derives from December - the month
when the revolution had started - and from the white ribbons the protesters wore.
Many analysts and participants of the protests against President of Macedonia Gjorge
Ivanov and the Macedonian
government refer to them as a "colourful Revolution", due to the demonstrators throwing
paint balls of different colours at government buildings in Skopje , the capital.
In 2018, a peaceful revolution was led by
member of parliament Nikol Pashinyan in opposition to the
nomination of Serzh
Sargsyan as Prime Minister of Armenia ,
who had previously served as both President of Armenia and prime
minister, eliminating term limits which would have otherwise
prevented his 2018 nomination. Concerned that Sargsyan's third consecutive term as the most
powerful politician in the government of Armenia gave him too much political influence,
protests occurred throughout the country, particularly in Yerevan , but demonstrations in solidarity with
the protesters also occurred in other countries where Armenian diaspora live.
During the
protests, Pashinyan was arrested and detained on 22 April, but he was released the
following day. Sargsyan stepped down from the position of Prime Minister, and his
Republican Party decided to
not put forward a candidate. An interim
Prime Minister was selected from Sargsyan's party until elections were held, and protests
continued for over one month. Crowd sizes in Yerevan consisted of 115,000 to 250,000 people
at a time throughout the revolution, and hundreds of protesters were arrested. Pashinyan
referred to the event as a Velvet Revolution. A vote was
held in parliament, and Pashinyan became the Prime Minister of Armenia.
Many have cited the influence of the series of revolutions which
occurred in Central and Eastern Europe in the late 1980s and early 1990s, particularly the
Velvet Revolution
in Czechoslovakia in 1989. A
peaceful demonstration by students (mostly from Charles University ) was attacked by the
police – and in time contributed to the collapse of the communist government in
Czechoslovakia. Yet the roots of the pacifist floral imagery may go even further back to the
non-violent Carnation Revolution of Portugal in
April 1974, which is associated with the colour carnation because carnations were worn, and the 1986 Yellow Revolution in
the Philippines where demonstrators offered peace flowers to military personnel manning
armoured tanks.
Student movements
The first of these was Otpor! ("Resistance!") in the Federal Republic of
Yugoslavia, which was founded at Belgrade University in October 1998 and
began protesting against Miloševic' during the Kosovo War . Most of them were already veterans
of anti-Milošević demonstrations such as the 1996–97 protests
and the 9 March
1991 protest . Many of its members were arrested or beaten by the police. Despite this,
during the presidential campaign in September 2000, Otpor launched its " Gotov je " (He's finished) campaign that
galvanised Serbian discontent with Miloševic' and resulted in his defeat.
Members of Otpor have inspired and trained members of related student movements including
Kmara in Georgia, Pora in
Ukraine, Zubr in Belarus and
MJAFT! in Albania. These
groups have been explicit and scrupulous in their practice of non-violent resistance as advocated
and explained in Gene
Sharp 's writings. The massive
protests that they have organised, which were essential to the successes in the Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia, Georgia and Ukraine, have been notable for their colourfulness and use
of ridiculing humor in opposing authoritarian leaders.
Critical analysis
The analysis of international geopolitics scholars Paul J. Bolt and Sharyl N. Cross is that
"Moscow and Beijing share almost indistinguishable views on the potential domestic and
international security threats posed by colored revolutions, and both nations view these
revolutionary movements as being orchestrated by the United States and its Western democratic
partners to advance geopolitical ambitions."
Russian
assessment
According to Anthony Cordesman of the Center for
Strategic and International Studies , Russian military leaders view the "colour revolutions" as a "new US and
European approach to warfare that focuses on creating destabilizing revolutions in other states
as a means of serving their security interests at low cost and with minimal casualties."
Government figures in Russia , such as Defence Minister
Sergei Shoigu (in
office from 2012) and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (in office from 2004), have
characterised colour revolutions as externally-fuelled acts with a clear goal to influence the
internal affairs that destabilise the economy, conflict with the law and represent a new form of warfare. Russian President
Vladimir Putin has
stated that Russia must prevent colour revolutions: "We see what tragic consequences the wave
of so-called colour revolutions led to. For us this is a lesson and a warning. We should do
everything necessary so that nothing similar ever happens in Russia".
The 2015 presidential decree The Russian Federation's National Security Strategy (
О Стратегии
Национальной
Безопасности
Российской
Федерации ) cites "foreign sponsored
regime change" among "main threats to public and national security," including
the activities of radical public associations and groups using nationalist and religious
extremist ideology, foreign and international nongovernmental organizations, and financial
and economic structures, and also individuals, focused on destroying the unity and
territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, destabilizing the domestic political and
social situation -- including through inciting "color revolutions" -- and destroying
traditional Russian religious and moral values
Chinese view
Articles published by the Global Times , a state-run nationalist tabloid, indicate that Chinese
leaders also anticipate the Western powers, such as the United States, using "color revolutions" as a means to undermine the one-party state. An article published on 8 May 2016 claims: "A
variation of containment seeks to press China on human rights and democracy with the hope of
creating a 'color revolution.'" A 13 August 2019
article declared that the 2019 Hong Kong extradition
bill protests were a colour revolution that "aim[ed] to ruin HK 's future."
The 2015 policy white paper "China's Military Strategy" by the State Council
Information Office said that "anti-China forces have never given up their attempt to
instigate a 'color revolution' in this country."
Azerbaijan
A number of movements were created in Azerbaijan in mid-2005, inspired by the examples
of both Georgia and Ukraine. A youth group, calling itself Yox! (which means No!), declared its opposition to
governmental corruption. The leader of Yox! said that unlike Pora or Kmara , he wants to change not just the leadership,
but the entire system of governance in Azerbaijan. The Yox movement chose green as its colour.
The spearhead of Azerbaijan's attempted colour revolution was Yeni Fikir ("New Idea"), a
youth group closely aligned with the Azadlig (Freedom) Bloc of opposition political parties.
Along with groups such as Magam ("It's Time") and Dalga ("Wave"), Yeni Fikir deliberately
adopted many of the tactics of the Georgian and Ukrainian colour revolution groups, even
borrowing the colour orange from the Ukrainian revolution.
In November 2005 protesters took to the streets, waving orange flags and banners, to protest
what they considered government fraud in recent parliamentary elections. The Azerbaijani colour revolution finally fizzled out with the police riot on 26
November, during which dozens of protesters were injured and perhaps hundreds teargassed and
sprayed with water cannons.
On 5 February 2013, protests began in Shahbag and later spread to other parts of
Bangladesh following
demands for capital punishment for Abdul Quader Mollah , who had been
sentenced to life imprisonment, and for others convicted of war crimes by the International
Crimes Tribunal of Bangladesh . On that
day, the International Crimes
Tribunal had sentenced Mollah to life in prison after he was convicted on five of six
counts of war crimes . Later
demands included banning the Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami party
from politics including election and a boycott of institutions supporting (or affiliated with)
the party.
Protesters considered Mollah's sentence too lenient, given his crimes. Bloggers and online activists called for additional protests at Shahbag.
Tens of thousands of people joined the demonstration, which gave rise to protests across the
country.
The movement demanding trial of war criminals is a protest movement in Bangladesh, from 1972
to present.
Belarus
In Belarus , there have
been a number of protests against President Alexander Lukashenko , with
participation from student group Zubr . One round of protests
culminated on 25 March 2005; it was a self-declared attempt to emulate the Kyrgyzstan
revolution, and involved over a thousand citizens. However, police severely suppressed it,
arresting over 30 people and imprisoning opposition leader Mikhail Marinich .
A second, much larger, round of protests began almost a year later, on 19 March 2006, soon
after the presidential election
. Official results had Lukashenko winning with 83% of the vote; protesters claimed the results
were achieved through fraud and voter intimidation, a charge echoed by many foreign
governments.
Protesters camped out in October Square in Minsk over the next week, calling variously for the
resignation of Lukashenko, the installation of rival candidate Alaksandar Milinkievič ,
and new, fair elections.
The opposition originally used as a symbol the white-red-white former flag of Belarus ; the movement has had
significant connections with that in neighbouring Ukraine, and during the Orange Revolution
some white-red-white flags were seen being waved in Kiev. During the 2006 protests some called
it the " Jeans
Revolution " or "Denim Revolution", blue
jeans being considered a symbol for freedom. Some protesters cut up jeans into ribbons and hung
them in public places. It is
claimed that Zubr was responsible for coining the phrase.
Lukashenko has said in the past: "In our country, there will be no pink or orange, or even
banana revolution." More recently he's said "They [the West] think that Belarus is ready for
some 'orange' or, what is a rather frightening option, 'blue' or ' cornflower blue ' revolution. Such 'blue'
revolutions are the last thing we need". On 19
April 2005, he further commented: "All these colored revolutions are pure and simple
banditry."
In Burma (officially called Myanmar), a series of anti-government protests were referred to
in the press as the Saffron Revolution after
Buddhist monks ( Theravada Buddhist monks normally wear
the colour saffron) took the vanguard of the protests. A previous, student-led revolution, the
8888 Uprising on 8
August 1988, had similarities to the colour revolutions, but was violently
repressed.
A call which first appeared on 17 February 2011 on the Chinese language site Boxun.com in the United States for
a "Jasmine revolution" in the People's Republic of China and repeated on social networking
sites in China resulted in blocking of internet searches for "jasmine" and a heavy police
presence at designated sites for protest such as the McDonald's in central Beijing, one of the 13
designated protest sites, on 20 February 2011. A crowd did gather there, but their motivations
were ambiguous as a crowd tends to draw a crowd in that area.
Boxun experienced a denial of service attack during
this period and was inaccessible.
In the 2000s, Fiji suffered numerous coups. But at the same time, many Fiji citizens
resisted the military. In Fiji, there have been many human rights abuses by the military.
Anti-government protesters in Fiji have fled to Australia and New Zealand. In 2011, Fijians
conducted anti Fijian government protests in Australia. On 17 September
2014, the first democratic general election was held in Fiji.
In 2015, Otto
Pérez Molina , President of Guatemala, was suspected of corruption. In Guatemala City,
a large number of protests rallied. Demonstrations took place from April to September 2015.
Otto Pérez
Molina was eventually arrested on 3 September. The people of Guatemala called this event
"Guatemalan Spring".
Moldova
The opposition is reported to have hoped for and urged some kind of Orange revolution,
similar to that in Ukraine, in the follow-up of the 2005 Moldovan
parliamentary elections , while the Christian
Democratic People's Party adopted orange for its colour in a clear reference to the events
of Ukraine.
A name hypothesised for such an event was "Grape Revolution" because of the abundance of
vineyards in the country; however, such a revolution failed to materialise after the
governmental victory in the elections. Many reasons have been given for this, including a
fractured opposition and the fact that the government had already co-opted many of the
political positions that might have united the opposition (such as a perceived pro-European and
anti-Russian stance). Also the elections themselves were declared fairer in the OSCE election
monitoring reports than had been the case in other countries where similar revolutions
occurred, even though the CIS monitoring mission strongly condemned them.
On 25 March 2005, activists wearing yellow scarves held protests in the capital city of
Ulaanbaatar , disputing
the results of the 2004 Mongolian
parliamentary elections and calling for fresh elections. One of the chants heard in that
protest was "Let's congratulate our Kyrgyz brothers for their revolutionary spirit. Let's free
Mongolia of corruption."
An uprising commenced in Ulaanbaatar on 1 July 2008, with a peaceful meeting in protest of
the election of 29 June. The results of these elections were (it was claimed by opposition
political parties) corrupted by the Mongolian People's Party (MPRP).
Approximately 30,000 people took part in the meeting. Afterwards, some of the protesters left
the central square and moved to the HQ of the Mongolian People's Revolutionary Party –
which they attacked and then burned down. A police station was also attacked. By the night
rioters vandalised and then set fire to the Cultural Palace (which contained a theatre, museum
and National art gallery). Cars torching, bank
robberies and looting were reported. The
organisations in the burning buildings were vandalised and looted. Police used tear gas, rubber
bullets and water cannon against stone-throwing protesters. A 4-day
state of emergency was installed, the capital has been placed under a 2200 to 0800 curfew, and
alcohol sales banned, rioting not
resumed. 5 people
were shot dead by the police ,
dozens of teenagers were wounded from the police firearms and disabled and
800 people, including the leaders of the civil movements J. Batzandan, O. Magnai and B.
Jargalsakhan, were arrested. International
observers said 1 July general election was free and fair.
In 2007, the Lawyers' Movement started in Pakistan with the aim of restoration
of deposed judges. However, within a month the movement took a turn and started working towards
the goal of removing Pervez Musharraf from power.
The liberal opposition in Russia is represented by several parties and
movements.
An active part of the opposition is the Oborona youth movement. Oborona
claims that its aim is to provide free and honest elections and to establish in Russia a system
with democratic political competition. This movement under the leadership of Oleg
Kozlovsky was one of the most active and radical ones and is represented in a number of
Russian cities. During the elections of 8 September 2013, the movement contributed to the
success of Navalny in Moscow and other opposition candidates in various regions and towns
throughout Russia. The "oboronkis" also took part with other oppositional groups in protests
against fraud in the Moscow mayoral elections.
Since the 2012 protests, Aleksei Navalny mobilised with support of
the various and fractured opposition parties and masses of young people against the alleged
repression and fraud of the Kremlin apparatus. After a strong
campaign for the 8 September elections in Moscow and the regions, the opposition won remarkable
successes. Navalny reached a second place in Moscow with surprising 27% behind Kremlin-backed
Sergei Sobyanin
finishing with 51% of the votes. In other regions, opposition candidates received remarkable
successes. In the big industrial town of Yekaterinburg, opposition candidate Yevgeny Roizman received the majority
of votes and became the mayor of that town. The slow but gradual sequence of opposition
successes reached by mass protests, election campaigns and other peaceful strategies has been
recently called by observers and analysts as of Radio Free Europe "Tortoise Revolution"
in contrast to the radical "rose" or "orange" ones the Kremlin tried to prevent.
The opposition in the Republic of Bashkortostan has held protests demanding
that the federal authorities intervene to dismiss Murtaza Rakhimov from his position as
president of the republic, accusing him of leading an "arbitrary, corrupt, and violent" regime.
Airat
Dilmukhametov , one of the opposition leaders, and leader of the
Bashkir National Front , has said that the opposition movement has been inspired from the
mass protests of Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. Another
opposition leader, Marat
Khaiyirulin , has said that if an Orange Revolution were to happen in Russia, it would
begin in Bashkortostan.
From 2016 to 2017, the candlelight protest was going on in South Korea with the aim to force the ousting
of President Park
Geun-hye . Park was impeached and removed from office, and new presidential
elections were held.
In Uzbekistan , there
has been longstanding opposition to President Islam Karimov , from liberals and Islamists.
Following protests in 2005, security forces in Uzbekistan carried out the Andijan massacre that successfully
halted country-wide demonstrations. These protests otherwise could have turned into colour
revolution, according to many analysts.
The revolution in neighbouring Kyrgyzstan began in the largely ethnic Uzbek south, and
received early support in the city of Osh . Nigora
Hidoyatova , leader of the Free
Peasants opposition party, has referred to the idea of a peasant revolt or 'Cotton
Revolution'. She also said that her party is collaborating with the youth organisation
Shiddat , and that she
hopes it can evolve to an organisation similar to Kmara or Pora. Other nascent
youth organisations in and for Uzbekistan include Bolga
and the freeuzbek
group.
When groups of young people protested the closure of Venezuela's RCTV television station in June 2007, president
Hugo Chávez
said that he believed the protests were organised by the West in an attempt to promote a "soft
coup" like the revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia. Similarly,
Chinese authorities claimed repeatedly in the state-run media that both the 2014 Hong Kong protests
– known as the Umbrella Revolution – as well as
the 2019–20 Hong Kong
protests , were organised and controlled by the United States.
In July 2007, Iranian state television released footage of two Iranian-American prisoners,
both of whom work for western NGOs, as part of a documentary called "In the Name of Democracy."
The documentary purportedly discusses the colour revolutions in Ukraine and Georgia and accuses
the United States of attempting to foment a similar ouster in Iran.
Other
examples and political movements around the world
The imagery of a colour revolution has been adopted by various non-revolutionary electoral
campaigns. The 'Purple Revolution' social media campaign of Naheed Nenshi catapulted his platform from 8%
to become Calgary's 36th Mayor. The platform advocated city sustainability and to inspire the
high voter turn out of 56%, particularly among young voters.
In 2015, the NDP of Alberta earned a majority
mandate and ended the 44-year-old dynasty of the Progressive
Conservatives . During the campaign Rachel Notley 's popularity gained momentum,
and the news and NDP supporters referred to this phenomenon as the "Orange Crush" per the
party's colour. NDP parodies of Orange flavoured Crush soda logo became a popular meme on
social media.
"... One NGO called the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group (TDWG) was bold or reckless enough to draw the parallels between the Color Revolution in Belarus and the events playing out against Trump explicitly ..."
"... Now, would the reader care to take a guess as to who runs the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group? If you guessed Norm Eisen, you would be correct. ..."
In our report on Never
Trump State Department official George Kent , Revolver News first drew attention
to the ominous similarities between the strategies and tactics the United States government
employs in so-called "Color Revolutions" and the coordinated efforts of government bureaucrats,
NGOs, and the media to oust President Trump.
Our recent follow-up to this initial report focused specifically on a shadowy, George Soros
linked group called the Transition Integrity Project (TIP), which convened "war games"
exercises suggesting the likelihood of a "contested election scenario," and of ensuing chaos
should President Trump refuse to leave office. We further showed how these "contested election"
scenarios we are hearing so much about play perfectly into the Color Revolution framework
sketched out Revolver News' first installment in the Color Revolution series.
This third installment of Revolver News ' series exposing the Color Revolution
against Trump will focus on one quiet and indeed mostly overlooked participant in the
Transition Integrity Project's biased election "war games" exercise -- a man by the name of
Norm Eisen.
As the man who implemented the David Brock blueprint for
suing the President into paralysis and his
allies into bankruptcy , who helped mainstream and amplify the Russia Hoax, who drafted
10 articles of impeachment for the Democrats a full month before President Trump ever
called the Ukraine President in 2018 , who personally served as special counsel
litigating the Ukraine impeachment, who created a template for Internet censorship of world
leaders and a handbook for mass mobilizing racial justice protesters to overturn democratic
election results, there is perhaps no man alive with a more decorated resume for plots against
President Trump.
Indeed, the story of Norm Eisen – a key architect of nearly every attempt to
delegitimize, impeach, censor, sue and remove the democratically elected 45th President of the
United States – is a tale that winds through nearly every facet of the color revolution
playbook. There is no purer embodiment of Revolver's thesis that the very same regime
change professionals who run Color Revolutions on behalf of the US Government in order to
undermine or overthrow alleged "authoritarian" governments overseas, are running the very same
playbook to overturn Trump's 2016 victory and to pre-empt a repeat in 2020. To put it simply,
what you see is not just the same Color Revolution playbook run against Trump, but the same
people using it against Trump who have employed it in a professional capacity against targets
overseas -- same people same playbook.
In Norm Eisen's case, the "same people same playbook" refrain takes an arrestingly literal
turn when one realizes that Norm Eisen wrote a classic Color Revolution regime change manual,
and conveniently titled it "The Playbook."
Just what exactly is President Obama's former White House Ethics Czar ( yes, Norm Eisen
was Obama's ethics Czar ), his longtime friend since Harvard Law School, who recently
partook in war games to simulate overturning a Trump electoral victory, doing writing a
detailed playbook on how to use a Color Revolution to overthrow governments? The story of Norm
Eisen only gets more fascinating, outrageous, and indispensable to understanding the planned
chaos unfolding before our eyes, leading up to what will perhaps be the most chaotic election
in our nation's recent history.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -
"I'd Rather Have This Book Than The Atomic Bomb"
Before we can fully appreciate the significance of Norm Eisen's Color Revolution manual "The
Playbook," we must contextualize this important book in relation to its place in Color
Revolution literature.
As a bit of a refresher to the reader, it is important to emphasize that when we use the
term "Color Revolution" we do not mean any general type of revolution -- indeed, one of the
chief advantages of the Color Revolution framework we advance is that it offers a specific and
concrete heuristic by which to understand the operations against Trump beyond the accurate but
more vague term "coup." Unlike the overt, blunt, method of full scale military invasion as was
the case in Iraq War, a Color Revolution employs the following strategies and tactics:
A "Color Revolution" in this context refers to a specific type of coordinated attack that
the United States government has been known to deploy against foreign regimes, particularly
in Eastern Europe deemed to be "authoritarian" and hostile to American interests. Rather than
using a direct military intervention to effect regime change as in Iraq, Color Revolutions
attack a foreign regime by contesting its electoral legitimacy, organizing mass protests and
acts of civil disobedience, and leveraging media contacts to ensure favorable coverage to
their agenda in the Western press.
[Revolver]
This combination of tactics used in so-called Color Revolutions did not come from nowhere.
Before Norm Eisen came Gene Sharp -- originator and Godfather of the Color Revolution model
that has been a staple of US Government operations externally (and now internally) for decades.
Before Norm Eisen's "Playbook" there was Gene Sharp's classic "From Dictatorship to Democracy,"
which might be justly described as the Bible of the Color Revolution. Such is the power of the
strategies laid out by Sharp that a Lithuanian defense minister once said of Sharp's preceding
book (upon which Dictatorship to Democracy builds) that "I would
rather have this book than the nuclear bomb."
Gene Sharp
It would be impossible to do full justice to Gene Sharp within the scope of this specific
article. Here are some choice excerpts about Sharp and his biography to give readers a taste of
his significance and relevance to this discussion.
Gene Sharp, the "Machiavelli of nonviolence," has been fairly described as "the most
influential American political figure you've never heard of."
1 Sharp, who passed away in January 2018, was a beloved yet "mysterious" intellectual
giant of nonviolent protest movements , the "father of the whole field of the study of
strategic nonviolent action."
2 Over his career, he wrote more than twenty books about nonviolent action and social
movements. His how-to pamphlet on nonviolent revolution, From Dictatorship to
Democracy , has been translated into over thirty languages and is cited by protest
movements around the world . In the U.S., his ideas are widely promoted through activist
training programs and by scholars of nonviolence, and have been used by nearly every major
protest movement in the last forty years .
3 For these contributions, Sharp has been praised by progressive heavyweights like Howard
Zinn and Noam Chomsky, nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize four times, compared to Gandhi,
and cast as a lonely prophet of peace, champion of the downtrodden, and friend of the left .
4
Gene Sharp's influence on the U.S. activist left and social movements abroad has been
significant. But he is better understood as one of the most important U.S. defense
intellectuals of the Cold War, an early neoliberal theorist concerned with the supposedly
inherent violence of the "centralized State," and a quiet but vital counselor to
anti-communist forces in the socialist world from the 1980s onward.
In the mid-1960s, Thomas Schelling, a Nobel Prize-winning nuclear theorist, recruited
29-year-old Sharp to join the Center for International Affairs at Harvard , bastion of the
high Cold War defense, intelligence, and security establishment. Leading the so-called "CIA
at Harvard" were Henry Kissinger, future National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy, and future
CIA chief Robert Bowie. Sharp held this appointment for thirty years. There, with Department
of Defense funds, he developed his core theory of nonviolent action: a method of warfare
capable of collapsing states through theatrical social movements designed to dissolve the
common will that buttresses governments, all without firing any shots. From his post at the
CIA at Harvard, Sharp would urge U.S. and NATO defense leadership to use his methods against
the Soviet Union. [Nonsite]
We invite the reader to reflect on the passages in bold, particularly their potential
relevance to the current domestic situation in the United States. Sharp's book and strategy for
"non violent revolution" AKA "peaceful protests" has been used to undermine or overthrow target
governments all over the world, particularly in Eastern Europe.
Gene's color revolution playbook was of course especially effective in Eastern Bloc
countries in Eastern Europe:
Finally, there is no shortage of analysis as to the applicability of Sharp's methods
domestically within the USA in order to advance various left wing causes. This passage
specifically mentions the applicability of Sharp's methods to counter act Trump.
Ominous stuff indeed. For readers who wish to read further, please consult
the full Politico piece from which we have excerpted the above highlighted passages. There
is also a fascinating documentary on Sharp instructively titled "
How to Start a Revolution ."
This is all interesting and disturbing, to say the least. In its own right it would suggest
a compelling nexus point between the operations run against Trump and the Color Revolution
playbook. But what does this have to do with our subject Norm Eisen? It just so happens that
Eisen explicitly places himself in the tradition of Gene Sharp, acknowledging his book "The
Playbook" as a kind of update to Sharp's seminal "Dictatorship to Democracy."
And there we have it, folks -- Norm Eisen, former Obama Ethics Czar, Ambassador to
Czechoslovakia during the "Velvet Revolution," key counsel in impeachment effort against Trump,
and participant in the ostensibly bi-partisan election war games predicting a contested
election scenario unfavorable to Trump -- just happens to be a Color Revolution expert who
literally wrote the modern "Playbook" in the explicitly acknowledged tradition of Color
Revolution Godfather Gene Sharp's "From Dictatorship to Democracy."
Before we turn to the contents of Norm Eisen's Color Revolution manual, full title "The
Democracy Playbook: Preventing and Reversing Democratic Backsliding," it will be useful to make
a brief point regarding the term "democracy" itself, which happens to appear in the title of
Gene Sharp's book "From Dictatorship to Democracy" as well.
Just like the term "peaceful protestor," which, as we pointed out in our George Kent essay
is used as a term of craft in the Color Revolution context, so is the term "democracy" itself.
The US Government launches Color Revolutions against foreign targets irrespective of whether
they actually enjoy the support of the people or were elected democratically. In the case of
Trump, whatever one says about him, he is perhaps the most "democratically" elected President
in America's history. Indeed, in 2016 Trump ran against the coordinated opposition of the
establishments of both parties, the military industrial complex, the corporate media,
Hollywood, and really every single powerful institution in the country. He won, however,
because he was able to garner sufficient support of the people -- his true and decisive power
base as a "populist." Precisely because of the ultra democratic "populist" character of Trump's
victory, the operatives attempting to undermine him have focused specifically on attacking the
democratic legitimacy of his victory.
In this vein we ought to note that the term "democratic backsliding," as seen in the
subtitle of Norm Eisen's book, and its opposite "democratic breakthrough" are also terms of art
in the Color Revolution lexicon. We leave the full exploration of how the term "democratic" is
used deceptively in the Color Revolution context (and in names of decidedly
anti-democratic/populist institutions) as an exercise to the interested reader. Michael McFaul,
another Color Revolution expert and key anti-Trump operative somewhat gives the game away in
the following tweet in which the term "democratic breakthrough" makes an appearance as a better
sounding alternative to "Color Revolution:"
Most likely as a response to Revolver News' first Color Revolution article on State
Department official George Kent, former Ambassador McFaul issued the following tweet as a
matter of damage control:
Being a rather simple man from a simple background, McFaul perhaps gave too much of this
answer away in the following explanation (now deleted).
Trump has lost the Intelligence Community. He has lost the State Department. He has lost the military. How can he continue to
serve as our Commander in Chief ?
With this now-deleted tweet we get a clearer picture of the power bases that must be
satisfied for a "democratic breakthrough" to occur -- and conveniently enough, not one of them
is subject to direct democratic control. McFaul, Like Eisen, George Kent, and so many others,
perfectly embodies Revolver's thesis regarding the Color Revolution being the same
people running the same playbook. Indeed, like most of the star never-Trump impeachment
witnesses, McFaul has been an ambassador to an Eastern European country. He has supported
operations against Trump, including impeachment. And, like Norm Eisen, he has actually
written
a book on Color Revolutions (more on that later).
Norm Eisen's The Democracy Playbook: A Brief Overview:
A deep dive into Eisen's book would exceed the scope of this relatively brief exposé.
It is nonetheless important for us to draw attention to key passages of Eisen's book to
underscore how closely the "Playbook" corresponds to events unfolding right here at home.
Indeed, it would not be an exaggeration to say that regime change professionals such as Eisen
simply decided to run the same playbook against Trump that they have done countless times when
foreign leaders are elected overseas that they don't like and want to remove via
extra-democratic means -- "peaceful protests," "democratic breakthroughs" and such.
First, consider the following passage from Eisen's Playbook:
If you study this passage closely, you will find direct confirmation of our earlier point
that "democracy" in the Color Revolution context is a term of art -- it refers to anything they
like that keeps the national security bureaucrats in power. Anything they don't like, even if
elected democratically, is considered "anti-democratic," or, put another way, "democratic
backsliding." Eisen even acknowledges that this scourge of populism he's so worried about
actually was ushered in with "popular support," under "relatively democratic and electoral
processes." The problem is precisely that the people have had enough of the corrupt ruling
class ignoring their needs. Accordingly, the people voted first for Brexit and then for Donald
Trump -- terrifying expressions of populism which the broader Western power structure did
everything in its capacity to prevent. Once they failed, they viewed these twin populist
victories as a kind of political 9/11 to be prevented by any means necessary from recurring.
Make no mistake, the Color Revolution has nothing to do with democracy in any meaningful sense
and everything to do with the ruling class ensuring that the people will never have the power
to meddle in their own elections again.
The passage above can be insightfully compared to the passage in Gene Sharp's book noting
ripe applications to the domestic situation.
It is instructive to compare the passage in Eisen's Color Revolution book to the passage in
Michael McFaul's Color Revolution book
First off, it is absolutely imperative to look at every single one of the conditions for a
Color Revolution that McFaul identifies. It is simply impossible not to be overcome with the
ominous parallels to our current situation. Specifically, however, note condition 1 which
refers to having a target leader who is not fully authoritarian, but semi-autocratic. This
coincides perfectly well with Eisen's concession that the populist leaders he's so concerned
about might be "illiberal" but enjoy "popular support" and have come to power via "relatively
democratic electoral processes."
Consulting the above passage from McFaul's book, we note that McFaul has been perhaps the
most explicit about the conditions which facilitate a Color Revolution. We invite the reader to
supply the contemporary analogue to each point as a kind of exercise.
A semi-autocratic regime rather than fully autocratic
An unpopular incumbent (note blanket negative coverage of Trump, fake polls)
A united and organized opposition (media, intel community, Hollywood, community groups,
etc)
Enough independent media to inform citizens of falsified vote (see full court press in
media pushing contested election narrative, social media censorship)
A political opposition capable of mobilizing tens of thousands or more demonstrators to
protest electoral fraud ( SEE BLACK LIVES MATTER AND ANTIFA )
On point number four, which is especially relevant to our present situation, Eisen has an
interesting thing to say about the role of a contested election scenario in the Orange
Revolution, arguably the most important Color Revolution of them all.
Finally, let's look at one last passage from Norm Eisen's Color Revolution "Democracy
Playbook" and cross-reference it with McFaul's conditions for a Color Revolution as well as the
situation playing out right now before our very eyes:
A few things immediately jump out at us. First, the ominous instruction: "prepare to use
electoral abuse evidence as the basis for reform advocacy." Secondly, we note the passage
suggesting that opposition to a target leader might avail itself of "extreme institutional
measures" including impeachment processes, votes of no confidence, and, of course, the good
old-fashioned "protests, strikes, and boycotts" (all more or less peaceful no doubt).
By now the Color Revolution agenda against Trump should be as plain as day. Regime change
professionals like McFaul, Eisen, George Kent, and others, who have refined their craft
conducting color revolutions overseas, have taken it upon themselves to use the same tools, the
same tactics -- quite literally, the same playbook -- to overthrow President Trump. Yet again,
same people, same playbook.
We conclude this study of key Color Revolution figure Norm Eisen by exploring his
particularly proactive -- indeed central role -- in effecting one of the Color Revolution's
components mentioned in the Eisen Playbook -- impeachment.
-- -- -- –
The Ghost of Democracy's Future
We mentioned at the outset of this piece that Norm Eisen is many things -- a former Obama
Ethics Czar (but of course), Ambassador to Czechoslovakia, participant in the now notorious
Transition Integrity Project, et cetera. But he earned his title as "legal hatchet man" of the
Color Revolution for his tireless efforts in promoting the impeachment of President Trump.
The litany of Norm Eisen's legal activity cited at the beginning of this piece bears
repeating.
As the man who implemented the David Brock blueprint
for suing the President into paralysis and his
allies into bankruptcy , who helped mainstream and amplify the Russia Hoax, who drafted
10 articles of impeachment for the Democrats a full month before President Trump ever
called the Ukraine President in 2018 , who personally served as DNC co-counsel for
litigating the Ukraine impeachment
If that resume doesn't warrant the title "legal hatchet man" we wonder what does? We
encourage interested readers or journalists to explore those links for themselves. By way of
conclusion, it simply suffices to note that much of Eisen's impeachment activity he conducted
before there was any discussion or knowledge of President Trump's call to the Ukrainian
President in 2018 -- indeed before the call even happened. Impeachment was very clearly a
foregone conclusion -- a quite literal part of Norm Eisen's Color Revolution playbook -- and it
was up to people like Eisen to find the pretext, any pretext.
Despite their constant invocation of "democracy" we ought to note that transferring the
question of electoral outcomes to adversarial legal processes is in fact anti-Democratic -- in
keeping with our observation that the Color Revolution playbook uses "democracy" as a term of
art, often meaning the precise opposite of the usual meaning suggesting popular support.
Perhaps the most important entry in Eisen's entry is the first, that is, Eisen's
participation in the infamous David Brock blueprint on how to undermine and overthrow the Trump
presidency.
The Washington Free Beacon attended the retreat and obtained David Brock's
private and confidential memorandum from the meeting. The memo, "
Democracy Matters: Strategic Plan for Action ," outlines Brock's four-year agenda to
attack Trump and Republicans using Media Matters, American Bridge, Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) , and Shareblue.
This leaked memo was written before President Trump took office, further suggesting that all
of the efforts to undermine Trump have not been good faith responses to his behavior, but a
pre-ordained attack strategy designed to overturn the 2016 election by any means necessary. The
Color Revolution expert who suggests impeachment as a tactic in his Color Revolution "playbook"
was already in charge of impeachment before Trump even took office -- -Citizens for
Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is run by none other than Norm Eisen.
But the attempt to overturn the 2016 election using Color Revolution tactics failed. And so
now the plan is to overthrow Trump in 2020, hence Norm Eisen's noted participation in the
Transition Integrity Project. Looking around us, one is forced to ask the deeply uncomfortable
question, "transition into what?"
To conclude, we would like to call back to a point we raised in the first piece in our color
revolution series. In this piece, we noted that star Never Trump impeachment witness George
Kent just happens to be running the Belarus desk at the State Department. Belarus, we argued,
with its mass demonstrations egged on by US Government backed NGOS, its supposed "peaceful
protests" and of course its contested election results all fit the Color Revolution mold
curiously enough.
One NGO called the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group (TDWG) was bold or reckless enough
to draw the parallels between the Color Revolution in Belarus and the events playing out
against Trump explicitly. In response to a remark by a twitter user that the TDWG's remarks
about Belarus suggested parallels to the United States, the TDWG ominously replied:
Now, would the reader care to take a guess as to who runs the Transatlantic Democracy
Working Group? If you guessed Norm Eisen, you would be correct.
Stay tuned for more in Revolver.news' groundbreaking coverage of the Color
Revolution against Trump. Be sure to check out the previous installments in this series.
Obama was saved by the MSM from the reputation of traitor, a man professing peace and
harmony among all races for which good people elected him, to that of a rabid sycophant of
the oligarchs, to that of a pliant instrument of despotism, intent upon the ruin of America
in general - an enemy to the cause of liberty, sowing violence and division.. Obama was a
wolf presented in sheep's clothing, a betrayer of the American Dream, the perpetrator of
criminal acts for which the nation is now suffering. For this he and that woman he married
were paid to gallop about in fancy dress and mansions flagrantly blowing the $40,000,000
handed them by the Globalists. The force from which he and his have been saved is
condemnation and ostracism.
From his past as a communist Alinsky community "organizer," we should have known his aim
was overthrow of the country.
jeff montanye , 2 hours ago
agree with everything but "that woman he married."
close enough for an upvote.
NAV , 1 hour ago
Sorry, Jeff, I understand, but it is hard for me to forgive the selfishness of a woman who
has had opportunity and wealth all her life in America and then had the gall to say that she
was not proud of America until she was 44 years old, when she said of her husband's 2008
Democrat presidential nomination, "For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of
my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."
She had/has no concept of what is/was the American Dream, ie, opportunity and property
rights. Does she not know that a billion people in this world subsist on a dollar or less a
day and have NO hope of anything better? How proud and how thankful THEY would be for the
opportunities of a better life in America, which she and her husband have helped to erase in
support of communism, IMHO.
createnewaccount , 11 hours ago
Obama was President because they could.
Same with any outrage.
P Dunne , 13 hours ago
No doubt Clinton was a war monger she got loads of cash from special interests seeking
destabilization in the region.
fxrxexexdxoxmx2 , 13 hours ago
This so untrue.
The Clinton's have only ever thought about children. Wanting to save them, shelter them,
keep them close.
Every effort taken by the Clinton's was about safe secure and frequent access to
children.
Trying to make that a bad thing is like saying the Netflix movie ' Cuties' was not an
artistic expression worthy of an Oscar.
Vivekwhu , 6 hours ago
Trump is in office not in power. Now he leaves a few hundred US troops in Syria to openly
steal the oil. Obiden would have farted nice flowery democratic language to hide the robbery
at gunpoint, but Trump is so honest and brazen.
Let it Go , 4 hours ago
How quickly people forget! Our memory has a way of removing rough edges from events we
should not try to whitewash the past and rewrite history to present a different picture of
what really happened. Because of the stark contrast in the demeanor and style of Trump and
Obama, the media has "photoshopped" reality.
For years former President Obama remained more or less off the grid. Now that he has
reemerged we should take a moment to review the Obama era. The article below reminds us of
many of the scandals that took place during this time in history.
The Plot Against Libya: An Obama-Biden-Clinton Criminal Conspiracy
This is clearly another Washingtonian Triumph and Success story. Other people's lives are
destroyed but Washingtonians and elites get the tsetse fly headlines for a spell. Libya is
just another great achievement by the Washington Regime and its state security apparatus and
puppet journalists. It's the claimed thoughtful good intentions of Ivy Leaguers &
JudeoWASP elites that counts and the headlines that matter not the bodies, bloodshed,
butchery, and slaughter.
Keep in mind it's for the people! The reason the Washingtonians destroy countries abroad
is because "it's for the people." The reason Washingtonians sick the secret police on people
and persecute people at home is because "it's for the people."
Let it Go , 4 hours ago
One thing we have come to expect on any issue confronting our nation is grandstanding from
those in both parties. The government in Washington like those in other countries specialize
in putting lipstick "On A Pig." It is very possible Washington is a swamp that cannot be
drained.
Strangely, as time has passed it seems the polarizing divide that grips the nation might
be planned or contrived merely to create a pathway to greater power by the forces that hold
us hostage. The article below explores how those in power with the aid of the media have
created an environment of gridlock where they can run free and continue exploiting those they
pretend to serve. http://Washington Specializes On Putting
Lipstick On A Pig.html
Obamaroid Ointment , 4 hours ago
The Obama Regime tried to pull a coup here too, in fact they still haven't given up on
it.
Manthong , 10 hours ago
At least Goldman is not involved.
Mentaliusanything , 7 hours ago
Hahahahahahaha! They are always "involved" Just not directly only covertly
Over two dozen phones belonging to members of Robert Mueller's special counsel team were
wiped clean before they were handed over to the Inspector General, according to information
contained in
87 pages of DOJ records released on Thursday.
Some of the phones were wiped using the Apple operating system's 'wrong-password' failsafe,
where the wrong password must be entered ten times - after which the system wipes the
drive.
Those who couldn't seem to remember their password 10 times in a row include 'attack dog'
lawyer Andrew Weissman , who urged DOJ attorneys to go rogue and 'not' help US Attorney John
Durham investigate FBI and DOJ conduct during the Trump investigation.
A phone belong to assistant special counsel James Quarles "wiped itself without
intervention from him," the DOJ's records state.
Andrew Weismann, a top prosecutor on Mueller's team, "accidentally wiped" his cell phone,
causing the data to be lost. Other members of the team also accidentally wiped their phones,
the DOJ said.
Phones issued to at least three other Mueller prosecutors, Kyle Freeny, Rush Atkinson, and
senior prosecutor Greg Andres were also wiped of data.
Additionally, t he cell phone of FBI lawyer Lisa Page was misplaced by the special
counsel's office . While it was eventually obtained by the DOJ inspector general, by that
point the phone had been restored to its factory settings, wiping it of all dat a. The phone
of FBI agent Peter Strzok was also obtained by the inspector general's office, which found
"no substantive texts, notes or reminders" on it.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Obama State Department considered Konstantin Kilimnik a 'sensitive source,' Senate report
now identifies him as Russian intel officer.
"Thank you very much for looking into this and very sorry to ask," U.S. embassy
official Alexander "Sasha" Kasanof wrote businessman Konstantin Kilimnik in a Dec. 6, 2015
email obtained by Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigators and reviewed by Just the
News. "Ambassador very unhappy about the article, though agree it stinks to me to (sic) of
people we know very well."
A few lines later, Kasanof's email offered Kilimnik some valuable inside skinny about
the Obama administration's assessment of a sensitive meeting between indicted fugitive
Ukrainian oligarch Dmitri Firtash's associate Yuriy Boyko and Assistant Secretary of State
Victoria Nuland.
####
Plenty more at the link including original (cable) source material.
Kilimnik was good enough for Nuland
This story is worth repeating again and again. The recent Senate Intelligence Committee
report fingering Kilimnik is FoS media fodder and of course the media refuses to look at the
actual material, rather 'trust' what the pols say. i-Racki WMDs anyone? Yet more proof that
those who profess their journalistic creed is 'to hold the powerful to account' have long
since stopped doing so and are more than willing to switch their interpretations 180 degrees
depending on which politics they support.
RussiaGate is about MIC, Intelligence agencies and Dem leadership need to have an enemy to
milt taxpayers and retain power and military budget. Nothing personal, strictly business.
I met Strobe Talbott in 1968 when he and I were graduate students at Magdalen College,
Oxford. I liked him and respected him, and after we lost touch as friends, I followed his
career at Time , the State Department, and the Brookings Institution with admiration.
In recent years, however, I've become disillusioned with the foreign policy he advocated with
regard to Russia and was disturbed to learn of his involvement in the genesis of the
Russiagate narrative.
August 3, 2020
Dear Strobe,
It has been a long time – a very long time – since we've been in touch, but I
assume you remember me from 1968, when we met at Magdalen College, Oxford. Having just
graduated from Yale, you were there on a Rhodes Scholarship; I was on a Reynold Scholarship
granted by my alma mater, Dartmouth. Despite your three-barreled WASP name (Nelson Strobridge
Talbott) and your distinguished pedigree (son of a Yale football captain, Hotchkiss alum,
etc.) you were unpretentious, and we made friends quickly.
Despite assurances from my draft board that I would not be drafted that year, I got an
induction notice on Nixon's inauguration day. You were the first person I consulted. Safe
from the draft, like most Rhodes Scholars, you listened sympathetically. We were together in
our opposition to the War if not in our vulnerability to the draft.
You and I played the occasional game of squash. And when my Dartmouth fraternity brother
and Rhodes Scholar John Isaacson injured your eye with his racket, I visited you in the
Radcliffe Infirmary during your convalescence. I was reading Tristram Shandy as part
of my program, and one day I read some bits to you. You seemed to share my amusement; I can
still see you smiling in your hospital bed with a big patch on one eye. When your father came
from Ohio to visit you, he invited me, along with your Yale classmate Rob Johnson out to
dinner at the Bear.
You had majored in Russian at Yale and were writing a thesis on some topic in Russian
literature, Mayakovsky, perhaps? At any rate, you seemed committed to Russian studies.
(Little did I know.) When I chose to take a student tour behind the Iron Curtain during the
spring vac, you gave me some reading suggestions and advised me to dress warmly. Having
packed for England's relatively mild climate, I lacked a warm enough coat; you generously
loaned me your insulated car coat, which served me well in Russia's raw spring cold.
You likely debriefed me after my travels; I must have passed on to you my sense of the
Soviet Union as a very drab place with a demoralized, often drunk, population, and a general
sense of repression. Which is not to say that I didn't enjoy my trip – just that I was
struck by the stark differences at the time between the West and the East. How lucky I was to
have been born in the "free world."
The tour returned from Moscow and St. Petersburg via Ukraine and Czechoslovakia. In
Prague, just after the brutal suppression of Prague Spring, we were acutely aware of how
hated the Russians were. This just reinforced my distaste for what Ronald Reagan later termed
the Evil empire – perhaps the only thing he said I ever agreed with. So, like you, I
was staunchly anti-Communist at the time.
The next year, you got a gig polishing the text of Nikita Krushchev's memoirs, which had
been smuggled out of Russia. The publisher put you up in an "undisclosed location," which you
let on was the Commodore Hotel in Cambridge, Massachusetts; we met for coffee in Harvard
Square with friends of yours, possibly including Brooke Shearer whom you later married, and
one of her brothers, Cody or Derek. It may have been then that I drove you to the school
where I was teaching on a deferment, Kimball Union Academy in central New Hampshire; you
stayed overnight before returning to civilization.
Your second year, you moved into a house with Bill Clinton and two other Rhodes
Scholars.
During the next few years – the early 70s – you and I exchanged occasional
letters. After that, the rest is history: your illustrious career – as a journalist at
Time , then as a Russia hand and Deputy Secretary of State Department in the Clinton
administration, and then as president of the Brookings Institution – was easy to follow
in the media.
Eventually our paths diverged, I lost touch with you, with one exception.
In the mid-1990s, while you were serving at State, a close friend asked me to ask you to
do her a favor. I hate asking for favors, even for myself, and resent those who use
connections to advance themselves. But all my friend needed was for a senior State official
to sign off on a job application of some sort. I phoned your office from mine. I got a frosty
reception from your administrative assistant, who was justifiably protective of your time,
but she put me through. You recognized my voice, sounded glad to be in touch, and granted the
favor. It never came to anything, but I remember how pleased I was even to have such a brief
task-oriented phone encounter with you after a lapse of two decades.
In any case, over the next several decades I followed your career with interest and was
pleased with your success.
As I was by that of another member of the Oxford cohort, Bob Reich, another fraternity
brother of mine. We were not close, and I saw him less often in Oxford than I saw you. But
you and he both wound up in the Clinton administration – the Oxford troika, I like to
call you. You and Bob were doing what Rhodes Scholars were supposed to do: go into
professions, network, and perform public service. The Rhodes to success. Never a whiff of
scandal about either of you. You, Strobe, were very much what we Dartmouth men referred to as
a straight arrow.
So why am I writing you now, after all these years? And why a public letter?
In part, because I have become progressively more critical of the foreign policy that you
have advocated. Early on you were advocating disarmament. Good. And closer relations with the
Soviet Union. Also good. Indeed, you were regarded as something of a Russophile (never a
compliment). But while you initially resisted the expansion of NATO, you eventually went
along with it. Like George Kennan, I consider that decision to be a serious mistake (and a
breach of a promise not to expand NATO "one inch" to the east after Germany was
reunited).
When the Cold War ended, the Warsaw Pact dissolved. NATO did not; instead, it expanded
eastward to include former Warsaw Pact members and SSRs until today it borders Russia. Russia
resistance to this is inevitably denounced in the West as "Russian aggression." Hence the
tension in Ukraine today. You're not personally responsible for all of this of course. But
you are deeply implicated in what seems to me a gratuitously provocative, indeed
imperialistic, foreign policy.
Two old friends could amicably agree disagree on that, as I disagree with virtually all my
liberal friends.
But your loyalty to the Clintons has apparently extended to involvement in generating the
Russiagate narrative, which has exacerbated tensions between Russia and the USA and spread
paranoia in the Democratic establishment and mainstream media. I am always disturbed by the
hypocrisy of Americans who complain about foreign meddling in our elections, when the USA is
the undisputed champ in that event. Indeed, we go beyond meddling (Yeltsin's reelection in
1996) to actual coups, not to mention regime-change wars.
My concern about this has come to a head with the
recent revelation of your complicity in the dissemination of the Steele dossier, whose
subsource, Igor Danchenko, was a Russian national employed by Brookings.
I don't know which is worse: that you and your colleagues at Brookings believed the
dossier's unfounded claims, or that you didn't but found it politically useful in the attempt
to subvert the Trump campaign and delegitimize his election. I suspect the latter. But
doesn't this implicate you in the creation of a powerful Russophobic narrative in
contemporary American politics that has demonized Putin and needlessly ramped up tension
between two nuclear powers?
A lifelong Democrat who voted for Bill twice and Hillary once, I am no fan of Trump or of
Putin. But Russiagate has served as a distraction from Hillary's responsibility for her
catastrophic defeat and from the real weaknesses of the neoliberal Democratic Party, with its
welfare "reform," crime bill, and abandonment of its traditional working-class base.
Moreover, in and of itself, the Russiagate story represents what Matt Taibbi has called
this generation's WMD media scandal. The narrative, challenged from the beginning by a few
intrepid independent journalists like Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, and Aaron Maté,
and the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, is now being further undermined by the
declassification of documents by the Senate. If, as I have recently read, you were active in
disseminating the Steele dossier, you have contributed to
the mainstream media's gas-lighting of the American public – liberals, at least
(like most of my friends). Ironically, then, you have given credence to Trump's often, but
not always, false charge: "Fake News." Once described as a Russophile, you now seem complicit
in the creation of a nation-wide paranoid and hysterical Russophobia and neo-McCarthyism.
You
get as much justice as you can afford..,.. poor people in America know this. Justice is Swift for the poor man. Good example
jussie Smollett...... America has no justice yet to this day. The great Awakening started for me by, Nancy pelosi. She said we
are above you. Referring to the elite.... Two-tier justice system, that's why so many people are watching. Trump 20 🇺🇸 20
Landslide Victory 🤔
The
federal government bureaucrats and politicians are running the government like the Five Mafia Families of NY ran NYC and
beyond. ...selective prosecutions is all that can be seen from coast to coast. Everyone knows what's really going on. If
you're associated with President Trump, however distant, or are a Republican instant prosecution. If you're a Democrat member
of a coup d'etat, fo'get about it. Shakespeare was right about the lawyers. At least about the lawyers in the Southern
District of NY. Attorney General Barr should have gutted that cabal of seditious traitors, top to bottom, left to right.
Probably most of the DC contingent of the DOJ as well.
Fantastic interview. I hope many who do not understand the significance of this will take a step back and really understand
that these people are after ALL of us...
I hope that the American citizens will continue to inform themselves about the shenanigans that the Democrats have been up to
and prevent the mob with this 'world view" (which means total control by a view) will not be allowed to take root. The
alternative is this; if the US can be turned into a CCP of America then what chance does the rest of us have? Please
Americans, clean up you education system and make sure it is free and fair and available to everyone without indoctrination
from anyone. And dare to stand up against regimes that violate human rights. At present you are the only government who
publicly states the genocide that is going on in China and dares to take steps to stop the money hungry corporations to find
loopholes....
Very
good interview. It's just so disturbing that the press is so corrupted. The Constitution grants them freedoms to help the
public not to lie and tear our system down. No one trusts the media at this point, nor should they. It's both sad and
dangerous. Who would have ever thought that the media would turn into public enemy #1.
RINOs are a large part of the permanent coup. The heap of human waste includes not just Obama but also Romney, both Bush's,
McCain, Graham, Murkowski and a very long list of bureaucrats.
Diane Feinstein & Slick Willie acted like they cared about China but they (and many others) would sell anyone down the river,
any time day or night, and stick a fork in, if it benefits them.
I have Lee Smith's first book on the corruption... I'm getting tired of reading these books without seeing any indictments...
I will buy the new book after John Durham and AG Barr start making some real indictments of James Brennan, Comey, McCabe,
Strzok, Lisa Page, Hilary for funding the Dossier, ... all these people need to be behind bars...we can't live in a country of
no consequences for Democrats...
"Our
movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt political establishment with a new government controlled by you,
the American People. There is nothing the political establishment will not do, and no lie they will not tell, to
hold on to their prestige and power at your expense.
The Washington establishment, and the financial and media corporations that fund it, exists for only one reason:
to protect and enrich itself.
The establishment has trillions of dollars at stake in this election. As an example, just one single trade deal
they'd like to pass, involves trillions of dollars controlled by many countries, corporations and lobbyists. For
those who control the levers of power in Washington, and for the global special interests they partner with, our
campaign represents an existential threat.
It's a global power structure that is responsible for the economic decisions that have robbed our working class,
stripped our country of its wealth, and put that money into the pockets of a handful of large corporations and
political entities.
The corporate media in our country is no longer involved in journalism. They are a political special interest, no
different than any lobbyist or other financial entity with an agenda.
The establishment and their media enablers wield control over this nation through means that are well known.
Anyone who challenges their control is deemed a sexist, a racist, a xenophobe and morally deformed. They will
attack you, they will slander you, they will seek to destroy your career and reputation. And they will lie, lie
and lie even more.
I didn't need to do this. I built a great company, and I had wonderful life. I could have enjoyed the benefits of
years of successful business for myself and my family, instead of going through this absolute horror show of lies,
deceptions and malicious attacks. I'm doing it because this country has given me so much, and I feel strongly it
was my turn to give back. We will vote to put this corrupt government cartel out of business.
We will remove from our politics the special interests who have betrayed our workers, our borders, our freedoms,
and our sovereign rights as a nation. We will end the politics of profit, we will end the rule of special
interests, we will put a stop to the raiding of our country – and the disenfranchisement of our people."
Trump, Flynn, Stone, Page, Papa D; all have suffered because of this attempted coup. The main victims though are
the American electorate who have had their Democratic mandate stymied for the last 4 years.
Trumps only DOG in the fight is America. The Swamp has anti American interest. Look who backs the Dem party!
Soros, BLM, Netfilx, Amazon, and a ton of others that have $$$ instead of Americans in mind. Look who owns
the Media and tell me why they are so far left. Does it make sense? They know it isn't Russia but even Ivy
league Schools funding from China. WHY? Hmmmm. Who is pumping money into Silicon Valley? Hmmm
DOJ.gov/biography
~ Wm Pelham BARR was CIA from 1973 to 1977 > once a spook, thereafter always just a sheepdipped spook >
Sessions, Whitaker, BARR & WRAY are deep state coverup team
Biggest threat to US democracy is NOT from the OUTSIDE world - it is the Deep State and MSM.Trump isn't divisive;
he's simply reacted to all of abuses that have been going on. Thank God we have a Leader like him. He is a HERO -
not a villain
This is very interesting, but my initial reaction is trust Trump. He understood, even before any of this
occurred, that this would be the result of his presidency. The Obama/Hillary plan was not something
concocted by Obama - he was a 'puppet' to a much larger, 16 year plan to finally weaken the US on the world
stage, in order to usher in a different kind of global condition. But Trump knew all of this - he has been
preparing for this presidency for decades. He will win in 2020, and the darkness that Smith talks about
regarding a 'permanent coup' will not happen. It's all going to be brought down. This is not another 4 year
election, but a crossroads to the future.
If the Dems win there will be a Witch Hunt like one could not dream possible. The Dems will throw the Justice
System as we know it out the window. They will arrest President Trump and every person that stood up for him on
charges of treason. They will resurrect the Russia Hoax and the Ukraine Hoax and the China-Virus Hoax will be
blamed on President Trump decisively. Trump supporters will be outraged and the Democrats will send in the troops
to confiscate all their guns. Americans if you love your life get out in person and vote for President Trump in
November.
"... The fresh orgy of anti-Russian invective in the lickspittle media (LSM) has the feel of fin de siècle . The last four reality-impaired years do seem as though they add up to a century. And no definitive fin is in sight, as long as most people don't know what's going on. ..."
"... The LSM should be confronted: "At long last have you left no sense of decency?" But who would hear the question -- much less any answer? ..."
"... Thus the reckless abandon with which The New York Times is leading the current full-court press to improve on what it regards as Special Counsel Robert Mueller's weak-kneed effort to blame the Russians for giving us Donald Trump. The press is on, and there are no referees to call the fouls. ..."
"... Incidentally, Mueller's report apparently was insufficient, only two years in the making, and just 448 pages. The Senate committee's magnum opus took three years, is almost 1,000 pages -- and fortified. So there. ..."
"... is a good offense, and the Senate Intelligence Committee's release of its study -- call it "Mueller (Enhanced)" -- and the propaganda fanfare -- come at a key point in the Russiagate/Spygate imbroglio. It also came, curiously, as the Democratic Convention was beginning, as if the Republican-controlled Senate was sending Trump a message. ..."
"... The cognoscenti and the big fish themselves may be guessing that Trump/Barr/Durham will not throw out heavier lines for former FBI Director James Comey, his deputy Andrew McCabe, CIA Director John Brennan, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, for example. But how can they be sure? What has become clear is that the certainty they all shared that Hillary Clinton would be the next president prompted them not only to take serious liberties with the Constitution and the law, but also to do so without taking rudimentary steps to hide their tracks. ..."
"... The incriminating evidence is there. And as Trump becomes more and more vulnerable and defensive about his ineptness -- particularly with regard to Covid-19 -- he may summon the courage to order Barr and Durham to hook the big fish, not just minnows like Clinesmith. The neuralgic reality is that no one knows at this point how far Trump will go. To say that this kind of uncertainty is unsettling to all concerned is to say the obvious. ..."
"... None of that takes us much beyond the Mueller report and other things generally well known -- even in the LSM. Nor does the drivel about people like Paul Manafort "sharing polling data with Russians" who might be intelligence officers. That data was "mostly public" the Times itself reported , and the paper had to correct a story that the data was intended for Russian oligarchs, when it was meant for Ukrainian oligarchs instead. That Manafort was working to turn Ukraine towards the West and not Russia is rarely mentioned. ..."
"... On the Steele Dossier, the committee also missed a ruling by a British judge against Christopher Steele, labeling his dossier an attempt to help Hillary Clinton get elected. Consortium News explained back in October 2017 that both CrowdStrike and Steele were paid for by the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign to push Russiagate. ..."
"... the description of #WikiLeaks ' publishing activities by this #SenateIntelligenceCommittee 's Report appears a true #EdgarHoover 's disinformation campaign to make a legitimate media org completely radioactive ..."
"... And that's not the half of it. In September 2018, Mazzetti and his NYT colleague Scott Shane wrote a 10,000-word feature, "The Plot to Subvert an Election," trying to convince readers that the Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) had successfully swayed U.S. opinion during the 2016 election with 80,000 Facebook posts that they said had reached 126 million Americans. ..."
"... That turned out to be a grotesquely deceptive claim. Mazzetti and Shane failed to mention the fact that those 80,000 IRA posts (from early 2015 through 2017, meaning about half came after the election), had been engulfed in a vast ocean of more than 33 trillion Facebook posts in people's news feeds – 413 million times more than the IRA posts. Not to mention the lack of evidence that the IRA was the Russian government, as Mueller claimed. ..."
"... "Liberals are embracing every negative claim about Russia just because elements of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency produced a report last Jan. 6 that blamed Russia for 'hacking' Democratic emails and releasing them to WikiLeaks ." ..."
The New York Times is leading the full-court press to improve on what it regards as Special Counsel Robert Mueller's weak-kneed
effort to blame the Russians for giving us Donald Trump...
The fresh orgy of anti-Russian invective in the lickspittle media (LSM) has the feel of fin de siècle . The last four reality-impaired
years do seem as though they add up to a century. And no definitive fin is in sight, as long as most people don't know what's going
on.
The LSM should be confronted: "At long last have you left no sense of decency?" But who would hear the question -- much less any
answer? The corporate media have a lock on what Americans are permitted or not permitted to hear. Checking the truth, once routine
in journalism, is a thing of the past.
Thus the reckless abandon with which The New York Times is leading the current full-court press to improve on what it regards
as Special Counsel Robert Mueller's weak-kneed effort to blame the Russians for giving us Donald Trump. The press is on, and there
are no referees to call the fouls.
The recent release of a 1,000-page, sans bombshells and already out-of-date report by the Senate Intelligence Committee has provided
the occasion to "catapult the propaganda," as President George W. Bush once put it.
As the the Times 's Mark Mazzetti put it in his
article Wednesday:
"Releasing the report less than 100 days before Election Day, Republican-majority senators hoped it would refocus attention
on the interference by Russia and other hostile foreign powers in the American political process, which has continued unabated."
Mazzetti is telling his readers, soto voce : regarding that interference four years ago, and the "continued-unabated" part, you
just have to trust us and our intelligence community sources who would never lie to you. And if, nevertheless, you persist in asking
for actual evidence, you are clearly in Putin's pocket.
Incidentally, Mueller's report apparently was insufficient, only two years in the making, and just 448 pages. The Senate committee's
magnum opus took three years, is almost 1,000 pages -- and fortified. So there.
Iron Pills
Recall how disappointed the LSM and the rest of the Establishment were with Mueller's anemic findings in spring 2019. His report
claimed that the Russian government "interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion" via a social
media campaign run by the Internet Research Agency (IRA) and by "hacking" Democratic emails. But the evidence behind those charges
could not bear close scrutiny.
You would hardly know it from the LSM, but the accusation against the IRA was thrown out of court when the U.S. government admitted
it could not prove that the IRA was working for the Russian government. Mueller's ipse dixit did not suffice, as we
explained a year ago
in "Sic Transit Gloria Mueller."
The Best Defense
is a good offense, and the Senate Intelligence Committee's release of its study -- call it "Mueller (Enhanced)" -- and the propaganda
fanfare -- come at a key point in the Russiagate/Spygate imbroglio. It also came, curiously, as the Democratic Convention was beginning,
as if the Republican-controlled Senate was sending Trump a message.
Durham
One chief worry, of course, derives from the uncertainty as to whether John Durham, the US Attorney investigating those FBI and
other officials who launched the Trump-Russia investigation will let some heavy shoes drop before the election. Barr has said he
expects "developments in Durham's investigation hopefully before the end of the summer."
FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith already has decided to plead guilty to the felony of falsifying evidence used to support a warrant
from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to surveillance to spy on Trump associate Carter Page. It is abundantly clear that
Clinesmith was just a small cog in the deep-state machine in action against candidate and then President Trump. And those running
the machine are well known. The president has named names, and Barr has made no bones about his disdain for what he calls spying
on the president.
The cognoscenti and the big fish themselves may be guessing that Trump/Barr/Durham will not throw out heavier lines for former
FBI Director James Comey, his deputy Andrew McCabe, CIA Director John Brennan, and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper,
for example. But how can they be sure? What has become clear is that the certainty they all shared that Hillary Clinton would be
the next president prompted them not only to take serious liberties with the Constitution and the law, but also to do so without
taking rudimentary steps to hide their tracks.
The incriminating evidence is there. And as Trump becomes more and more vulnerable and defensive about his ineptness -- particularly
with regard to Covid-19 -- he may summon the courage to order Barr and Durham to hook the big fish, not just minnows like Clinesmith.
The neuralgic reality is that no one knows at this point how far Trump will go. To say that this kind of uncertainty is unsettling
to all concerned is to say the obvious.
So, the stakes are high -- for the Democrats, as well -- and, not least, the LSM. In these circumstances it would seem imperative
not just to circle the wagons but to mount the best offense/defense possible, despite the fact that virtually all the ammunition
(as in the Senate report) is familiar and stale ("enhanced" or not).
Black eyes might well be in store for the very top former law enforcement and intelligence officials, the Democrats, and the LSM
-- and in the key pre-election period. So, the calculation: launch "Mueller Report (Enhanced)" and catapult the truth now with propaganda,
before it is too late.
No Evidence of Hacking
The "hacking of the DNC" charge suffered a fatal blow three months ago when it became known that Shawn Henry, president of the
DNC-hired cyber-security firm CrowdStrike,
admitted under oath that his firm had no evidence that the DNC emails were hacked -- by Russia or anyone else.
(YouTube)
Henry gave his testimony on Dec. 5, 2017,
but House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff was able to keep it hidden until May 7, 2020.
Here's a brief taste of how Henry's testimony went: Asked by Schiff for "the date on which the Russians exfiltrated the data",
Henry replied, "We just don't have the evidence that says it actually left."
You did not know that? You may be forgiven -- up until now -- if your information diet is limited to the LSM and you believe The
New York Times still publishes "all the news that's fit to print." I am taking bets on how much longer the NYT will be able to keep
Henry's testimony hidden; Schiff's record of 29 months will be hard to beat.
Putting Lipstick on the Pig of Russian 'Tampering'
Worse still for the LSM and other Russiagate diehards, Mueller's findings last year enabled Trump to shout "No Collusion" with
Russia. What seems clear at this point is that a key objective of the current catapulting of the truth is to apply lipstick to Mueller's
findings.
After all, he was supposed to find treacherous plotting between the Trump campaign and the Russians and failed miserably. Most
LSM-suffused Americans remain blissfully unaware of this, and the likes of Pulitzer Prize winner Mazzetti have been commissioned
to keep it that way.
In Wednesday's
article , for example, Mazzetti puts it somewhat plaintively:
"Like the special counsel the Senate report did not conclude that the Trump campaign engaged in a coordinated conspiracy with
the Russian government -- a fact that the Republicans seized on to argue that there was 'no collusion'."
How could they!
Mazzetti is playing with words. "Collusion," however one defines it, is not a crime; conspiracy is.
'Breathtaking' Contacts: Mueller (Enhanced)
Mark Mazzetti (YouTube)
Mazzetti emphasizes that the Senate report "showed extensive evidence of contacts between Trump campaign advisers and people tied
to the Kremlin," and Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the intelligence committee's vice chairman,
said the committee report details "a breathtaking level of contacts between Trump officials and Russian government operatives
that is a very real counterintelligence threat to our elections."
None of that takes us much beyond the Mueller report and other things generally well known -- even in the LSM. Nor does the drivel
about people like Paul Manafort "sharing polling data with Russians" who might be intelligence officers. That data was "mostly public"
the Times itself
reported
, and the paper had to correct
a story that the data was intended for Russian oligarchs, when it was meant for Ukrainian oligarchs instead. That Manafort was working
to turn Ukraine towards the West and not Russia is rarely mentioned.
Recent revelations regarding the false data given the FISA court by an FBI lawyer to "justify" eavesdropping on Trump associate
Carter Page show the Senate report to be not up to date and misguided in endorsing the FBI's decision to investigate Page. The committee
may wish to revisit that endorsement -- at least.
On the Steele Dossier, the committee also missed a ruling by a British judge against Christopher Steele,
labeling his dossier an attempt to help Hillary Clinton get elected. Consortium News
explained back in October 2017 that both CrowdStrike and Steele were paid for by the Democratic Party and Clinton campaign to
push Russiagate.
Also missed by the intelligence committee was a document released by the Senate Judiciary Committee last month that
revealed that Steele's "Primary Subsource and his friends peddled warmed-over rumors and laughable gossip that Steele dressed
up as formal intelligence memos."
Smearing WikiLeaks
The Intelligence Committee report also repeats thoroughly
debunked
myths about WikiLeaks and, like Mueller, the committee made no effort to interview Julian Assange before launching its smears.
Italian journalist Stefania Maurizi, who partnered with WikiLeaks in the publication of the Podesta emails, described the report's
treatment of WikiLeaks in this Twitter thread
:
2. the description of #WikiLeaks ' publishing activities
by this #SenateIntelligenceCommittee
's Report appears a true #EdgarHoover 's disinformation
campaign to make a legitimate media org completely radioactive
3. Clearly, to describe #WikiLeaks and its publishing activities the #SenateIntelligenceCommittee's Report completely rely
on #US intelligence community+ #MikePompeo's characterisation of #WikiLeaks. There is not even any pretense of an independent
approach
4. there are also unsubstantiated claims like:
– "[WikiLeaks'] disclosures have jeopardized the safety of individual Americans and foreign allies" (p.200)
– "WikiLeaks has passed information to U.S. adversaries" (p.201)
5. it's completely false that "#WikiLeaks does not seem to weigh whether its disclosures add any public interest value" (p.200)
and any longtime media partner like me could provide you dozens of examples on how wrong this characterisation [is].
Titillating
Mazzetti did add some spice to the version of his article that dominated the two top right columns of Wednesday's Times with the
blaring headline: "Senate Panel Ties Russian Officials to Trump's Aides: G.O.P.-Led Committee Echoes Mueller's Findings on Election
Tampering."
Those who make it to the end of Mazzetti's piece will learn that the Senate committee report "did not establish" that the Russian
government obtained any compromising material on Mr. Trump or that they tried to use such materials [that they didn't have] as leverage
against him." However, Mazzetti adds,
"According to the report, Mr. Trump met a former Miss Moscow at a party during one trip in 1996. After the party, a Trump associate
told others he had seen Mr. Trump with the woman on multiple occasions and that they 'might have had a brief romantic relationship.'
"The report also raised the possibility that, during that trip, Mr. Trump spent the night with two young women who joined him
the next morning at a business meeting with the mayor of Moscow."
This is journalism?
Another Pulitzer in Store?
The Times appends a note reminding us that Mazzetti was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2018 for reporting on Donald
Trump's advisers and their connections to Russia.
And that's not the half of it. In September 2018, Mazzetti and his NYT colleague Scott Shane wrote a 10,000-word
feature, "The Plot to Subvert an Election," trying to convince readers that the Russian Internet Research Agency (IRA) had successfully
swayed U.S. opinion during the 2016 election with 80,000 Facebook posts that they said had reached 126 million Americans.
That turned out to be a grotesquely deceptive claim. Mazzetti and Shane failed to mention the
fact that those 80,000 IRA posts (from early 2015 through 2017, meaning about half came after the election), had been engulfed
in a vast ocean of more than 33 trillion Facebook posts in people's news feeds – 413 million times more than the IRA posts. Not to
mention the lack of evidence that the IRA was the Russian government, as Mueller claimed.
In exposing that chicanery, prize-winning investigative reporter Gareth Porter
commented :
"The descent of The New York Times into this unprecedented level of propagandizing for the narrative of Russia's threat to
U.S. democracy is dramatic evidence of a broader problem of abuses by corporate media Greater awareness of the dishonesty at the
heart of the Times' coverage of that issue is a key to leveraging media reform and political change."
Nothingburgers With Russian Dressing: the Backstory
The late Robert Parry.
"It's too much; it's just too much, too much", a sedated, semi-conscious Robert Parry kept telling me from his hospital bed in
late January 2018 a couple of days before he died. Bob was founder of Consortium News .
It was already clear what Bob meant; he had taken care to see to that. On Dec. 31, 2017 the reason for saying that came in what
he titled "An Apology
& Explanation" for "spotty production in recent days." A stroke on Christmas Eve had left Bob with impaired vision, but he was able
to summon enough strength to write an Apologia -- his vision for honest journalism and his dismay at what had happened to his profession
before he died on Jan. 27, 2018. The dichotomy was "just too much".
Parry rued the role that journalism was playing in the "unrelenting ugliness that has become Official Washington. Facts and logic
no longer mattered. It was a case of using whatever you had to diminish and destroy your opponent this loss of objective standards
reached deeply into the most prestigious halls of American media."
What bothered Bob most was the needless, dishonest tweaking of the Russian bear. "The U.S. media's approach to Russia," he wrote,
"is now virtually 100 percent propaganda. Does any sentient human being read The New York Times ' or The Washington Post 's coverage
of Russia and think that he or she is getting a neutral or unbiased treatment of the facts? Western journalists now apparently see
it as their patriotic duty to hide facts that otherwise would undermine the demonizing of Putin and Russia."
Parry, who was no conservative, continued:
"Liberals are embracing every negative claim about Russia just because elements of the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency
produced a report last Jan. 6 that blamed Russia for 'hacking' Democratic emails and releasing them to WikiLeaks ."
Bob noted that the 'hand-picked' authors "evinced no evidence and even admitted that they weren't asserting any of this as fact."
It was just too much.
Robert Parry's Last Article
Peter Strzok during congressional hearing in July 2018. (Wikimedia Commons)
Bob posted his last substantive article on Dec. 13, 2017, the day after text exchanges between senior FBI officials Peter Strzok
and Lisa Page were made public. (Typically, readers of The New York Times the following day would altogether
miss the
importance of the text-exchanges.)
Bob Parry rarely felt any need for a "sanity check." Dec. 12, 2017 was an exception. He called me about the Strzok-Page texts;
we agreed they were explosive. FBI Agent Peter Strzok was on Special Counsel Robert Mueller's staff investigating alleged Russian
interference, until Mueller removed him.
Strzok reportedly was a "hand-picked" FBI agent taking part in the Jan 2017 evidence-impoverished, rump, misnomered "intelligence
community" assessment that blamed Russia for hacking and other election meddling. And he had helped lead the investigation into Hillary
Clinton's misuse of her computer servers. Page was Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's right-hand lawyer.
His Dec. 13, 2017 piece
would be his fourth related article in less than two weeks; it turned out to be his last substantive article. All three of the earlier
ones are worth a re-read as examples of fearless, unbiased, perceptive journalism. Here
are the links .
Bob began his article
on the Strzok-Page bombshell:
"The disclosure of fiercely anti-Trump text messages between two romantically involved senior FBI officials who played key
roles in the early Russia-gate inquiry has turned the supposed Russian-election-meddling "scandal" into its own scandal, by providing
evidence that some government investigators saw it as their duty to block or destroy Donald Trump's presidency.?
"As much as the U.S. mainstream media has mocked the idea that an American 'deep state' exists and that it has maneuvered to
remove Trump from office, the text messages between senior FBI counterintelligence official Peter Strzok and senior FBI lawyer
Lisa Page reveal how two high-ranking members of the government's intelligence/legal bureaucracy saw their role as protecting
the United States from an election that might elevate to the presidency someone as unfit as Trump."
Not a fragment of Bob's or other Consortium News analysis made any impact on what Bob used to call the Establishment media. As
a matter of fact, eight months later during a talk in Seattle that I titled "Russia-gate: Can You Handle the Truth?", only three
out of a very progressive audience of some 150 had ever heard of Strzok and Page.
Lest I am accused of being "in Putin's pocket," let me add the explanatory note that we Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity included in our
most explosive Memorandum for President Trump, on "Russian hacking."
Full Disclosure: Over recent decades the ethos of our intelligence profession has eroded in the public mind to the point that
agenda-free analysis is deemed well nigh impossible. Thus, we add this disclaimer, which applies to everything we in VIPS say
and do: We have no political agenda; our sole purpose is to spread truth around and, when necessary, hold to account our former
intelligence colleagues.
We speak and write without fear or favor. Consequently, any resemblance between what we say and what presidents, politicians
and pundits say is purely coincidental. The fact we find it is necessary to include that reminder speaks volumes about these highly
politicized times.
somecallmetimmah , 1 hour ago
Only brain-washed losers read the new york times. Garbage propaganda for garbage people.
AtATrESICI , 43 minutes ago
"developments in Durham's investigation hopefully before the end of the summer." What summer? The summer of 2099.
Mouldy , 1 hour ago
So in a nutshell.. They just called half the USA too stupid to make an informed decision for themselves.
ominous , 1 hour ago
the disagreement is over which half is the stupid half
homeskillet , 25 minutes ago
The MIC's bogey man. What a crock of **** this whole country has become. Pravda puts out more truth than our MSM. I trust
Putin more than the Dem leaders at this point.
Demeter55 , 1 hour ago
The Globalist/New World Order/Deep State/Elitists (or whatever other arrogant subsection of the psychopaths among us you
wish to consider) have one great failing which will defeat them utterly in the end:
They do not know when to cut their losses.
As a result of that irrational stubbornness, born of a "Manifest Destiny" assumption of an eternal lock on the situation,
they will go too far.
Having more wealth than anyone is temporary.
Having more power than anyone is temporary.
Life is temporary.
And we outnumber them by several billion.
Even if they systematically try to destroy us, they will not have the ability unless we are complicit in our own destruction.
While there are many who have "taken the knee" to these tyrants in training, there are more who have no intention of doing
so.
Most nations are not so buffaloed as to fall for this propaganda, but the United States especially was created with the
notion that all men are created equal, and this is ingrained in the national character. We don't buy it.
And our numbers are growing daily, as people wake up and realize they have to take a side for themselves, their families,
their communities.
The global covid-panic was a masterful attack, but it will fail. Indeed, it has failed already. The building counter-attack
will take out those who chose to declare war on humanity. There really is no alternative for us, the humans. Live Free or Die,
as they say in New Hampshire.
And despite the full support of the MSM and the DNC, the Would-Be Masters of the Universe will not succeed.
sborovay07 , 1 hour ago
Sad Assange wasn't granted immunity to testify and was silenced just prior to the release of the Mueller report. Little
has been heard since except his health is horrific. Now, all the Deep State figures on both sides are just throwing as much
mud against Trump as possible to hide the truth. If Durnham does not indict the Deep State figures who participated in the
Obama led coup, all is for not. Only the foot soldiers marching in lock step will be charged.
wn , 1 hour ago
To sum it up.
Conclusion of the Democrats.
Americans need Russian brains to decide their leader in order to move forward.
nokilli , 25 minutes ago
Once the MO for "Russian hacking" is published to the international intelligence community, any (((party))) can pose as
a "Russian hacker."
This is the way computers work. Sybil is eponymous.
KuriousKat , 35 minutes ago
Mazzeti looks like the typical Gopher boy for the CIA Station Chiefs around the world..they retire or become contributors
to NewsWeek Wapo or NYT. ..not Any major network w/o one...Doing **** like this is mandatory..not elective.
He [Bezos] and people like him are more concerned with maintaining the Dollar as reserve
currency in order to facilitate the continued sell-out of Americans for cheap foreign
manufactured goods, technology sells to China, and their own personal enrichment.
In both cases, the "beef" with Trump is that he's rocking the boat -- both in terms of his
criticism of the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama wars for Israel and the Petrodollar, and in terms of
the America First noises he's made. While he's proven to be a fairly reliable Zionist stooge
(although he hasn't started any new wars in the Mideast, and been more of a placeholder), he's
edging a little too close to America First (with his domestic rhetoric and some of his
policies) for comfort.
"... To understand the risk that Julian Assange represented to CIA interests, it is important to understand just how extensive the operations of the CIA were in 2016. It is within this network of foreign and domestic operations where FBI Agent Peter Strzok is clearly working as a bridge between the CIA and FBI operations. ..."
"... By now people are familiar with the construct of CIA operations involving Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor now generally admitted/identified as a western intelligence operative who was tasked by the CIA (John Brennan) to run an operation against Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos in both Italy (Rome) and London. { Go Deep } ..."
"... In a similar fashion the CIA tasked U.S. intelligence asset Stefan Halper to target another Trump campaign official, Carter Page. Under the auspices of being a Cambridge Professor Stefan Halper also targeted General Michael Flynn. Additionally, using assistance from a female FBI agent under the false name Azra Turk, Halper also targeted Papadopoulos . ..."
"... The initial operations to target Flynn, Papadopoulos and Page were all based overseas. This seemingly makes the CIA exploitation of the assets and the targets much easier. ..."
"... In short, Peter Strzok appears to be the very eager, profoundly overzealous James Bond wannabe, who acted as a bridge between the CIA and the FBI. The perfect type of FBI career agent for CIA Director John Brennan to utilize. ..."
"... It was also Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson who was domestically tasked with a Russian lobbyist named Natalia Veselnitskya. A little reported Russian Deputy Attorney General named Saak Albertovich Karapetyan was working double-agents for the CIA and Kremlin. Karapetyan was directing the foreign operations of Natalia Veselnitskaya, and Glenn Simpson was organizing her inside the U.S. ..."
"... All of this context outlines the extent to which the CIA was openly involved in constructing a political operation that settled upon anyone in candidate Donald Trump's orbit. ..."
"... Additionally, Christopher Steele was a British intelligence officer, hired by Fusion-GPS to assemble and launder fraudulent intelligence information within his dossier. And we cannot forget Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, who was recruited by Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to participate in running an operation against the Trump campaign and create the impression of Russian involvement. Deripaska refused to participate . ..."
"... The key point of all that background is to see how committed the CIA and FBI were to the constructed narrative of Russia interfering with the 2016 election. The CIA, FBI, and by extension the DOJ, put a hell of a lot of work into it. Intelligence community work that Durham is now unraveling. ..."
"... Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill. "Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year's presidential election," Rohrabacher said, "Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the hacking or disclosure of those emails." ..."
"... Knowing how much effort the CIA and FBI put into the Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative, it would make sense for the FBI to take keen interest after this August 2017 meeting between Rohrabacher and Assange; and why the FBI would quickly gather specific evidence (related to Wikileaks and Bradley Manning) for a grand jury by December 2017. ..."
"... The Weissmann/Mueller report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview, and by Julian Assange on-the-record statements. ..."
"... The predicate for Robert Mueller's investigation was specifically due to Russian interference in the 2016 election. The fulcrum for this Russia interference claim is the intelligence community assessment; and the only factual evidence claimed within the ICA is that Russia hacked the DNC servers; a claim only made possible by relying on forensic computer analysis from Crowdstrike, a DNC contractor. ..."
"... The CIA holds a massive conflict of self-interest in upholding the Russian hacking claim. The FBI holds a massive interest in maintaining that claim. All of those foreign countries whose intelligence apparatus participated with Brennan and Strzok also have a vested self-interest in maintaining that Russia hacking and interference narrative. ..."
"... This Russian "hacking" claim is ultimately so important to the CIA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI and U.K intelligence apparatus ..."
According to reports in November of 2019, U.S Attorney John Durham and U.S. Attorney General
Bill Barr were spending time on a narrowed focus looking carefully at CIA activity in the 2016
presidential election. One recent quote from a
media-voice increasingly sympathetic to a political deep-state notes:
"One British official with knowledge of Barr's wish list presented to London commented
that "it is like nothing we have come across before, they are basically asking, in quite
robust terms, for help in doing a hatchet job on their own intelligence services"". (
Link )
It is interesting that quote came from a British intelligence official, as there appears to
be evidence of an extensive CIA operation that likely involved U.K. intelligence services. In
addition, and as a direct outcome, there is an aspect to the CIA operation that overlaps with
both a U.S. and U.K. need to keep Wikileaks founder Julian Assange under tight control. In this
outline we will explain where corrupt U.S. and U.K. interests merge.
To understand the risk that Julian Assange represented to CIA interests, it is important to
understand just how extensive the operations of the CIA were in 2016. It is within this network
of foreign and domestic operations where FBI Agent Peter Strzok is clearly working as a bridge
between the CIA and FBI operations.
By now people are familiar with the construct of
CIA operations involving Joseph Mifsud, the Maltese professor now generally
admitted/identified as a western intelligence operative who was tasked by the CIA (John
Brennan) to run an operation against Trump campaign official George Papadopoulos in both Italy
(Rome) and London. {
Go Deep }
In a similar fashion the CIA tasked
U.S. intelligence asset Stefan Halper to target another Trump campaign official, Carter
Page. Under the auspices of being a Cambridge Professor Stefan Halper also targeted General
Michael Flynn. Additionally, using assistance from a female FBI agent under the false name Azra
Turk, Halper also targeted Papadopoulos
.
The initial operations to target Flynn, Papadopoulos and Page were all based overseas. This
seemingly makes the CIA exploitation of the assets and the targets much easier.
One of the more interesting aspects to the Durham probe is a possibility of a paper-trail
created as a result of the tasking operations. We should watch closely for more evidence of a
paper trail as some congressional reps have hinted toward documented evidence (transcripts,
recordings, reports) that are exculpatory to the targets (Page & Papadop). HPSCI Ranking
Member Devin Nunes has strongly hinted that
very specific exculpatory evidence was known to the FBI and yet withheld from the FISA
application used against Carter Page that also mentions George Papadopoulos. I digress
However, there is an aspect to the domestic U.S. operation that also bears the fingerprints
of the CIA; only this time due to the restrictive laws on targets inside the U.S. the CIA
aspect is less prominent. This is where FBI Agent Peter Strzok working for both agencies starts
to become important.
Remember, it's clear in the text messages Strzok has a working relationship with what he
called their "sister agency", the CIA. Additionally, Brennan
has admitted Strzok helped write the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA)
which outlines the Russia narrative; and it is almost guaranteed the July 31st, 2016,
"Electronic Communication" from the CIA to the FBI that originated FBI operation "Crossfire
Hurricane" was co-authored from the CIA by Strzok . and Strzok immediately used that EC to
travel to London to debrief intelligence officials around Australian Ambassador to the U.K.
Alexander Downer.
In short, Peter Strzok appears to be the very eager, profoundly overzealous James Bond
wannabe, who acted as a bridge between the CIA and the FBI. The perfect type of FBI career
agent for CIA Director John Brennan to utilize.
Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson hired CIA Open Source analyst Nellie Ohr toward the
end of 2015 ; at appropriately the same time as "
FBI Contractors " were identified exploiting the NSA database and extracting information on
a specific set of U.S. persons.
It was also Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson who was domestically tasked with a Russian
lobbyist named Natalia Veselnitskya. A little reported Russian Deputy Attorney General named
Saak Albertovich Karapetyan was working double-agents for the CIA and Kremlin. Karapetyan was
directing the foreign operations of Natalia Veselnitskaya, and Glenn Simpson was organizing
her inside the U.S.
Glenn Simpson managed Veselnitskaya through the 2016 Trump Tower meeting with Donald Trump
Jr. However, once the CIA/Fusion-GPS operation using Veselnitskaya started to unravel with
public reporting back in Russia Deputy AG Karapetyan
fell out of a helicopter to his death (just before it crashed).
Simultaneously timed in late 2015 through mid 2016, there was a domestic FBI operation using
a young Russian named Maria Butina
tasked to run up against republican presidential candidates . According to Patrick Byrne,
Butina's handler, it was FBI agent Peter Strzok who was giving Byrne the instructions on where
to send her. {
Go Deep }
All of this context outlines the extent to which the CIA was openly involved in constructing
a political operation that settled upon anyone in candidate Donald Trump's orbit.
International operations directed by the CIA, and domestic operations seemingly directed by
Peter Strzok operating with a foot in both agencies. [ Strzok gets CIA service
coin ]
Recap :
Mifsud tasked against Papadopoulos (CIA).
Halper tasked against
Flynn (CIA), Page (CIA), and Papadopoulos (CIA).
Azra Turk , pretending to be Halper
asst, tasked against Papadopoulos (FBI).
Veselnitskaya tasked against Donald Trump Jr
(CIA, Fusion-GPS).
Butina tasked against Trump, and Donald Trump Jr (FBI).
Additionally, Christopher Steele was a British intelligence officer, hired by Fusion-GPS to
assemble and launder fraudulent intelligence information within his dossier. And we cannot
forget Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch, who was
recruited by Asst. FBI Director Andrew McCabe to participate in running an operation
against the Trump campaign and create the impression of Russian involvement. Deripaska
refused to participate .
All of this engagement directly controlled by U.S. intelligence; and all of this intended to
give a specific Russia impression. This predicate is presumably what John Durham is currently
reviewing.
The key point of all that background is to see how committed the CIA and FBI were to the
constructed narrative of Russia interfering with the 2016 election. The CIA, FBI, and by
extension the DOJ, put a hell of a lot of work into it. Intelligence community work that Durham
is now unraveling.
We also know specifically that John Durham is looking at the construct of the Intelligence
Community Assessment (ICA); and
talking to CIA analysts who participated in the construct of the January 2017 report that
bolstered the false appearance of Russian interference in the 2016 election. This is important
because it ties in to the next part that involves Julian Assange and Wikileaks.
On April 11th, 2019, the Julian Assange
indictment was unsealed in the EDVA. From the indictment we discover it was under seal
since March 6th, 2018 : (Link to pdf)
On Tuesday April 15th more
investigative material was released . Again, note the dates: Grand Jury, * December of 2017
* This means FBI investigation prior to .
The FBI investigation took place prior to December 2017, it was coordinated through the
Eastern District of Virginia (EDVA) where Dana Boente was U.S. Attorney at the time. The grand
jury indictment was sealed from March of 2018 until after Mueller completed his investigation,
April 2019 .
Why the delay?
What was the DOJ waiting for?
Here's where it gets interesting .
The FBI submission to the Grand Jury in December of 2017 was four months after congressman
Dana Rohrabacher talked to Julian Assange in August of 2017: "Assange told a U.S. congressman
he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents did not come from Russia."
(
August 2017, The Hill Via John Solomon ) Julian Assange told a U.S. congressman on
Tuesday he can prove the leaked Democratic Party documents he published during last year's
election did not come from Russia and promised additional helpful information about the leaks
in the near future.
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a California Republican who is friendly to Russia and chairs an
important House subcommittee on Eurasia policy, became the first American congressman to meet
with Assange during a three-hour private gathering at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, where
the WikiLeaks founder has been holed up for years.
Rohrabacher recounted his conversation with Assange to The Hill. "Our three-hour meeting covered a wide array of issues, including the WikiLeaks exposure
of the DNC [Democratic National Committee] emails during last year's presidential election,"
Rohrabacher said, "Julian emphatically stated that the Russians were not involved in the
hacking or disclosure of those emails."
Pressed for more detail on the source of the documents, Rohrabacher said he had
information to share privately with President Trump. (
read more )
Knowing how much effort the CIA and FBI put into the Russia collusion-conspiracy narrative,
it would make sense for the FBI to take keen interest after this August 2017 meeting between
Rohrabacher and Assange; and why the FBI would quickly gather specific evidence (related to
Wikileaks and Bradley Manning) for a grand jury by December 2017.
Within three months of the grand jury the DOJ generated an indictment and sealed it in March
2018. The EDVA sat on the indictment while the Mueller probe was ongoing.
As soon as the Mueller probe ended, on April 11th, 2019, a planned and coordinated effort
between the U.K. and U.S. was executed; Julian Assange was forcibly arrested and removed from
the Ecuadorian embassy in London, and the EDVA indictment was unsealed (
link ).
As a person who has researched this three year fiasco; including the ridiculously false 2016
Russian hacking/interference narrative: "17 intelligence agencies", Joint Analysis Report
(JAR) needed for Obama's anti-Russia narrative in December '16; and then a month later the
ridiculously political Intelligence Community
Assessment (ICA) in January '17; this timing against Assange is too coincidental.
It doesn't take a deep researcher to see the aligned Deep State motive to control Julian
Assange because the Mueller report was dependent on Russia cybercrimes, and that narrative is
contingent on the Russia DNC hack story which Julian Assange disputes.
This is critical. The Weissmann/Mueller
report contains claims that Russia hacked the DNC servers as the central element to the
Russia interference narrative in the U.S. election. This claim is directly disputed by
WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, as outlined during the Dana Rohrabacher interview, and by Julian
Assange on-the-record statements.
The predicate for Robert Mueller's investigation was specifically due to Russian
interference in the 2016 election. The fulcrum for this Russia interference claim is the
intelligence community assessment; and the only factual evidence claimed within the ICA is that
Russia hacked the DNC servers; a claim only made possible by relying on forensic computer
analysis from Crowdstrike, a DNC contractor.
The CIA holds a massive conflict of self-interest in upholding the Russian hacking claim.
The FBI holds a massive interest in maintaining that claim. All of those foreign countries
whose intelligence apparatus participated with Brennan and Strzok also have a vested
self-interest in maintaining that Russia hacking and interference narrative.
Julian Assange is the only person with direct knowledge of how Wikileaks gained custody of
the DNC emails; and Assange has claimed he has evidence it was not from a hack.
This Russian "hacking" claim is ultimately so important to the CIA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI and U.K
intelligence apparatus . Well, right there is the obvious motive to shut Assange down as soon
intelligence officials knew the Mueller report was going to be public.
Now, if we know this, and you know this; and everything is cited and factual well, then
certainly AG Bill Barr knows this.
The $64,000 dollar question is: will they say so publicly?
Non-Corporate Entity , 7 minutes ago
Former NSA chief Bill Binney has forensic evidence that it was a download not a hack!!!
Hello?!?!
exige42 , 22 seconds ago
I believe this all holds true. My only hesitation is why Assange hasn't retaliated. He
was holed up in an Embassy for how many years because of these bastards? He had to have
known they were going to make a move on him sooner or later. Where is his dead plan? I hate
how these corrupt evil bastards have gotten their way forever. There has got to be a turn
on these SOBs. Where is the fight from these people who they are destroying
ffs???!!!
play_arrow
Dolar in a vortex , 1 minute ago
Jabba Barr and Bulldog Durham are a complete joke until they prove otherwise with
significant indictments. And no, Steve Bannon doesn't count.
In January 2017, former State Department official Jonathan Winer destroyed several years
worth of reports from former UK spy Christopher Steele , at Steele's request, according to the
Daily Caller , citing a report released Tuesday.
Winer, a former legislative assistant to former Sen. John Kerry who became the State
Department's Special Envoy for Libya when Kerry was Secretary of State - was Steele's contact
at the State Department, and received the now-debunked reports claiming that President Trump
had been compromised by the Russians.
According to the
Senate report , Winer disclosed that he destroyed reports that Steele had sent him over
the years. The Senate report also says that Winer failed to reveal when asked in his first
interview with the committee that he had arranged the meeting for Steele at the State
Department months earlier. -
Daily Caller
"After Steele's memos were published in the press in January 2017, Steele asked Winer to
make note of having them, then either destroy all the earlier reports Steele had sent the
Department of State or return them to Steele , out of concern that someone would be able to
reconstruct his source network," reads the Senate report, which quote sWiner as saying " So I
destroyed them, and I basically destroyed all the correspondence I had with him. "
In total, Winer had received over 100 intelligence reports from Steel between 2014 and
2016.
Emails that The Daily Caller News Foundation obtained
through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit show that Winer shared Steele's reports with a
small group of State Department officials. The Senate report says that the State Department
was able to provide the committee with Steele's reports from 2015 and 2016, though most from
2014 are missing. -
Daily Caller
In March, Steele told a UK court that he had "wiped" all of his dossier-linked
correspondence in December, 2016 and January, 2017, and had no records of communications with
his primary dossier source, Igor Danchenko.
In addition to receiving reports from Steele, Winer gave Steele various anti-Trump memos
from Clinton operative Sidney Blumenthal , which originated with Clinton "hatchet man" Cody
Shearer. Winer claims he didn't think Steele would share the Clinton-sourced information with
anyone else in the government.
"But I learned later that Steele did share them -- with the FBI, after the FBI asked him to
provide everything he had on allegations relating to Trump, his campaign and Russian
interference in U.S. elections," Winer wrote in a
2018 Op-Ed .
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Steele was paid $168,000 by opposition research firm Fusion GPS to produce his anti-Trump
dossier, which was funded in part by Hillary Clinton and the DNC, who used law firm Perkins
Coie as an intermediary.
c1ue @108: "Or is this all a ploy for the CIA to control country music?"
Do you imagine that I am ignorantly using overly broad terminology when I say that the
CIA's "Mighty Wurlitzer" encompasses the whole of the capitalist mass media ?
Only juveniles would think the CIA limit their influence efforts to just CNN, FOX News, and
MSNBC. Country music, like hiphop music and pop music, is part of capitalist mass media. The
entertainment industry is an even more important vector for programming of media consumers
than is the infotainment industry.
"In reality, the IS intel agencies recruit primarily from certain Ivy
League all US universities."
Fixed that for you.
Or perhaps you mean strictly recruitment of only salaried CIA personnel with federal
employee identification numbers? I would have hoped that a poster here at MoA should know
that there is a clear distinction between an intelligence "operator" and an
intelligence "agent" . It seems it should be obvious that non-employee intelligence
assets require recruitment of one form or another as well.
I think it would be wise to assume that all of the top 5% students at all major
universities have been evaluated and scouted by CIA "recruiters" . Any student who
looks like they might go any place where they have any influence, either through talent or
connections, will have a CIA "recruiter" sniffing their ass.
Naturally, nobody should assume that the CIA "recruiter" will approach their target
and announce, "Hi! I'm your friendly neighborhood CIA recruiter!" Most recruits will
be unlikely to ever even realize that they have been recruited.
Ex: CIA scum: "Hey, you told me you want to do investigative journalism after you
graduate, right? I know someone over at Buzzfeed who says they're looking for someone right
now. I could put in a good word for you!"
Now, the "recruit" could probably get a position at Buzzfeed after graduation
anyway, but when she gets a call for an interview it seems too good to be true, so she puts
her education on hold and takes the job. Meanwhile her "friend" introduces her to
another "friend" with inside government info (the CIA controller hands off the asset
to another controller). Our cub presstitute is grateful and indebted to both, now. When they
approach her later requesting favors, she will gladly deliver, but at no point will she ever
realize that she is in fact a CIA agent... an off-budget asset.
The thing with Faustian bargains is that they seem like a super good deal at the time, and
the CIA shame the devil with their Faustian bargaining.
The above is, of course, just one of many approaches used by the CIA for recruitment. They
are good at blackmail also, of course. As well, this is no extreme accusation. If you've
spent any significant amount of time on a university campus with your eyes open (most people
on university campuses are deeply engrossed in their own immediate situations) then you will
have noticed these recruiters, and if you are recruitment material then you will have been
approached by one or more of them. If you were engrossed in your own university trials and
tribulations like most students then you could have been "befriended" by one without
ever even knowing it.
In any case, Clinton absolutely worked with the CIA at Oxford. Even The
Atlantic admits it, but tries to downplay it, which is exactly what you would expect from
one of the parts of the "Mighty Wurlitzer" . They give a little bit of the truth to
make the lie easier to swallow. Due to the Clintons' later involvement in the CIA's drug
running schemes, it has become important in the official narrative for the Clintons'
association with the CIA to be minimized.
Do bear in mind, though, that one can never retire from being an intelligence agent so
long as the agency one was managed by continues to exist, in the same way and for the same
reasons that one can never retire from being a goon for the mob. Clinton was a CIA agent from
his time in Oxford to the present, and at all point in between. This requires no proof beyond
the admission that Clinton was once a CIA agent. For processes that have no end, all you need
to know about is their starting point.
Do some research it becomes clear quickly what the real story is. Hillary and her bunch
stink to high heaven and have or YEARS. Started with her and husband. They sold this country
o or personal gain.Just search a little and make sure to use factual information. It is there
for anyone to find.
In recently unsealed court documents involving dead child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein
and his alleged accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell, a woman named Virginia Giuffre, who publicly
accused Epstein of sex trafficking, said that she once saw former Democratic President Bill
Clinton on Epstein's island with "two young girls" from New York.
In the questioning by lawyer Jack Scarola, Guiffre was asked, "Do you have any
recollection of Jeffrey Epstein's specifically telling you that 'Bill Clinton owes me
favors?'"
"Yes, I do," Guiffre answered. "It was a laugh though. He would laugh it off. You know, I
remember asking Jeffrey what's Bill Clinton doing here [on Epstein's island] kind of thing,
and he laughed it off and said well he owes me favors."
Interesting extract from Xymphora's July 31 blog entry...
Tweet (trappedpatriot):
"So they screwed up bigtime on the redactions for the Ghislaine Maxwell release today.
You can literally copy and paste the redacted pages into notepad and read them. Check out
document #143 for a great example. #Epstein #Maxwell"
The trick works (I'd like to think it is not a mistake but some direct action by a
court employee who is tired of all the lies). From document #143 (a deposition of Maxwell
where her lawyer instructs her not to answer most, but not all, questions:
...
I can wait for the Official Version but I'd be interested to hear if any of MoA's resident
sleuths have found the copy/paste assertion to be true?
It looks like they highlighted what was to be redacted in adobe instead of scanning
redacted documents manually.
Somebody screwed up? Intentionally? Mistrial for Maxwell?
Looks like Clinton "dicking (underage) blondes." I am shocked!
Trump is looking clean and I would have already guessed it with his foray into the porn
industry w/ Stormy Daniels. Whereas with paedophiles, it is about power and domination, when
you are into a chick like Daniels, you are staying simple and "keeping your cart wheel in
worn ruts." (Tao Te Ching)
Newly unsealed files tied to the Jeffrey Epstein sex-trafficking case imply that former US President Bill Clinton visited the
investor's private island along with "young girls," and that the FBI knew well about the minors' abuse.
Comprising hundreds of pages of documents, the trove was released on Thursday night following a judge's order last week to have
it unsealed, over the objections of Ghislaine Maxwell, a former girlfriend to Epstein who has recently been charged as an accomplice
in his alleged sex-trafficking operation.
The records stem from a 2015 defamation suit filed by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, which was placed under lock and key after
the case was settled in 2017, but was recently unsealed, as a result of a lawsuit brought last year by conservative blogger Mike
Cernovich and the Miami Herald newspaper.
Among other revelations, the documents indicate that former US president Bill Clinton consorted with "young girls" during
at least one visit to Epstein's private resort in the Virgin Islands, where the billionaire was said to host regular "sex orgies."
"When you were present with Jeffery Epstein and Bill Clinton on the island, who else was there?" one witness – presumably
Giuffre – was asked during an interview, to which she replied that Epstein, Maxwell, an unidentified woman named "Emmy" and
"2 young girls" had been on the island with the former POTUS. The witness did not elaborate on Clinton's interactions with
the girls, however.
The same witness also told her attorney in 2011 that she had overheard Epstein saying that Clinton owed him "favors," but
noted she couldn't tell whether he was joking.
"He would laugh it off. You know, I remember asking Jeffrey 'What's Bill Clinton doing here?' and he laughed it off and said
'well he owes me a favor,'" she said. "He never told me what favors they were. I never knew. I didn't know if he was serious."
He told me a long time ago that everyone owes him favors. They're all in each other's pockets.
One of America's top law enforcement agencies was also apparently aware that underage girls were still being abused at Epstein's
properties as far back as 2011 – years after he was sentenced for similar crimes in his first criminal case. During her defamation
suit, Giuffre said she had provided the FBI a now widely circulated photo of herself and the UK's Prince Andrew – where he is pictured
smiling with an arm around her bare waist.
In 2014, moreover, Giuffre contacted the FBI to request evidence they had previously seized from Epstein's residences to aid her
civil case, suggesting the bureau had for long been informed of her allegations regarding Epstein and his continued involvement with
minor girls.
Comprising hundreds of pages of documents, the trove was released on Thursday night following a judge's order last week to have
it unsealed, over the objections of Ghislaine Maxwell, a former girlfriend to Epstein who has recently been charged as an accomplice
in his alleged sex-trafficking operation.
The records stem from a 2015 defamation suit filed by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, which was placed under lock and key after
the case was settled in 2017, but was recently unsealed, as a result of a lawsuit brought last year by conservative blogger Mike
Cernovich and the Miami Herald newspaper.
Among other revelations, the documents indicate that former US president Bill Clinton consorted with "young girls" during
at least one visit to Epstein's private resort in the Virgin Islands, where the billionaire was said to host regular "sex orgies."
"When you were present with Jeffery Epstein and Bill Clinton on the island, who else was there?" one witness – presumably
Giuffre – was asked during an interview, to which she replied that Epstein, Maxwell, an unidentified woman named "Emmy" and
"2 young girls" had been on the island with the former POTUS. The witness did not elaborate on Clinton's interactions with
the girls, however.
The same witness also told her attorney in 2011 that she had overheard Epstein saying that Clinton owed him "favors," but
noted she couldn't tell whether he was joking.
"He would laugh it off. You know, I remember asking Jeffrey 'What's Bill Clinton doing here?' and he laughed it off and said
'well he owes me a favor,'" she said. "He never told me what favors they were. I never knew. I didn't know if he was serious."
He told me a long time ago that everyone owes him favors. They're all in each other's pockets.
One of America's top law enforcement agencies was also apparently aware that underage girls were still being abused at Epstein's
properties as far back as 2011 – years after he was sentenced for similar crimes in his first criminal case. During her defamation
suit, Giuffre said she had provided the FBI a now widely circulated photo of herself and the UK's Prince Andrew – where he is pictured
smiling with an arm around her bare waist.
In 2014, moreover, Giuffre contacted the FBI to request evidence they had previously seized from Epstein's residences to aid her
civil case, suggesting the bureau had for long been informed of her allegations regarding Epstein and his continued involvement with
minor girls.
Comprising hundreds of pages of documents, the trove was released on Thursday night following a judge's order last week to have
it unsealed, over the objections of Ghislaine Maxwell, a former girlfriend to Epstein who has recently been charged as an accomplice
in his alleged sex-trafficking operation.
The records stem from a 2015 defamation suit filed by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, which was placed under lock and key after
the case was settled in 2017, but was recently unsealed, as a result of a lawsuit brought last year by conservative blogger Mike
Cernovich and the Miami Herald newspaper.
Among other revelations, the documents indicate that former US president Bill Clinton consorted with "young girls" during
at least one visit to Epstein's private resort in the Virgin Islands, where the billionaire was said to host regular "sex orgies."
"When you were present with Jeffery Epstein and Bill Clinton on the island, who else was there?" one witness – presumably
Giuffre – was asked during an interview, to which she replied that Epstein, Maxwell, an unidentified woman named "Emmy" and
"2 young girls" had been on the island with the former POTUS. The witness did not elaborate on Clinton's interactions with
the girls, however.
The same witness also told her attorney in 2011 that she had overheard Epstein saying that Clinton owed him "favors," but
noted she couldn't tell whether he was joking.
"He would laugh it off. You know, I remember asking Jeffrey 'What's Bill Clinton doing here?' and he laughed it off and said
'well he owes me a favor,'" she said. "He never told me what favors they were. I never knew. I didn't know if he was serious."
He told me a long time ago that everyone owes him favors. They're all in each other's pockets.
One of America's top law enforcement agencies was also apparently aware that underage girls were still being abused at Epstein's
properties as far back as 2011 – years after he was sentenced for similar crimes in his first criminal case. During her defamation
suit, Giuffre said she had provided the FBI a now widely circulated photo of herself and the UK's Prince Andrew – where he is pictured
smiling with an arm around her bare waist.
In 2014, moreover, Giuffre contacted the FBI to request evidence they had previously seized from Epstein's residences to aid her
civil case, suggesting the bureau had for long been informed of her allegations regarding Epstein and his continued involvement with
minor girls.
President Donald Trump also made an appearance in the unsealed papers. However, an associate of Epstein, Juan Alessi, said in
an interview that Trump "never" stayed overnight while visiting Epstein's Palm Beach estate, and that he did not receive any
"massages" there, as "he's got his own spa." An alleged victim also maintained that while Trump and Epstein were
"good friends," Trump made no attempts to "flirt" with her.
Comprising hundreds of pages of documents, the trove was released on Thursday night following a judge's order last week to have
it unsealed, over the objections of Ghislaine Maxwell, a former girlfriend to Epstein who has recently been charged as an accomplice
in his alleged sex-trafficking operation.
The records stem from a 2015 defamation suit filed by Epstein accuser Virginia Giuffre, which was placed under lock and key after
the case was settled in 2017, but was recently unsealed, as a result of a lawsuit brought last year by conservative blogger Mike
Cernovich and the Miami Herald newspaper.
Among other revelations, the documents indicate that former US president Bill Clinton consorted with "young girls" during
at least one visit to Epstein's private resort in the Virgin Islands, where the billionaire was said to host regular "sex orgies."
"When you were present with Jeffery Epstein and Bill Clinton on the island, who else was there?" one witness – presumably
Giuffre – was asked during an interview, to which she replied that Epstein, Maxwell, an unidentified woman named "Emmy" and
"2 young girls" had been on the island with the former POTUS. The witness did not elaborate on Clinton's interactions with
the girls, however.
The same witness also told her attorney in 2011 that she had overheard Epstein saying that Clinton owed him "favors," but
noted she couldn't tell whether he was joking.
"He would laugh it off. You know, I remember asking Jeffrey 'What's Bill Clinton doing here?' and he laughed it off and said
'well he owes me a favor,'" she said. "He never told me what favors they were. I never knew. I didn't know if he was serious."
He told me a long time ago that everyone owes him favors. They're all in each other's pockets.
One of America's top law enforcement agencies was also apparently aware that underage girls were still being abused at Epstein's
properties as far back as 2011 – years after he was sentenced for similar crimes in his first criminal case. During her defamation
suit, Giuffre said she had provided the FBI a now widely circulated photo of herself and the UK's Prince Andrew – where he is pictured
smiling with an arm around her bare waist.
In 2014, moreover, Giuffre contacted the FBI to request evidence they had previously seized from Epstein's residences to aid her
civil case, suggesting the bureau had for long been informed of her allegations regarding Epstein and his continued involvement with
minor girls.
President Donald Trump also made an appearance in the unsealed papers. However, an associate of Epstein, Juan Alessi, said in
an interview that Trump "never" stayed overnight while visiting Epstein's Palm Beach estate, and that he did not receive any
"massages" there, as "he's got his own spa." An alleged victim also maintained that while Trump and Epstein were
"good friends," Trump made no attempts to "flirt" with her.
Despite repeatedly insisting he had no ties to Epstein's sex-trafficking ring, legal scholar and former Harvard Law School professor
Alan Dershowitz is directly accused in the documents of having "sexual relations" with an underage girl. He is also said to
have witnessed "the sexual abuse of many other minors by Epstein and several of Epstein's co-conspirators," and would later
help to negotiate an undisclosed immunity deal for himself during Epstein's first criminal case.
More than 1,000 pages of documents from Giuffre's civil defamation case had previously been released in August 2019, indicating
that a long list of wealthy and powerful figures regularly spent time with Epstein at his lavish properties. One day after that trove
was unsealed, Epstein was found hanging in his Manhattan prison cell, dead from an apparent suicide after being charged with sex
trafficking and imprisoned some weeks previously.
Maxwell was arrested and charged with procuring minors for sexual abuse earlier this month, after keeping a low profile in the
period following Epstein's death. She has pleaded not guilty to six criminal counts and remains in custody without bail, after prosecutors
had labeled her an "extreme" flight risk.
Tucker Carlson described former President Obama as "one of the sleaziest and most dishonest
figures in the history of American politics" after his eulogy at the funeral of civil rights
icon Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.) on Thursday.
Carlson, who also described the former president as "a greasy politician" for calling on
Congress to pass a new Voting Rights Act and to eliminate the filibuster, which Obama described
as a relic of the Jim Crow era that disenfranchised Black Americans, in order to do so.
"Barack Obama, one of the sleaziest and most dishonest figures in the history of American
politics, used George Floyd's death at a funeral to attack the police," Carlson said before
showing a segment of Obama's remarks.
More willful blindness by the media on spying by Obama administration
By Jonathan Turley
July 27, 2020 " Information Clearing House " - The Washington
press corps seems engaged in a collective demonstration of the legal concept of willful
blindness, or deliberately ignoring the facts, following the release of yet another
declassified document which directly refutes prior statements about the investigation into
Russia collusion. The document shows that FBI officials used a national security briefing of
then candidate Donald
Trump and his top aides to gather possible evidence for Crossfire Hurricane, its code name
for the Russia investigation.
It is astonishing that the media refuses to see what is one of the biggest stories in
decades. The Obama administration targeted the campaign of the opposing party based on false
evidence. The media covered Obama administration officials ridiculing the suggestions of spying
on the Trump campaign and of improper conduct with the Russia investigation. When Attorney
General William Barr told the Senate last year that he believed spying did occur, he was
lambasted in the media, including by James Comey and others involved in that investigation. The
mocking "wow" response of the fired FBI director received extensive coverage.
The new document shows that, in summer 2016, FBI agent Joe Pientka briefed Trump campaign
advisers Michael Flynn and Chris Christie over national security issues, standard practice
ahead of the election. It had a discussion of Russian interference. But this was different. The
document detailing the questions asked by Trump and his aides and their reactions was filed
several days after that meeting under Crossfire Hurricane and Crossfire Razor, the FBI
investigation of Flynn. The two FBI officials listed who approved the report are Kevin
Clinesmith and Peter Strzok.
No Advertising - No Government Grants - This Is Independent Media
Clinesmith is the former FBI lawyer responsible for the FISA surveillance conducted on
members of the Trump campaign. He opposed Trump and sent an email after the election declaring
"viva the resistance." He is now under review for possible criminal charges for altering a FISA
court filing. The FBI used Trump adviser Carter Page as the basis for the original FISA
application, due to his contacts with Russians. After that surveillance was approved, however,
federal officials discredited the collusion allegations and noted that Page was a CIA asset.
Clinesmith had allegedly changed the information to state that Page was not working for the
CIA.
Strzok is the FBI agent whose violation of FBI rules led Justice Department officials to
refer him for possible criminal charges. Strzok did not hide his intense loathing of Trump and
famously referenced an "insurance policy" if Trump were to win the election. After FBI
officials concluded there was no evidence of any crime by Flynn at the end of 2016, Strzok
prevented the closing of the investigation as FBI officials searched for any crime that might
be used to charge the incoming national security adviser.
Documents show Comey briefed President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden on the
investigation shortly before the inauguration of Trump. When Comey admitted the communications
between Flynn and Russian officials appeared legitimate, Biden reportedly suggested using the
Logan Act, a law widely seen as unconstitutional and never been used to successfully convict a
single person, as an alternative charge against Flynn. The memo contradicts eventual claims by
Biden that he did not know about the Flynn investigation. Let us detail some proven but mostly
unseen facts.
First, the Russia collusion allegations were based in large part on the dossier funded by
the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee. The Clinton campaign repeatedly
denied paying for the dossier until after the election, when it was confronted with irrefutable
evidence that the money had been buried among legal expenditures. As New York Times reporter
Maggie Haberman wrote, "Folks involved in funding this lied about it and with sanctimony for a
year."
Second, FBI agents had warned that dossier author Christopher Steele may have been used by
Russian intelligence to plant false information to disrupt the election. His source for the
most serious allegations claims that Steele misrepresented what he had said and that it was
little more than rumors that were recast by Steele as reliable intelligence.
Third, the Obama administration had been told that the basis for the FISA application was
dubious and likely false. Yet it continued the investigation, and then someone leaked its
existence to the media. Another declassified document shows that, after the New York Times ran
a leaked story on the investigation, even Strzok had balked at the account as misleading and
inaccurate. His early 2017 memo affirmed that there was no evidence of any individuals in
contact with Russians. This information came as the collusion stories were turning into a
frenzy that would last years.
Fourth, the investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller and inspectors general found no
evidence of collusion or knowing contact between the Trump campaign and Russian officials. What
inspectors general did find were false statements or possible criminal conduct by Comey and
others. While unable to say it was the reason for their decisions, they also found statements
of animus against Trump and his campaign by the FBI officials who were leading the
investigation. Former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein testified he never would have
approved renewal of the FISA surveillance and encouraged further investigation into such
bias.
Finally, Obama and Biden were aware of the investigation, as were the administration
officials who publicly ridiculed Trump when he said there was spying on his campaign. Others,
like House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, declared they had evidence of collusion
but never produced it. Countless reporters, columnists, and analysts still continue to deride,
as writer Max Boot said it, the spinning of "absurd conspiracy theories" about how the FBI
"supposedly spied on the Trump campaign."
Willful blindness has its advantages. The media covered the original leak and the collusion
narrative, despite mounting evidence that it was false. They filled hours of cable news shows
and pages of print with a collusion story discredited by the FBI. Virtually none of these
journalists or experts have acknowledged that the collusion leaks were proven false, let alone
pursue the troubling implications of national security powers being used to target the
political opponents of an administration. But in Washington, success often depends not on what
you see but what you can unsee.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington
University. You can find his updates online @JonathanTurley . - "
Source " -
The Deep state coup attempt (sometimes called the soft coup or the
"insurance policy" ) was an effort by high-level Obama administration intelligence
community officials and holdovers to sabotage the agenda of President Donald Trump , remove him
from power, and hide the illegal actions of the Obama administration.
Tashina "Tash" Gauhar, also goes by Tanisha Guahar, is the Deputy Assistant Attorney General
(DAAG) in the Department of Justice National Security
Division (NSD). Gauhar is a FISA
lawyer. Tash was at the DOJ since 2001, and she formerly served as assistant counsel and chief of
operations in what was then called the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review. She worked for
DAG Rosenstein as she did for DAG Sally Yates. Tash Gauhar was the DAG's executor and enforcer
for national security. Tashina Gauhar was/is best friends with Lisa Page . Tashina is reported to have attempted
to get access to highly compartmentalized NSA information, and lied about being an appropriately
cleared recipient.
Guahar is said to have been removed from her position in charge of FISA applications
immediately after IG Michael Horowitz submitted his first draft
report to Attorney General Bill
Barr for classification review. Gauhar now reportedly works for Boeing . [1]
She is the DOJ/FBI lawyer at the heart of the Clinton-email investigation; the DOJ/FBI lawyer
hired by Eric Holder at
his firm and later at the DOJ; the DOJ/FBI lawyer who was transferred to the Clinton probe; the
DOJ/FBI lawyer at the epicenter of the Weiner laptop issues, the only one from MYE who spoke to
New York; the DOJ/FBI lawyer who constructs the FISA applications on behalf of Main Justice; .
just happens to be the same DOJ/FBI lawyer recommending to AG Jeff Sessions that he recuse
himself. Tashina Gauhar -
Conservapedia
Keep hearing these things about Tashina "Tash" Gauhar, head of DoJ National Security
Division seems to always be involved with all these things -- Clinton Emails, DNC/Weiner,
Sessions recusal, Mueller liaison at DoJ, FISA warrants.
27 JULY 2020The Curious Silence of the Traitors by Larry C Johnson
Remember when John O. Brennan--Obama's CIA Director--and disgraced FBI agent, Peter Strzok,
were regularly spewing anti-Trump diatribes on Twitter? Well, Strzok went silent on 11 July
2020 and Brennan did the same a week later (18 July 2020). I do not think that is a
coincidence.
I have now heard from three separate sources that John Durham will have plea deals and/or
indictments before 1 September 2020. Two of the first heads to roll likely will be lying lawyer
Kevin Clinesmith , who deliberately withheld exculpatory from a FISA application to spy on
Carter Page, and lover boy, Peter Strzok.
And then there is the retarded fool, John Brennan, who fancies himself as the Mozart of the
Intelligence Community. Sorry John, you do not even qualify to clean Salieri's toliet. Until 9
days ago, John was a regular tweeter hurling foul invectives at Donald Trump.
Here are two examples of their July 11 screeds:
Trump's commutation of Stone apparently pushed them over the edge. Boo hoo. But since then
it has been crickets from these two chowderheads. Has the past caught up with them? At least in
Strzok's case he has retained legal representation. No indicator yet about Brennan. A competent
lawyer would understand that tweets, especially those attacking the Trump Administration, is a
potentially dangerous, self-incriminating activity.
More than two weeks of silence from Strzok and one week from Brennan does not appear to be a
mere instance of having nothing to say. Lack of substance has not prevented these two buffoons
from shooting their mouths off in the past. Is the day of reckoning nigh?
I sure hope so, but I'm not optimistic.
The swamp will not go willingly and Barr, for all his comments about "justice", is still a
member in good standing.
Look at how the FBI is still out of control, hiding and shredding documents and the "career"
lawyers are still operating the DOJ as an arm of the Democrat party.
How long did Martha Stewart end up in the slammer? How much time did the Varsity Blues
parents get in the Big House? People still do go to jail in this country for messing around
with the facts.
Are Brennan and Strozk immune after trying to take down a sitting President, but trying to
get your stupid kid into USC by cheating gets a prolonged close encounter with Bubba?
Surely, we don't have two systems of justice. One for government employees and one for the
rest of us. I gather one does not "plea bargain" unless there is a case. Though Gen Flynn can
still beg to differ with that presumption. Surely we are not intro framing suspects, even
though their possible charge was framing the President.
Does the DOJ have clean hands at last, on Russiagate. And will a possible plea bargain
finally lead to loss of their security clearances? And pensions. Did Clapper flip.
Why was the "essential question" to only investigate the Trump campaign.
Facts in evidence clearly show Clinton was the one getting the Russians to interfere in
the 2016 campaign. How is her Twitter account doing right now. Did she too drop into this
sudden cone of silence?
Keep hearing these things about Tashina "Tash" Gauhar, head of DoJ National Security
Division seems to always be involved with all these things -- Clinton Emails, DNC/Weiner,
Sessions recusal, Mueller liaison at DoJ, FISA warrants.
Thanks for the write up Larry. The sounds of silence are deafening. The silence of riots
apparently being news, until this instant, when Congressman Nadler was forced to see five
minutes of it via video in the hearing room on Congress, to which he chastised the ranking
member for not giving him 48 hours warning that truth would be shown. I wonder what antifa's
masters have in store for us for the rest of the week, given their narrative is losing them
voter support.
Strzok has a book coming out, "Compromised: Counterintelligence and the Threat of Donald
J. Trump". I'd rather see him sweating bullets before the Sep 8 release. Thanks Larry!
Once behind bars, Strzok can't profit from his crime so this must be a frantic
ghost-written doozie. And all Russia, Russia, Russia again. Talk about an issue that
generates zero traction.
I think we can all write the plot upfront (OrangemanBad), upon with he will hang the most
gauzy of facts Too bad he could not get Team Mueller to agree with him when it counted.
I mourn the trees sacrificed to his tawdry cause. Maintaining a wife and mistress at the
same time however, does add up.
Former Flynn Deputy K.T. McFarland claims the Durham criminal inquiry into the friggin' in
the riggin' of the "Russia Investigation" and who knew what and when at the FBI and elsewhere
is just about ready to wrap up, and teases that we can expect indictments by the end of the
summer. Solid documentary evidence in the form of meeting notes, email exchanges and the like
has emerged, she says.
About the Steele Dossier. From the beginning I was nagged by the question of whether anyone
had seriously dug into its provenance? I mean, the chain of custody is critical in evaluating
evidence, isn't it? But that didn't seem to matter to most conversations about it for the
longest time. The impression was left hanging that Christopher Steele, crackerjack agent, had
got the inside stuff straight from people in or near the Kremlin.
Now we learn that the FBI did interview Steele's main conduit for all those claims --
"Primary Sub-source" -- intensively, for three days, early in the Trump administration. They
just never bothered to release any of their findings to the public, even as the dossier's main
claim -- Trump is a Kremlin agent of long standing, beholden to Putin due to some pee tape
kompromat -- took hold in the American political mind and became an article of faith for some.
Still is.
The FBI notes of that interview were released just a few days ago. And they reveal the
"dossier" had zero original reporting. It was concocted entirely from rumors picked up
second-or-third hand, inventive guesses, drunken conversations with persons of no particular
expertise, pillow talk between the main sub-source and his dependent Russian lady friend, and
fragments of a garbled phone call with a "source" whose identity could not be even
approximately established.
In other words, it's way worse than even I thought. And regular readers of this page know
pretty well what I thought about the likely veracity of the Steele Dossier. That such a
pathetic tissue of speculation, delirium and outright falsehood could capture the American
political imagination and drive debate -- for years! -- is simply astounding.
"Much of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Donald Trump was built on the premise
that Christopher Steele and his dossier were to be believed. This even though, early on,
Steele's claims failed to bear scrutiny. Just how far off the claims were became clear when the
FBI interviewed Steele's "Primary Subsource" over three days beginning on Feb. 9, 2017. Notes
taken by FBI agents of those interviews were released by the Senate Judiciary Committee Friday
afternoon."
"Getting" Flynn was the key to neutering the danger Trump posed to the deep state, since
General Flynn was the one military advisor to Trump who was knowledgeable and who had
recognized the salient fact that, under Obama, the US was employing the "raghead" element to do
their bidding in Syria and elsewhere.
Without Flynn, Trump, who like many has a tendency to accept the views of credentialled
experts, could be convinced to continue the deep state policy of permanent warfare aided by
jihadist barbarians. Trump's tragedy was that he accepted what appeared to be the inevitable
and allowed Flynn to be taken down.
Did Skripal played any role in this mess. In this case his poisoning looks more logical as an attempt to hide him from
Russians, who might well suspect him in playing a role in creating Steele dossier by some myths that were present in it.
Notable quotes:
"... Even Beria would laugh at this kind of "evidence". ..."
Much of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation into Donald Trump was built on the premise
that Christopher Steele and his dossier were to be believed. This even though, early on,
Steele's claims failed to bear scrutiny. Just how far off the claims were became clear when the
FBI interviewed Steele's "Primary Subsource" over three days beginning on Feb. 9, 2017.
Notes taken by FBI agents of those interviews were released by the Senate Judiciary
Committee Friday afternoon.
The Primary Subsource was in reality Steele's sole source, a long-time Russian-speaking
contractor for the former British spy's company, Orbis Business Intelligence. In turn, the
Primary Subsource had a group of friends in Russia. All of their names remain redacted. From
the FBI interviews it becomes clear that the Primary Subsource and his friends peddled
warmed-over rumors and laughable gossip that Steele dressed up as formal intelligence
memos.
Paul Manafort: The Steele dossier's "Primary Subsource" admitted to the FBI "that he was
'clueless' about who Manafort was, and that this was a 'strange task' to have been given." AP
Photo/Seth Wenig, File
Steele's operation didn't rely on great expertise, to judge from the Primary Subsource's
account. He described to the FBI the instructions Steele had given him sometime in the spring
of 2016 regarding Paul Manafort: "Do you know [about] Manafort? Find out about Manafort's
dealings with Ukraine, his dealings with other countries, and any corrupt schemes." The Primary
Subsource admitted to the FBI "that he was 'clueless' about who Manafort was, and that this was
a 'strange task' to have been given."
The Primary Subsource said at first that maybe he had asked some of his friends in Russia
– he didn't have a network of sources, according to his lawyer, but instead just a
"social circle." And a boozy one at that: When the Primary Subsource would get together with
his old friend Source 4, the two would drink heavily. But his social circle was no help with
the Manafort question and so the Primary Subsource scrounged up a few old news clippings about
Manafort and fed them back to Steele.
Also in his "social circle" was Primary Subsource's friend "Source 2," a character who was
always on the make. "He often tries to monetize his relationship with [the Primary Subsource],
suggesting that the two of them should try and do projects together for money," the Primary
Subsource told the FBI (a caution that the Primary Subsource would repeat again and again.) It
was Source 2 who "told [the Primary Subsource] that there was compromising material on
Trump."
And then there was Source 3, a very special friend. Over a redacted number of years, the
Primary Subsource has "helped out [Source 3] financially." She stayed with him when visiting
the United States. The Primary Subsource told the FBI that in the midst of their conversations
about Trump, they would also talk about "a private subject." (The FBI agents, for all their
hardnosed reputation, were too delicate to intrude by asking what that "private subject"
was).
Michael Cohen: The bogus story of the Trump fixer's trip to Prague seems to have originated
with "Source 3," a woman friend of the Primary Subsource, who was "not sure if Source 3 was
brainstorming here." AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, File
One day Steele told his lead contractor to get dirt on five individuals. By the time he got
around to it, the Primary Subsource had forgotten two of the names, but seemed to recall Carter
Page, Paul Manafort and Trump lawyer Michael Cohen. The Primary Subsource said he asked his
special friend Source 3 if she knew any of them. At first she didn't. But within minutes she
seemed to recall having heard of Cohen, according to the FBI notes. Indeed, before long it came
back to her that she had heard Cohen and three henchmen had gone to Prague to meet with
Russians.
Source 3 kept spinning yarns about Michael Cohen in Prague. For example, she claimed Cohen
was delivering "deniable cash payments" to hackers. But come to think of it, the Primary
Subsource was "not sure if Source 3 was brainstorming here," the FBI notes say.
The Steele Dossier would end up having authoritative-sounding reports of hackers who had
been "recruited under duress by the FSB" -- the Russian security service -- and how they "had
been using botnets and porn traffic to transmit viruses, plant bugs, steal data and conduct
'altering operations' against the the Democratic Party." What exactly, the FBI asked the
subject, were "altering operations?" The Primary Subsource wouldn't be much help there, as he
told the FBI "that his understanding of this topic (i.e. cyber) was 'zero.'" But what about his
girlfriend whom he had known since they were in eighth grade together? The Primary Subsource
admitted to the FBI that Source 3 "is not an IT specialist herself."
And then there was Source 6. Or at least the Primary Subsource thinks it was Source 6.
Ritz-Carlton Moscow: The Primary Subsource admitted to the FBI "he had not been able to
confirm the story" about Trump and prostitutes at the hotel. But he did check with someone who
supposedly asked a hotel manager, who said that with celebrities, "one never knows what they're
doing." Moscowjob.net/Wikimedia
While he was doing his research on Manafort, the Primary Subsource met a U.S. journalist "at
a Thai restaurant." The Primary Subsource didn't want to ask "revealing questions" but managed
to go so far as to ask, "Do you [redacted] know anyone who can talk about all of this
Trump/Manafort stuff, or Trump and Russia?" According to the FBI notes, the journalist told
Primary Subsource "that he was skeptical and nothing substantive had turned up." But the
journalist put the Primary Subsource in touch with a "colleague" who in turn gave him an email
of "this guy" journalist 2 had interviewed and "that he should talk to."
With the email address of "this guy" in hand, the Primary Subsource sent him a message "in
either June or July 2016." Some weeks later the Primary Subsource "received a telephone call
from an unidentified Russia guy." He "thought" but had no evidence that the mystery "Russian
guy" was " that guy." The mystery caller "never identified himself." The Primary Subsource
labeled the anonymous caller "Source 6." The Primary Subsource and Source 6 talked for a total
of "about 10 minutes." During that brief conversation they spoke about the Primary Subsource
traveling to meet the anonymous caller, but the hook-up never happened.
Nonetheless, the Primary Subsource labeled the unknown Russian voice "Source 6" and gave
Christopher Steele the rundown on their brief conversation – how they had "a general
discussion about Trump and the Kremlin" and "that it was an ongoing relationship." For use in
the dossier, Steele named the voice Source E.
When Steele was done putting this utterly unsourced claim into the style of the dossier,
here's how the mystery call from the unknown guy was presented: "Speaking in confidence to a
compatriot in late July 2016, Source E, an ethnic Russian close associate of Republican US
presidential candidate Donald TRUMP, admitted that there was a well-developed conspiracy of
co-operation between them and the Russian leadership." Steele writes "Inter alia," – yes,
he really does deploy the Latin formulation for "among other things" – "Source E
acknowledged that the Russian regime had been behind the recent leak of embarrassing e-mail
messages, emanating from the Democratic National Committee [DNC], to the WikiLeaks
platform."
All that and more is presented as the testimony of a "close associate" of Trump, when it was
just the disembodied voice of an unknown guy.
Perhaps even more perplexing is that the FBI interviewers, knowing that Source E was just an
anonymous caller, didn't compare that admission to the fantastical Steele bluster and declare
the dossier a fabrication on the spot.
But perhaps it might be argued that Christopher Steele was bringing crack investigative
skills of his own to bear. For something as rich in detail and powerful in effect as the
dossier, Steele must have been researching these questions himself as well, using his
hard-earned spy savvy to pry closely held secrets away from the Russians. Or at the very least
he must have relied on a team of intelligence operatives who could have gone far beyond the
obvious limitations the Primary Subsource and his group of drinking buddies.
But no. As we learned in December from Inspector General Michael Horowitz, Steele "was not
the originating source of any of the factual information in his reporting." Steele, the IG
reported "relied on a primary sub-source (Primary Sub-source) for information, and this Primary
Sub-source used a network of [further] sub-sources to gather the information that was relayed
to Steele." The inspector general's report noted that "neither Steele nor the Primary
Sub-source had direct access to the information being reported."
One might, by now, harbor some skepticism about the dossier. One might even be inclined to
doubt the story that Trump was "into water sports" as the Primary Subsource so delicately
described the tale of Trump and Moscow prostitutes. But, in this account, there was an effort,
however feeble, to nail down the "rumor and speculation" that Trump engaged in "unorthodox
sexual activity at the Ritz."
While the Primary Subsource admitted to the FBI "he had not been able to confirm the story,"
Source 2 (who will be remembered as the hustler always looking for a lucrative score)
supposedly asked a hotel manager about Trump and the manager said that with celebrities, "one
never knows what they're doing." One never knows – not exactly a robust proof of
something that smacks of urban myth. But the Primary Subsource makes the best of it, declaring
that at least "it wasn't a denial."
If there was any denial going on it was the FBI's, an agency in denial that its
extraordinary investigation was crumbling.
bh2, 23 minutes ago
Even Beria would laugh at this kind of "evidence".
A top government watchdog group obtained 136 pages of never before publicized emails between
former FBI lovers
Peter Strzok and
Lisa Page and one in particular appears to refer to a confidential informant inside the
White House in 2017, according to a press release from
Judicial Watch .
Those emails, some of which are heavily redacted, reveal that "Strzok, Page and top bureau
officials in the days prior to and following
President Donald Trump's inauguration discussing a White House counterintelligence briefing
that could "play into" the
FBI's "investigative strategy."
Majority Say They Want to See Trump's Taxes, Many Think Returns Would Hurt Reelection
Chances
White House Reportedly Moves to Make Coronavirus Cases Private by Cutting Out
CDC
Trump White House Reportedly Conducting 'Loyalty' Interviews of Officials,
Appointees
Majority Don't Trust Trump's Public Messages on COVID-19, Disapproval on Pandemic Response
Hits 60%
Trump's Niece Says She's Heard Him Use the N-Word, Anti-Semitic Slurs
Trump Administration is Reportedly Out to Smear Dr. Anthony Fauci for Early Comments on
Coronavirus
Trump Refuses To Unveil Obama's Portrait At The White House
White House Testing Staff For COVID-19, But Are Results Accurate?
Moreover, another email sent by Strzok to Bill
Priestap, the Former Assistant Director for the Counterintelligence Division, refers to
what appears to be a confidential informant in the White House. The email was sent the day
after Trump's inauguration.
"I heard from [redacted] about the WH CI briefing routed from [redacted]," wrote Strzok. "
I am angry that Jen did not at least cc: me, as my branch has pending investigative matters
there, this brief may play into our investigative strategy, and I would like the ability to
have visibility and provide thoughts/counsel to you in advance of the briefing. This is one
of the reasons why I raised the issue of lanes/responsibilities that I did when you asked her
to handle WH detailee interaction."
In April, 2019 this reporter first published information that there was an alleged
confidential informant for the FBI in the White House. In fact, then senior Republican Chairmen
of the Senate Appropriations Committee
Charles Grassley and Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairman Ron Johnson submitted a
letter to Department of Justice Attorney General William Barr revealing the new texts from
Strzok to Page showing the pair had discussed attempts to recruit sources within the White
House to allegedly spy on the Trump administration.
The Chairmen revealed the information in a three page letter. The texts had been already
been obtained by SaraACarter.com and information regarding the possible attempt to recruit
White House sources had been divulged by several sources to this news site last week.
At the time, texts obtained by this news site and sources stated that Strzok had one
significant contact within the White House – at the time that would have been Vice
President Mike Pence's Chief of Staff Joshua Pitcock,
as reported.
Over the past year, Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz, along with years
of numerous Congressional investigations, has uncovered a plethora of documentation revealing
the most intimate details of the FBI's now debunked investigation into Trump's campaign and its
alleged conspiracy with Russia.
For example, in a series of emails exchanged by top bureau officials – in the FBI
General Counsel's office, Counterintelligence Division and Washington Field office on Jan. 19,
2017 – reveal that senior leadership, including former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe were
coordinating with each other in their ongoing attempt to target the incoming administration.
Priestap was also included in the email exchanges. The recent discovery in April, of Priestap's
handwritten notes taken in January, 2017 before the Strzok and his FBI partner interviewed
Flynn were a bombshell. In Priestap's notes he states, "What's our goal? Truth/Admission or to
get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?"
In one recent email chain obtained by Judicial Watch, FBI assistant general counsel in the
FBI's National Security Law Branch stated in an email to Strzok [which was almost entirely
redacted]
"I'll give Trisha/Baker a heads up too," it stated. Strzok's reply to the assistant
general counsel, however, was redacted by DOJ. The response back to Strzok has also been
redacted.
Then later in the evening at 7:04 p.m., Strzok sends another emails stating, "I briefed
Bill (Priestap) this afternoon and he was trying without success to reach the DD [McCabe]. I
will forward below to him as his [sic] changes the timeline. What's your recommendation?"
The reply, like many of the documents obtained by Judicial Watch from the DOJ, is almost
entirely redacted. The email response to Strzok was from the Counterintelligence
Division.
Here's what was not redacted
"Approved by tomorrow afternoon is the request. [Redacted] – please advise if I am
missing something." An unidentified official replies, "[Redacted], Bill is aware and willing
to jump in when we need him."
Judicial Watch Timeline of Events On Emails Obtained Through FOIA
At 8 p.m., Strzok responds back (copying officials in the Counterintelligence Division,
Washington Field Office and General Counsel's office):
"Just talked with Bill. [Redacted]. Please relay above to WFO and [redacted] tonight, and
keep me updated with plan for meet and results of same. Good luck."
Strzok then forwards the whole email exchange to Lisa Page, saying, "Bill spoke with Andy.
[Redacted.] Here we go again "
The Day After Trump's Inauguration
The day after Trump's inauguration, on Jan. 21, 2017, Strzok forwarded Page and [a redacted
person] an
email he'd sent that day to Priestap. Strzok asked them to "not forward/share."
In the email to Priestap, Strzok said, "I heard from [redacted] about the WH CI briefing
routed from [redacted]. I am angry that Jen did not at least cc: me, as my branch has pending
investigative matters there, this brief may play into our investigative strategy , and I would
like the ability to have visibility and provide thoughts/counsel to you in advance of the
briefing. This is one of the reasons why I raised the issue of lanes/responsibilities that I
did when you asked her to handle WH detailee interaction."
" Also, on January 21, 2017, Strzok wrote largely the same message
he'd sent to Priestap directly to his counterintelligence colleague Jennifer Boone ," states
Judicial Watch.
The records were produced to Judicial Watch in a January 2018 Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA)
lawsuit filed after the DOJ failed to respond to a December 2017 request for all
communications between Strzok and Page ( Judicial
Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:18-cv-00154)).
The FBI has only processed emails at a rate of 500 pages per month and has yet to process
text messages. At this rate, the production of these communications, which still number around
8,000 pages, would not be completed until at least late 2021.
In other emails, Strzok comments on reporting on the anti-Trump dossier authored by Hillary
Clinton's paid operative Christopher Steele.
In a January 2017 email ,
Strzok takes issue with a UK Independent report which claimed Steele had suspected there was a
"cabal" within the FBI which put the Clinton email investigation above the Trump-Russia probe.
Strzok, a veteran counterintelligence agent, was at the heart of both the Clinton email and
Trump-Russia investigations.
In April and June of 2017, the FBI would use the dossier as key evidence in obtaining FISA
warrants to spy on Trump campaign associate Carter Page. In a declassified
summary of a Department of Justice assessment of the warrants that was released by the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) in January of this year, it was determined that
those two applications to secretly monitor Page lacked probable cause.
The newly released records include a January 11, 2017, email
from Strzok to Lisa Page, Priestap, and Deputy Assistant Director of Counterintelligence Jon
Moffa, a New York Times report
which refers to the dossier as containing "unsubstantiated accounts" and "unproven claims." In
the email, Strzok comments on the article, calling it "Pretty good reporting."
On January 14, 2017, FBI Assistant Director for Public Affairs Michael Kortan forwards
to Strzok, Page and Priestap a link to a UK
Independent article entitled "Former MI6 Agent Christopher Steele's Frustration as FBI Sat
On Donald Trump Russia File for Months".
The article, citing security sources, notes that "Steele became increasingly frustrated that
the FBI was failing to take action on the intelligence from others as well as him. He came to
believe there was a cover-up: that a cabal within the Bureau blocked a thorough inquiry into Mr
Trump, focusing instead on the investigation into Clinton's emails."
Strzok responds: "Thanks Mike. Of course not accurate [the cover-up/cabal nonsense]. Is that
question gaining traction anywhere else?"
The records also include a February 10, 2017, email
from Strzok to Page mentioning then-national security adviser Michael Flynn (five days before
Flynn resigned) and includes a photo of Flynn and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak. Strzok
also makes a joke about how McCabe had fat shamed Kislyak.
On February 8, 2017, Strzok, under the subject "RE: EO on Economic Espionage," emailed
Lisa Page, saying, "Please let [redacted] know I talked to [redacted]. Tonight, he approached
Flynn's office and got no information." Strzok was responding to a copy of an email Page had
sent him. The email, from a redacted FBI official to Deputy Director McCabe read: "OPS has not
received a draft EO on economic espionage. Instead, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce advised OPS
that they received a draft, but they did not send us the draft. I'll follow up with our
detailees about this EO." Flynn resigned
on February 13, 2017.
On January 26, 2017, Nancy McNamara of the FBI's Inspection Division emailed
Strzok and Priestap with the subject line "Leak," saying, "Tried calling you but the phones are
forwarded to SIOC. I got the tel call report, however [redacted]. Feel free to give me a call
if I have it wrong." Strzok forwarded the McNamara email to Lisa Page and an unidentified
person in the General Counsel's office, saying, "Need to talk to you about how to respond to
this."
On January 11, 2017, Yahoo News reporter Michael Isikoff emailed
Kortan, saying he'd learned that Steele had worked for the Bureau's Eurasian organized crime
section and had turned over the dossier on Trump-Russian "collusion" to the bureau in Rome.
Kortan forwards Isikoff's email to aide Richard Quinn, who forwards to Strzok "just for
visibility". Strzok forwards to his boss, Priestap and Moffa, saying, "FYI, [redacted], you or
I should probably inform [redacted]. How's your relationship with him? Bill unless you object,
I'll let Parmaan [presumably senior FBI official Bryan Paarmann] know." Strzok forwards the
whole exchange onto Lisa Page.
On January 18, 2017, reporter Peter Elkind of ProPublica reached
out to Kortan, asking to interview Strzok, Michael Steinbach, Jim Baker, Priestap, former
FBI Director James Comey and DEA administrator Chuck Rosenberg for a story Elkind was working
on. Kortan replied, "Okay, I will start organizing things." Further along in the thread, an FBI
Press Office official reached out to an FBI colleague for assistance with the interviews,
saying Steinbach had agreed to a "background discussion" with Elkind, who was "writing the
'definitive' account of what happened during the Clinton investigation, specifically, Comey's
handling of the investigation, seeking to reconstruct and explain in much greater detail what
he did and why he did it." In May 2017, Elkind wrote an
article titled "The Problems With the FBI's Email Investigation Went Well Beyond Comey,"
which in light of these documents, strongly suggests many FBI officials leaked to the
publication.
Strzok ended up being scheduled
to meet with Elkind at 9:30 a.m. on January 31, 2017, before an Elkind interview of Comey's
chief of staff Jim Rybicki. Elkind's reporting on the Clinton email investigation was discussed
at length in previous
emails obtained by Judicial Watch.
"These documents suggest that President Trump was targeted by the Comey FBI as soon as he
stepped foot in the Oval Office," said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. "And now we see how
the Comey FBI was desperate to spin, through high-level leaks, its mishandling of the Clinton
email investigation. And, in a continuing outrage, it should be noted that Wray's FBI and
Barr's DOJ continue slow-walk the release of thousands of Page-Strzok emails – which
means the remaining 8,000 pages of records won't be reviewed and released until 2021-2022!"
In February 2020, Judicial Watch
uncovered an August 2016 email in which Strzok says that Clinton, in her interview with the
FBI about her email controversy, apologized for "the work and effort" it caused the bureau and
she said she chose to use it "out of convenience" and that "it proved to be anything but."
Strzok said Clinton's apology and the "convenience" discussion were "not in" the FBI 302 report
that summarized the interview.
Also in February, Judicial Watch made public Strzok-Page emails showing their direct
involvement in the opening of Crossfire Hurricane, the bureau's investigation of alleged
collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The records also show additional "confirmed
classified emails" were found on Clinton's unsecure non-state.gov email server "beyond the number presented" in
then-FBI Director James Comey's statements; Strzok and Page questioning the access the DOJ was
granting Clinton's lawyers; and Page revealing that the DOJ was making edits to FBI 302 reports
related to the Clinton Midyear Exam investigation. The emails detail a discussion about
"squashing" an issue related to the Seth Rich controversy.
In January 2020, Judicial Watch
uncovered Strzok-Page emails that detail special accommodations given to the lawyers of
Clinton and her aides during the FBI investigation of the Clinton email controversy.
In November 2019, Judicial Watch
revealed Strzok-Page emails that show the attorney representing three of Clinton's aides
were given meetings with senior FBI officials.
Also in November, Judicial Watch
uncovered emails revealing that after Clinton's statement denying the transmission of
classified information over her unsecure email system, Strzok sent an email to FBI officials
citing "three [Clinton email] chains" containing (C) [classified] portion marks in front of
paragraphs."
In a related case, in May 2020, Judicial Watch received the " electronic
communication " (EC) that officially launched the counterintelligence investigation, termed
"Crossfire Hurricane," of President Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. The document was
written by former FBI official Peter Strzok.
"... Interestingly, June 2017 is when the FBI and DOJ signed off on the last extension of the FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign via adviser Carter Page. The warrant was signed by acting FBI director and Comey's former deputy Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein – who wrote both the memo used to fire Comey and the scope memo for the Mueller investigation. ..."
"... Evidence has shown that the initial FISA warrant against Page – in October 2016, shortly before the election – and the three renewals all relied heavily on the Steele Dossier, without making it clear to the court that it was unverified opposition research compiled at the behest of a rival political party. ..."
"... "miscarriage of justice" ..."
"... "collusion" ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
"... the infamous dossier used as a pretext to spy on President Donald Trump's campaign was unreliable ..."
New documents show the FBI was aware that the infamous dossier
used as a pretext to spy on President Donald Trump's campaign was unreliable, and that the New York Times published false information
about the 'Russiagate' probe.
The two documents were published on Friday by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina),
as part of an ongoing probe of the FBI's investigation of Trump. One is a 59-page, heavily redacted
interview
of the "primary sub-source" for Christopher Steele, the British spy commissioned through a series of cut-outs by the
Hillary Clinton campaign to dig up dirt on Trump during the 2016 election campaign.
While the identity of the source is hidden, the document makes it clear it was not a current or former Russian official, but a
non-Russian employee of Steele's British company, Orbis. The source's testimony seriously questioned the claims made in the dossier
– which is best known for the salacious accusation that Trump was being blackmailed by Russia with tapes of an alleged sex romp in
a Moscow hotel.
The second, and more intriguing, document is a five-page
printout
of a February 14, 2017 article from the New York Times, along with 13 notes by Peter Strzok, one of the senior FBI agents handling
the Russiagate probe. The article was published five days after the FBI interview with the sub-source, and Strzok actually shows
awareness of it (in note 11, specifically).
In the very first note, Strzok labeled as "misleading and inaccurate" the claim by the New York Times that the Trump
campaign had repeated contacts with senior Russian intelligence officials before the 2016 election, noting there was "no evidence"
of this.
Likewise, Strzok denied the FBI was investigating Roger Stone (note 10) – a political operative eventually indicted by Special
Counsel Robert Mueller over allegedly lying about (nonexistent) ties to WikiLeaks, whose sentence Trump recently commuted to outrage
from 'Russiagate' proponents. Nor was Trump's campaign manager Paul Manafort on any calls involving Russian government officials,
contrary to claims by the Times (note 3).
Not only did the FBI know the story was false, in part based on the knowledge they had from Steele's source, but the recently
ousted FBI director Jim Comey had openly disputed it in June 2017. The paper stood by its reporting.
Interestingly, June 2017 is when the FBI and DOJ signed off on the last extension of the FISA warrant to spy on the Trump campaign
via adviser Carter Page. The warrant was signed by acting FBI director and Comey's former deputy Andrew McCabe and Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein – who wrote both the memo used to fire Comey and the scope memo for the Mueller investigation.
Evidence has shown that the initial FISA warrant against Page – in October 2016, shortly before the election – and the three renewals
all relied heavily on the Steele Dossier, without making it clear to the court that it was unverified opposition research compiled
at the behest of a rival political party.
The last two renewals, in April and June 2017, were requested after the sub-source interview. Commenting on the document release,
Sen. Graham called these two renewals a "miscarriage of justice" and argued that the FBI and the Department of Justice should
have stopped and re-evaluated their case.
Mueller eventually found no "collusion" between Trump and Russia as alleged by the Democrats, but not before a dozen
people – from Stone and Manafort to Trump's first national security adviser Michael Flynn and innocent Russian student Maria Butina
– became casualties of the investigation.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! 236 13
Austin Rock 22 hours ago Staggering is the monumental deceitful effort to hitch Trump to Russia. And yet for MSM and their poodles
in the press no barb thrown is too outragious, no smear is too false enough. With Google, Twitter and Facebook on board we Europeans
are being played. But we Europeans are not as stupid as your average US punter. These pathetic fairy tales are an embarressement
to journalism.
Senate panel releases key FBI memo on Christopher Steele; reaction from John Solomon,
co-author of 'Fallout,' and Rep. Devin Nunes, ranking member of the House Intelligence
Committee.
The
Trump-Russia collusion story continues to be eaten away, and these new notes from disgraced ex-FBI Agent Peter Strzok center on
The
New York Times
and their reporting that got the ball rolling on this media manufactured myth. Yes, it's about time we say
that because these documents, which analyzed the piece about Trump aides having contacts with Russian intelligence officials
before the 2016 election, has more utility being used to catch crap from birdcages now that's been exposed as a fraud. In 2017,
this
"bombshell" dropped
. Even at the outset, there was still no evidence of collusion. Just rumor and unsubstantiated gossip.
"The
officials interviewed in recent weeks said that, so far, they had seen no evidence of such cooperation," that's what the
Times
had
in their piece. It's one of the many bombshells that turned out to be nothing burgers, part of the liberal media's Russia fetish
that turned into one of the biggest, if not
the biggest
, journalism fails ever. It's sad,
really. All one had to do was merely accept that Lady McBeth, aka Hillary Rodham Clinton, lost the 2016 election. Any person with
cognitive function knew that this story was just simply too good to be true. Second, when weeks and months go by and no evidence
arises, it's a dud. When multiple "breaks" in the case, arise and turn out to be garbage -- there's nothing to the story. It's not
real. It's a myth, but the anti-Trump opposition press kept pressing and pressing until we got a clown show the likes of which we
have never seen. Now, part of it is a bit annoying because we all knew the truth before these clowns did, but seeing these guys
fail and have their work just be totally trashed, burned to a crisp, and then pissed on is just pure gold. Two words that can be
applied to the entire Democrat-media complex: Suck. It.
So,
let's get to the notes that deliver a tomahawk to the face of the liberal media. Based on the FBI's notes, pretty much everything
in it was a lie. "Misleading, inaccurate, and no evidence" are the key phrases Strzok used concerning this fake news story. The
story said that Paul Manafort was plugged into the calls. The FBI said, "We are unaware of any calls with any Russian govt
official in which Manafort was a party."
The
publication said Roger Stone was part of the FBI's Russian inquiry. The FBI denied this. Then-FBI Director James Comey, who would
later be fired for cause in May of 2017, also disputed the story but the NYT decided to stand by it because 'orange man bad.'
Well, they do deserve Pulitzers I guess for being the biggest dupes in the business for taking fake information at face value.
Has the media learned that yet too? Probably not because they're all abjectly stupid people, but not all classified information
is true. It can be false. Remember that next time you report on leaks about North Korean Kim Jong-un being brain dead.
The
ripple effect from stories like this was severe. It led scores of reporters down a media-manufactured alternate reality that some
have not climbed out of yet. They took the blue pill and remained in wonderland.
"Ignorance is bliss," or maybe in this case just pure unadulterated idiocy.
You
guys were wrong. How many times do we have to hit you on the head with a baseball bat until you get it? You were wrong. Your
stories were trash, based in lies and false information and weaponized by Democrats to try and usurp a duly elected president
because you don't like him. You're all entitled brats who deserve an ass-kicking. And Barack Obama appears to be calling the
shots on some of the major battles in this fake news fiasco, specifically when it comes to Michael Flynn, who has been vindicated
regarding his role in this whole mess. He was innocent and targeted by former members of the Obama administration, including
former Vice President Joe Biden.
"... Top former [Obama] officials, including former CIA Director John Brennan, are said to be targets of the Durham investigation. ..."
"... "The deep state is so deep that ppl get away w political crimes," wrote Grassley on Twitter. "Durham should be producing some fruit of his labor." ..."
Investigative reporter John Solomon says there's a "lot of activity" in U.S. Attorney John
Durham's criminal investigation of the Obama administration's probe of now-debunked claims of
Trump-Russia collusion during the 2016 election.
"My sources tell me there's a lot of activity. I'm seeing, personally, activity behind the
scenes [showing] the Department of Justice is trying to bring those first indictments, "
Solomon said in an interview with the Fox Business Network's Lou Dobbs
reported by the Washington Examiner .
"And I would look for a time around Labor Day to see the first sort of action by the
Justice Department."
Solomon said he's seeing "action consistent with building prosecutions and preparing for
criminal plea bargains."
"Until they bring it before the grand jury you never know if it's going to happen. I'm
seeing activity consistent with that. "
Top former [Obama] officials, including former CIA Director John Brennan, are said to be targets of
the Durham investigation.
But Attorney General William Barr has said he doesn't expect Obama and former Vice President
Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, to be subjects of a criminal
investigation.
Solomon said he is hearing from defense lawyers and people "on the prosecution side" that
complications with the coronavirus pandemic are "slowing down" the grand jury process.
"There is overwhelming evidence in the public record now that crimes were committed,"
Solomon said.
He cited "falsification of documents, false testimony, false representations before the FISA
court."
WND reported this week Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, the chairman of the Senate Finance
Committee, said Durham should launch any prosecutions before the November election.
"The deep state is so deep that ppl get away w political crimes," wrote Grassley on
Twitter. "Durham should be producing some fruit of his labor."
A report from DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz found at least 17 "significant" errors
or omissions related to the Obama administration's efforts to use the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act provisions against Trump.
WND reported former U.S. attorney Joe DiGenova said the public shouldn't worry about whether
or not charges are filed against Obama and Biden.
"Shaming" them will undoubtedly happen, with or without charges, he argued in an interview
with Boston radio host Howie Carr.
"I happen to believe that the public shaming of former President Obama and Vice President
Biden is far more important than indicting them," he said.
So much happens so fast in a world with a 15-minute news cycle that it's difficult for a
journalist to stop and breathe, let alone ponder the meaning of the latest breathless
reporting.
As an example, it seems like it was months ago when the D.C. Court of Appeals ordered Judge
Emmet Sullivan to dismiss the case against former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, but
it was actually less than two weeks ago. June 24 to be exact, but to Flynn it probably seems
like forever. No word from Sullivan about whether he intends to follow the order of the senior
court, or continue to stall in an effort to punish Lt. Gen. Flynn for his political crime of
supporting President Trump. But based on his record so far, Sullivan can probably be counted on
to drag his feet while thumbing his nose at justice.
Whether it is the Flynn case, or the persecution of one-time Trump adviser Roger Stone for a
procedural crime of lying before a malevolent Congress, the implicit reason behind all the
over-the-top harassment almost seems to be to goad Trump into pardoning his much-maligned
associates in order to create another fake news cycle as we head into the 2020 election. Nobody
asks, "Did you see what that corrupt judge did? Or what the Democrat-worshiping DOJ did?" It's
always " Did you hear what that crazy bastard Trump did?" )
It doesn't seem to matter to the mainstream media that evidence has mounted into the
stratosphere that Trump has been right all along about his campaign being illegally surveilled
by the Obama administration. It doesn't matter that Trump survived a two-plus year
investigation by a special counsel and was cleared of any kind of collusion with the Russians.
The Democrats and their agents in the Deep State know that whatever they do to harass Trump
will be treated as noble and patriotic by the corrupt media, and that whenever evidence
surfaces of their criminal behavior it will be promptly buried again.
Which brings us to the infamous handwritten notes by disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok about
a White House meeting that surfaced in a recent filing in the Flynn case. Strzok had already
earned a prominent place in the "Wish I Hadn't Done That" Hall of Fame for his serial
confession via text message of not just marital infidelity but also constitutional perfidy. But
the half-page of notes released by Flynn's defense team rises to the level of a
history-altering "Oops!" Indeed, it could well be the Rosetta stone that allows us to penetrate
the secrets of the anti-Trump conspiracy that stretched from the FBI to the CIA, the Justice
Department and the White House.
What we know about the provenance of the notes comes from Flynn's attorney Sidney Powell,
who said they were written by Strzok about a meeting that took place on Jan. 4, 2017. The only
problem is that the cast of characters in the memo duplicates those who were in attendance at
the White House on Jan. 5, 2017, to discuss how the Obama administration should proceed in its
dealings with Flynn, who was accused of playing footsie with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak
prior to assuming his official role as national security adviser. Attorney General William Barr
has gone on the record (on the "Verdict With Ted Cruz" podcast) that the notes actually
describe the Jan. 5 meeting.
If so, the notes strongly contradict Susan Rice's CYA "memo to self" where the Obama
national security adviser recounts the Jan. 5 meeting and stresses three times that President
Obama and his team were handling the Flynn investigation "by the book." Methinks the lady doth
protest too much, especially now that we have Strzok's contemporaneous notes to contradict her
memo, which suspiciously was written in the final minutes of the Obama administration as Donald
Trump was being sworn in at the Capitol.
From what we can tell, Strzok (unlike Rice) was not writing his memo to protect anyone. He
seems to have merely jotted down some notes about what various participants in the meeting
said, including President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Rice, Deputy Attorney General Sally
Yates and Strzok's boss -- FBI Director James Comey. Chances are, at this point Strzok had no
idea his dirty laundry was going to be aired or that his role as a master of the universe was
going to be toppled.
But to see the importance of these notes, we need to transcribe them from the cryptic
handwritten notes. Words and phrases that are outright guesses are reproduced in brackets.
Speakers are noted at the beginning of each line. "NSA" stands for Rice. "D" stands for Comey.
"DAG" stands for Yates. "VP" stands for Biden. "P" stands for Obama. "Cuts" is said to refer to
summaries of phone calls monitored under a FISA warrant to collect foreign intelligence.
NSA - D - DAG: Flynn cuts. Other [countries].
D - DAG: Lean forward on [illegible, but possibly "ambass" as in ambassador. Others have
speculated on "useless" or "unless," which don't fit the context, or "unclass" as in
"unclassified" or even a name beginning with m. We just don't know.]
VP: "Logan Act"
P: These are unusual times
VP: I've been on the Intel Committee for 10 years and I never
P: Make sure you look at thing[s] + have the right people on it
P: Is there anything I shouldn't be telling transition team?
D: Flynn -- > Kislyak calls but appear legit.
[Apple][??] - Happy New Year - Yeah right
The reasons why these nine lines are so important have been adequately explored by other
writers on most of the relevant topics. Most significantly from a political point of view is
confirmation that Biden lied when he said he had nothing to do with the criminal prosecution of
Flynn. The Logan Act is a more than 200-year-old statute that forbids ordinary Americans from
negotiating with foreign governments that have a dispute with the United States. No one has
ever been convicted under the law, and Flynn was not an ordinary American, but rather the
incoming national security adviser; nonetheless it was a central plank in the plan to give
Flynn enough rope to hang himself. The fact that quotes appear only around the words Logan Act
suggest that this was a direct quote from Biden.
In addition, the order by Obama presumably to Comey to "have the right people on it"
suggests that there was a political element to the investigation and that the president wanted
loyalists to handle it. What other explanation is there? Who exactly are the "wrong people" in
the FBI? (That's a rhetorical question. Obviously the wrong people were Strzok, Comey and their
buddies at the FBI and CIA who were wiretapping honest Americans and framing a president.)
Finally, and most importantly for Flynn and his attorneys, we have a contemporaneous account
of the FBI director assuring the president that Flynn's conversations with Kislyak were
"legit." In that case, why did Strzok reveal in an instant message on Jan. 4, 2017, the day
before this historic meeting, that the FBI agent in charge should NOT close the case against
Flynn even though it should have already been closed because no evidence had accrued against
him? If Comey thought the general's conversations with Kislyak were "legit," then why did
Strzok tell another FBI contact that the "7th floor [was] involved" in the decision to keep the
Flynn case alive. The seventh floor being where the offices of Comey and the rest of the top
FBI brass are located. Strzok was ecstatic to find out that the case had "serendipitously" not
been closed, and told his girlfriend Lisa Page, "Our utter incompetence actually helps us."
There seems to be no consensus among analysts about the context of Strzok's notes. According
to Rice's independent recollection of the Jan. 5 meeting, only the principals named above were
present. CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had
already been booted out of the meeting after giving a briefing on alleged Russian election
interference. It seems unlikely that Strzok would have been present in any capacity.
Andrew McCarthy at
National Review speculates that "Strzok's notes were taken when someone later briefed him
about the White House meeting that Strzok did not attend." The New
York Post concludes that the Strzok memo is "plainly Strzok's notes of FBI chief Jim
Comey's account." Certainly if Strzok were briefed by someone in attendance, it was most likely
Comey. But Ivan Pentchoukov of
The Epoch Times floats a much more interesting idea about how Strzok came to be in
possession of the facts he recorded in the memo.
"The on-the-fly nature of the notes suggest that he was either physically present or
listened in on a conference call," Pentchoukov speculates.
Well, the
Washington Post reports that "Strzok's lawyer told The Fact Checker that Strzok did not
attend the meeting," and then suggests that probably means "the notes may recount what someone
else - perhaps Comey - told him about the meeting." Yes, maybe so, but there is good reason not
to skate over the possibility that, as Pentchoukov puts it, Strzok "listened in" on the
conversation.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
This is indeed heady stuff, as it is beyond reason to think that Strzok was an invited
participant. The last thing anyone at that meeting would want is an independent account of what
was said as they planned how to entrap one of the incoming president's closest aides. Yet that
does not eliminate the chance that Strzok benefited from some kind of surveillance technique to
eavesdrop on the conversation, either with the knowledge of one person in the room or possibly
with none. Of course it is scary to think that the FBI was wiretapping the White House, but
they did it to Trump Tower, so who knows?
It is the nature of the notes themselves that lends credence to this speculation. If they
were written after the fact to memorialize a conversation Strzok had with Comey or someone
else, there is no way to account for the brevity and choppiness of the account. Rather than
just put "Logan Act" next to VP, an after-the-fact recitation would have been more likely to
specify, "The Vice President brought up the Logan Act as one statute that could be used to
prosecute Flynn's dangerous dealings with the Russian ambassador." And most suspiciously, there
is no explanation for why Strzok would have cut off the end of Biden's other contribution to
the conversation. "I've been on the Intel Committee for 10 years and I never," the transcript
goes. "Never what?" the reader wants to know.
Of course we can add the words ourselves: "Never heard of anyone being prosecuted for
talking to a foreign leader, especially not if they had a legitimate interest in establishing
relations with their counterpart prior to a new president taking office." If Strzok were making
leisurely notes while talking to his boss, or especially if he had gone back to his own office
and thought it worthwhile to record what he had been told, would it make any sense for him to
stop in mid-sentence?
No, it wouldn't. It only makes sense if, as Pentchoukov describes it, the notes were written
"on the fly." Certainly not with a tape recorder running, where one could establish an exact
transcript, but hurriedly, sloppily, furtively. That would also explain why the handwriting is
not exactly consistent with other known samples of Strzok's script. Presumably, the FBI has
validated the handwriting as Strzok's, but does the FBI have any reason to lie about that?
Hmm.
Ultimately, if Strzok is indeed the author, we need him to testify under oath exactly what
is in the notes, and how they came to be written. Hopefully the FBI, the attorney general or
someone else will declassify the extensive redactions above and below the nine lines that were
released. One has to imagine that in those passages, Strzok revealed his source for the
material quoted, as well as confirming the date of the meeting, and possibly the reason for the
meeting. He has quite a tale to tell -- one that could change history.
If there were even one Republican senator in charge of a committee who had the curiosity of
a 3-year-old, it is likely we could actually get to the bottom of the shenanigans that nearly
toppled a president and finally pin the "tale" on the donkey -- the Democratic donkey that
is.
But Republican senators in an election year have better things to do than protect and defend
the Constitution. There are fundraisers to attend, after all.
It's been nearly four years since the myth of Trump-Russia collusion made its debut in
American politics, generating an endless stream of stories in the corporate press and hundreds
of allegations of conspiracy from pundits and officials. But despite netting scores of
embarrassing admissions, corrections, editor's notes and retractions in that time, the theory
refuses to die.
Over the years, the highly elaborate "Russiagate" narrative has fallen away piece-by-piece.
Claims about Donald Trump's various back channels to Moscow -- Carter Page ,
George Papadopoulos ,
Michael Flynn ,
Paul Manafort ,
Alfa Bank -- have each been thoroughly discredited. House Intelligence Committee
transcripts released in May have revealed that nobody who asserted a Russian hack on Democratic
computers, including the
DNC's own cyber security firm , is able to produce evidence that it happened. In fact, it
is now clear the entire investigation into the Trump campaign was
without basis .
It was alleged that Moscow manipulated the president with " kompromat " and black mail,
sold to the public in a " dossier " compiled by a former British
intelligence officer, Christopher Steele. Working through a DC consulting firm , Steele was hired by
Democrats to dig up dirt on Trump, gathering a litany of accusations that Steele's own primary
source would later dismiss as "hearsay" and "rumor."
Though the FBI was
aware the dossier was little more than sloppy opposition research, the bureau nonetheless
used it to obtain warrants to spy on the Trump campaign.
Even the claim that Russia helped Trump from afar, without direct coordination, has fallen
flat on its face. The "
troll farm " allegedly tapped by the Kremlin to wage a pro-Trump meme war -- the Internet
Research Agency -- spent only $46,000 on Facebook ads, or around 0.05 percent
of the $81 million budget of the Trump and Clinton campaigns. The vast majority of the IRA's
ads had nothing to do with U.S. politics, and more than half of those that did were published
after the election, having no impact on voters. The Department of Justice, moreover,
has dropped its charges
against the IRA's parent company, abandoning a major case resulting from Robert Mueller's
special counsel probe.
Though few of its most diehard proponents would ever admit it, after four long years, the
foundation of the Trump-Russia narrative has finally given way and its edifice has crumbled.
The wreckage left behind will remain for some time to come, however, kicking off a new era of
mainstream McCarthyism and setting the stage for the next Cold War.
It Didn't Start With
Trump
The importance of Russiagate to U.S. foreign policy cannot be understated, but the road to
hostilities with Moscow stretches far beyond the current administration. For thirty years, the
United States has
exploited its de facto victory in the first Cold War, interfering in Russian elections in
the 1990s, aiding oligarchs as they looted the country into poverty, and orchestrating Color
Revolutions in former Soviet states. NATO, meanwhile, has been enlarged up to Russia's border,
despite American assurances the alliance wouldn't expand "
one inch " eastward after the collapse of the USSR.
Unquestionably, from the fall of the Berlin Wall until the day Trump took office, the United
States maintained an aggressive policy toward Moscow. But with the USSR wiped off the map and
communism defeated for good, a sufficient pretext to rally the American public into another
Cold War has been missing in the post-Soviet era. In the same 30-year period, moreover,
Washington has pursued one disastrous
diversion after another in the Middle East, leaving little space or interest for another
round of brinkmanship with the Russians, who were relegated to little more than a talking
point. That, however, has changed.
The Crisis They Needed
The Washington foreign policy establishment -- memorably dubbed "
the Blob " by one Obama adviser -- was thrown into disarray by Trump's election win in the
fall of 2016. In some ways, Trump stood out as the dove during the race, deeming "endless wars"
in the Middle East a scam, calling for closer ties with Russia, and even questioning the
usefulness of NATO. Sincere or not, Trump's campaign vows shocked the Beltway think tankers,
journalists, and politicos whose worldviews (and salaries) rely on the maintenance of empire.
Something had to be done.
In the summer of 2016, WikiLeaks
published thousands of emails belonging to then-Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, her
campaign manager, and the Democratic National Committee. Though damaging to Clinton, the leak
became fodder for a powerful new attack on the president-to-be. Trump had worked in league with
Moscow to throw the election, the story went, and the embarrassing email trove was stolen in a
Russian hack, then passed to WikiLeaks to propel Trump's campaign.
By the time Trump took office, the narrative was in full swing. Pundits and politicians
rushed to outdo one another in hysterically denouncing the supposed election-meddling, which
was deemed the "political equivalent" of the 9/11
attacks , tantamount to
Pearl Harbor , and akin to the Nazis' 1938
Kristallnacht pogrom. In lock-step with the U.S. intelligence community -- which soon
issued a
pair of reports endorsing the Russian hacking
story -- the Blob quickly joined the cause, hoping to short-circuit any tinkering with NATO or
rapprochement with Moscow under Trump.
The allegations soon broadened well beyond hacking. Russia had now waged war on American
democracy itself, and "sowed discord" with misinformation online, all in direct collusion with
the Trump campaign. Talking heads on cable news and former intelligence officials -- some of
them playing both
roles at once -- weaved a dramatic plot of conspiracy out of countless news reports,
clinging to many of the "bombshell" stories long after their key claims were
blown up .
A
large segment of American society eagerly bought the fiction, refusing to believe that
Trump, the game show host, could have defeated Clinton without assistance from a foreign power.
For the first time since the fall of the USSR, rank-and-file Democrats and moderate
progressives were aligned with some of the most vocal Russia hawks across the aisle, creating
space for what many have called a " new Cold War. "
Stress Fractures
Under immense pressure and nonstop allegations, the candidate who shouted "America First"
and slammed NATO as "
obsolete " quickly adapted himself to the foreign policy consensus on the alliance, one of
the first signs the Trump-Russia story was bearing fruit.
Demonstrating the Blob in action, during debate on the Senate floor over Montenegro's bid to
join NATO in March 2017, the hawkish John McCain castigated Rand Paul for daring to oppose the
measure, riding on anti-Russian sentiments stoked during the election to accuse him of "working for Vladimir
Putin." With most lawmakers agreeing the expansion of NATO was needed to "push back" against
Russia, the Senate approved the request nearly
unanimously and Trump signed it without batting an eye -- perhaps seeing the attacks a veto
would bring, even from his own party.
Allowing Montenegro -- a country that illustrates everything wrong with
NATO -- to join the alliance may suggest Trump's criticisms were always empty talk, but the
establishment's drive to constrain his foreign policy was undoubtedly having an effect. Just a
few months later, the administration would put out its National
Security Strategy , stressing the need to refocus U.S. military engagements from
counter-terrorism in the Middle East to "great power competition" with Russia and China.
On another aspiring NATO member, Ukraine, the president was also hectored into reversing
course under pressure from the Blob. During the 2016 race, the corporate press savaged the
Trump campaign for working behind the scenes to " water down " the Republican Party platform after it opposed a
pledge to arm Ukraine's post-coup government. That stance did not last long.
Though even Obama decided against arming the new government -- which his administration
helped to install
-- Trump reversed that move in late 2017, handing Kiev hundreds of Javelin anti-tank missiles.
In an irony noticed by
few , some of the arms went to
open neo-Nazis in the Ukrainian military, who were integrated into the country's National
Guard after leading street battles with security forces in the Obama-backed coup of 2014. Some
of the very same Beltway critics slamming the president as a racist demanded he pass weapons to
out-and-out white supremacists.
Ukraine's
bid to join NATO has all but stalled under President Volodymyr Zelensky, but the country
has nonetheless played an outsized role in American politics both before and after Trump took
office. In the wake of Ukraine's 2014 U.S.-sponsored coup, "Russian aggression" became a
favorite slogan in the American press, laying the ground for future allegations of
election-meddling.
Weaponizing Ukraine
The drive for renewed hostilities with Moscow got underway well before Trump took the Oval
Office, nurtured in its early stages under the Obama administration. Using Ukraine's revolution
as a springboard, Obama launched a major rhetorical and policy offensive against Russia,
casting it in the role of an aggressive ,
expansionist power.
Protests erupted in Ukraine in late 2013, following President Viktor Yanukovych's refusal to
sign an association agreement with the European Union, preferring to keep closer ties with
Russia. Demanding a deal with the EU and an end to government corruption, demonstrators --
including the above-mentioned neo-Nazis -- were soon in the streets clashing with security
forces. Yanukovych was chased out of the country, and eventually out of power.
Through cut-out organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy, the Obama
administration poured millions of
dollars into the Ukrainian opposition prior to the coup, training, organizing and funding
activists. Dubbed the "Euromaidan Revolution," Yanukovych's ouster mirrored similar US-backed
color coups before and since, with Uncle Sam riding on the back of legitimate grievances while
positioning the most
U.S.-friendly figures to take power afterward.
The coup set off serious unrest in Ukraine's Russian-speaking enclaves, the eastern Donbass
region and the Crimean Peninsula to the south. In the Donbass, secessionist forces attempted
their own revolution, prompting the new government in Kiev to launch a bloody "war on terror"
that continues to this day. Though the separatists received some level of support from Moscow,
Washington placed sole blame on the Russians for Ukraine's unrest, while the press breathlessly
predicted an all-out invasion that never materialized.
In Crimea -- where Moscow has kept its Black Sea Fleet since the late 1700s -- Russia took a
more forceful stance, seizing the territory to keep control of its long term naval base. The
annexation was accomplished without bloodshed, and a referendum was held weeks later affirming
that a large majority of Crimeans supported rejoining Russia, a sentiment
western polling firms have since
corroborated . Regardless, as in the Donbass, the move was labeled an invasion, eventually
triggering a raft of sanctions from the
U.S. and the EU (and more
recently, from
Trump himself ).
The media made no effort to see Russia's perspective on Crimea in the wake of the revolution
-- imagining the U.S. response if the roles were reversed, for example -- and all but ignored
the preferences of Crimeans. Instead, it spun a black-and-white story of "Russian aggression"
in Ukraine. For the Blob, Moscow's actions there put Vladimir Putin on par with Adolf Hitler,
driving a flood of frenzied press coverage not seen again until the 2016
election.
Succumbing to Hysteria
While Trump had already begun to cave to the onslaught of Russiagate in the early months of
his presidency, a July 2018 meeting with Putin in Helsinki presented an opportunity to reverse
course, offering a venue to hash out differences and plan for future cooperation. Trump's
previous sit-downs with his Russian counterpart were largely uneventful, but widely portrayed
as a meeting between master and puppet. At the Helsinki Summit, however, a meager gesture
toward improved relations was met with a new level of hysterics.
Trump's refusal to interrogate Putin on his supposed election-hacking during a summit press
conference was taken as irrefutable proof that the two were conspiring together. Former CIA
Director John Brennan declared it an
act of treason , while CNN gravely
contemplated whether Putin's gift to Trump during the meetings -- a World Cup soccer ball
-- was really a secret spying transmitter. By this point, Robert Mueller's special counsel
probe was in full effect, lending official credibility to the collusion story and further
emboldening the claims of conspiracy.
Though the summit did little to strengthen U.S.-Russia ties and Trump made no real effort to
do so -- beyond resisting the calls to directly confront Putin -- it brought on some of the
most extreme attacks yet, further ratcheting up the cost of rapprochement. The window of
opportunity presented in Helsinki, while only cracked to begin with, was now firmly shut, with
Trump as reluctant as ever to make good on his original policy platform.
Sanctions!
After taking a beating in Helsinki, the administration allowed tensions with Moscow to soar
to new heights, more or less embracing the Blob's favored policies and often even outdoing the
Obama government's hawkishness toward Russia in both rhetoric and action.
In March 2018, the poisoning of a former Russian spy living in the United Kingdom was blamed
on Moscow in a highly
elaborate storyline that ultimately fell
apart (sound familiar?), but nonetheless triggered a wave of retaliation from western
governments. In the largest diplomatic purge in US history, the Trump administration expelled
60 Russian officials in a period of two days, surpassing Obama's ejection of 35 diplomats in
response to the election-meddling allegations.
Though Trump had called to lift rather
than impose penalties on Russia before taking office, worn down by endless negative press
coverage and surrounded by a coterie of hawkish advisers, he was brought around on the merits
of sanctions before long, and has used them liberally ever since.
Goodbye INF, RIP
OST
By October 2018, Trump had largely abandoned any idea of improving the relationship with
Russia and, in addition to the barrage of sanctions, began shredding a series of major treaties
and arms control agreements. He started with the Cold War-era Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces
Treaty (INF), which had eliminated an entire class of nuclear weapons -- medium-range missiles
-- and removed Europe as a theater for nuclear war.
At this point in Trump's tenure, super-hawk John Bolton had assumed the position of national
security advisor, encouraging the president's worst instincts and using his newfound influence
to convince Trump to ditch the INF treaty. Bolton -- who helped to detonate a number of arms control
pacts in previous administrations -- argued that Russia's new short-range missile had
violated the treaty. While there remains some dispute over the missile's true range and whether
it actually breached the agreement, Washington failed to pursue available dispute mechanisms
and ignored Russian offers for talks to resolve the spat.
After the U.S. officially scrapped the agreement, it quickly began testing formerly-banned
munitions. Unlike the Russian missiles, which were only said to have a range overstepping the
treaty by a few miles, the U.S. began testing nuclear-capable land-based cruise
missiles expressly banned under the INF.
Next came the Open Skies Treaty (OST), an idea originally floated by President Eisenhower,
but which wouldn't take shape until 1992, when an agreement was struck between NATO and former
Warsaw Pact nations. The agreement now has over 30 members and allows each to arrange
surveillance flights over other members' territory, an important confidence-building measure in
the post-Soviet world.
Trump saw matters differently, however, and turned a minor dispute over Russia's
implementation of the pact into a reason to discard it altogether, again egged on by militant
advisers. In late May 2020, the president declared
his intent to withdraw from the nearly 30-year-old agreement, proposing nothing to replace
it.
Quid Pro Quo
With the DOJ's special counsel probe into Trump-Russia collusion
coming up short on both smoking-gun evidence and relevant indictments, the president's
enemies began searching for new angles of attack. Following a July 2019 phone call between
Trump and his newly elected Ukrainian counterpart, they soon found one.
During the call ,
Trump urged Zelensky to investigate a computer server he believed to be linked to Russiagate,
and to look into potential
corruption and nepotism on the part of former Vice President Joe Biden, who played an
active role in Ukraine following the Obama-backed coup.
Less than two months later, a " whistleblower
" -- a CIA officer detailed to the White House, Eric Ciaramella -- came forward with an "urgent
concern" that the president had abused his office on the July call. According to his
complaint , Trump threatened to withhold U.S. military aid, as well as a face-to-face
meeting with Zelensky, should Kiev fail to deliver the goods on Biden, who by that point was a
major contender in the 2020 race.
The same players who peddled Russiagate seized on Ciaramella's account to manufacture a
whole new scandal: "Ukrainegate." Failing to squeeze an impeachment out of the Mueller probe,
the Democrats did just that with the Ukraine call, insisting Trump had committed grave
offenses, again conspiring with a foreign leader to meddle in a U.S. election.
At a high point during the impeachment trial, an expert called to testify by the Democrats
revived George W.
Bush's "fight them over there" maxim to
argue for U.S. arms transfers to Ukraine, citing the Russian menace. The effort was doomed
from the start, however, with a GOP-controlled Senate never likely to convict and the evidence
weak for a "quid pro quo" with Zelensky. Ukrainegate, like Russiagate before it, was a failure
in its stated goal, yet both served to mark the administration with claims of foreign collusion
and press for more hawkish policies toward Moscow.
The End of New START?
The Obama administration scored a rare diplomatic achievement with Russia in 2010, signing
the New START Treaty, a continuation of the original Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty inked in
the waning days of the Soviet Union. Like its first iteration, the agreement places a cap on
the number of nuclear weapons and warheads deployed by each side. It featured a ten-year sunset
clause, but included provisions to continue beyond its initial end date.
With the treaty set to expire in early 2021, it has become an increasingly hot topic
throughout Trump's presidency. While Trump sold himself as an expert dealmaker on the campaign
trail -- an artist , even -- his negotiation
skills have shown lacking when it comes to working out a new deal with the Russians.
The administration has
demanded that China be incorporated into any extended version of the treaty, calling on
Russia to compel Beijing to the negotiating table and vastly complicating any prospect for a
deal. With a nuclear arsenal around one-tenth the size of that of Russia or the U.S., China has
refused to join the pact. Washington's intransigence on the issue has put the future of the
treaty in limbo and largely left Russia without a negotiating partner.
A second Trump term would spell serious trouble for New START, having already shown
willingness to shred the INF and Open Skies agreements. And with the Anti-Ballistic Missile
Treaty (ABM) already killed under the Bush administration, New START is one of the few
remaining constraints on the planet's two largest nuclear arsenals.
Despite pursuing massive escalation with Moscow from 2018 onward, Trump-Russia conspiracy
allegations never stopped pouring from newspapers and TV screens. For the Blob -- heavily
invested in a narrative as fruitful as it was false -- Trump would forever be "Putin's puppet,"
regardless of the sanctions imposed, the landmark treaties incinerated or the deluge of warlike
rhetoric.
Running for an Arms Race
As the Trump administration leads the country into the next Cold War, a renewed arms race is
also in the making. The destruction of key arms control pacts by previous administrations has
fed a proliferation powder keg, and the demise of New START could be the spark to set it
off.
Following Bush Jr.'s termination of the ABM deal in 2002 -- wrecking a pact which placed
limits on Russian and American missile defense systems to maintain the balance of mutually
assured destruction -- Russia soon resumed funding for a number of strategic weapons projects,
including its hypersonic missile. In his announcement of the new technology in
2018, Putin deemed the move a response to Washington's unilateral withdrawal from ABM, which
also saw the U.S. develop new weapons .
Though he inked New START and campaigned on vows to pursue an end to the bomb, President
Obama also helped to advance the arms build-up, embarking on a 30-year
nuclear modernization project set to cost taxpayers $1.5 trillion. The Trump administration
has embraced the initiative with open arms, even
adding to it , as Moscow follows suit with upgrades to its own arsenal.
In May, Trump's top arms control envoy promised to spend Russia and China
into oblivion in the event of any future arms race, but one was already well underway.
After withdrawing from INF, the administration began churning
out previously banned nuclear-capable cruise missiles, while fielding an entire new class
of
low-yield nuclear weapons. Known as "tactical nukes," the smaller warheads lower the
threshold for use, making nuclear conflict more likely. Meanwhile, the White House has also
mulled a live bomb test -- America's first since 1992 -- though has apparently shelved
the idea for now.
A Runaway Freight Train
As Trump approaches the end of his first term, the two major U.S. political parties have
become locked in a permanent cycle of escalation, eternally compelled to prove who's the bigger
hawk. The president put up mild resistance during his first months in office, but the
relentless drumbeat of Russiagate successfully crushed any chances for improved ties with
Moscow.
The Democrats refuse to give up on "Russian aggression" and see virtually no pushback from
hawks across the aisle, while intelligence "leaks" continue to flow into the imperial press,
fueling a whole new round of election-meddling
allegations .
Likewise, Trump's campaign vows to revamp U.S.-Russian relations are long dead. His
presidency counts among its accomplishments a pile of new sanctions, dozens of expelled
diplomats and the demise of two major arms control treaties. For all his talk of getting along
with Putin, Trump has failed to ink a single deal, de-escalate any of the ongoing strife over
Syria, Ukraine or Libya, and been unable to arrange one state visit in Moscow or DC.
Nonetheless, Trump's every action is still interpreted through the lens of Russian
collusion. After announcing a troop drawdown in Germany on June 5, reducing the U.S. presence
by just one-third, the president was met with the now-typical swarm of baseless charges. MSNBC
regular and retired general Barry McCaffrey dubbed the move "a gift to
Russia," while GOP Rep. Liz Cheney said the meager troop movement
placed the "cause of freedom in peril." Top Democrats in the House and Senate
introduced bills to stop the withdrawal dead in its tracks, attributing the policy to
Trump's "absurd affection for Vladimir Putin, a murderous dictator."
Starting as a dirty campaign trick to explain away the Democrats' election loss and jam up
the new president, Russiagate is now a key driving force in the U.S. political establishment
that will long outlive the age of Trump. After nearly four years, the bipartisan consensus on
the need for Cold War is stronger than ever, and will endure regardless of who takes the Oval
Office next.
"... Clinton remains a hero in Kosovo where a statue of him was erected in the capital, Pristina. The Guardian newspaper noted that the statue showed Clinton "with a left hand raised, a typical gesture of a leader greeting the masses. In his right hand he is holding documents engraved with the date when NATO started the bombardment of Serbia, 24 March 1999." It would have been a more accurate representation to depict Clinton standing on a pile of corpses of the women, children, and others killed in the U.S. bombing campaign. ..."
"... Bill Clinton's 1999 bombing of Serbia was as big a fraud as George W. Bush's conning this nation into attacking Iraq. The fact that Clinton and other top U.S. government officials continued to glorify Hashim Thaci despite accusations of mass murder, torture, and body trafficking is another reminder of the venality of much of America's political elite. Will Americans again be gullible the next time that Washington policymakers and their media allies concoct bullshit pretexts to blow the hell out of some hapless foreign land? ..."
President Bill Clinton's favorite freedom fighter just got indicted for mass murder, torture, kidnapping, and other crimes against
humanity. In 1999, the Clinton administration launched a 78-day bombing campaign that killed up to 1500 civilians in Serbia and Kosovo
in what the American media proudly portrayed as a crusade against ethnic bias. That war, like most of the pretenses of U.S. foreign
policy, was always a sham.
Kosovo President Hashim Thaci was charged with ten counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity by an international tribunal
in The Hague in the Netherlands. It charged Thaci and nine other men with "war crimes, including murder, enforced disappearance of
persons, persecution, and torture." Thaci and the other charged suspects were accused of being "criminally responsible for nearly
100 murders" and the indictment involved "hundreds of known victims of Kosovo Albanian, Serb, Roma, and other ethnicities and include
political opponents."
Hashim Thaci's tawdry career illustrates how anti-terrorism is a flag of convenience for Washington policymakers. Prior to becoming
Kosovo's president, Thaci was the head of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), fighting to force Serbs out of Kosovo. In 1999, the Clinton
administration designated the KLA as "freedom fighters" despite their horrific past and gave them massive aid. The previous year,
the State Department condemned "terrorist action by the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army." The KLA was heavily involved in drug trafficking
and had close to ties to Osama bin Laden.
But arming the KLA and bombing Serbia helped Clinton portray himself as a crusader against injustice and shift public attention
after his impeachment trial. Clinton was aided by many shameless members of Congress anxious to sanctify U.S. killing. Sen. Joe Lieberman
(D-CN) whooped that the United States and the KLA "stand for the same values and principles. Fighting for the KLA is fighting for
human rights and American values." And since Clinton administration officials publicly compared Serb leader Slobodan Milošević to
Hitler, every decent person was obliged to applaud the bombing campaign.
Both the Serbs and ethnic Albanians committed atrocities in the bitter strife in Kosovo. But to sanctify its bombing campaign,
the Clinton administration waved a magic wand and made the KLA's atrocities disappear. British professor Philip Hammond noted that
the 78-day bombing campaign "was not a purely military operation: NATO also destroyed what it called 'dual-use' targets, such as
factories, city bridges, and even the main television building in downtown Belgrade, in an attempt to terrorize the country into
surrender."
NATO repeatedly dropped cluster bombs into marketplaces, hospitals, and other civilian areas. Cluster bombs are anti-personnel
devices designed to be scattered across enemy troop formations. NATO dropped more than 1,300 cluster bombs on Serbia and Kosovo and
each bomb contained 208 separate bomblets that floated to earth by parachute. Bomb experts estimated that more than 10,000 unexploded
bomblets were scattered around the landscape when the bombing ended and maimed children long after the ceasefire.
In the final days of the bombing campaign, the Washington Post reported that "some presidential aides and friends are describing
Kosovo in Churchillian tones, as Clinton's 'finest hour.'" The Post also reported that according to one Clinton friend "what Clinton
believes were the unambiguously moral motives for NATO's intervention represented a chance to soothe regrets harbored in Clinton's
own conscience The friend said Clinton has at times lamented that the generation before him was able to serve in a war with a plainly
noble purpose, and he feels 'almost cheated' that 'when it was his turn he didn't have the chance to be part of a moral cause.'"
By Clinton's standard, slaughtering Serbs was "close enough for government work" to a "moral cause."
Shortly after the end of the 1999 bombing campaign, Clinton enunciated what his aides labeled the Clinton doctrine: "Whether within
or beyond the borders of a country, if the world community has the power to stop it, we ought to stop genocide and ethnic cleansing."
In reality, the Clinton doctrine was that presidents are entitled to commence bombing foreign lands based on any brazen lie that
the American media will regurgitate. In reality, the lesson from bombing Serbia is that American politicians merely need to publicly
recite the word "genocide" to get a license to kill.
After the bombing ended, Clinton assured the Serbian people that the United States and NATO agreed to be peacekeepers only "with
the understanding that they would protect Serbs as well as ethnic Albanians and that they would leave when peace took hold." In the
subsequent months and years, American and NATO forces stood by as the KLA resumed its ethnic cleansing, slaughtering Serb civilians,
bombing Serbian churches and oppressing any non-Muslims. Almost a quarter-million Serbs, Gypsies, Jews, and other minorities fled
Kosovo after Mr. Clinton promised to protect them. By 2003, almost 70 percent of the Serbs living in Kosovo in 1999 had fled, and
Kosovo was 95 percent ethnic Albanian.
But Thaci remained useful for U.S. policymakers. Even though he was widely condemned for oppression and corruption after taking
power in Kosovo, Vice President Joe Biden hailed Thaci in 2010 as the "George Washington of Kosovo." A few months later, a Council
of Europe report accused Thaci and KLA operatives of human organ trafficking. The Guardian noted that the report alleged
that Thaci's inner circle "took captives across the border into Albania after the war, where a number of Serbs are said to have been
murdered for their kidneys, which were sold on the black market." The report stated that when "transplant surgeons" were "ready to
operate, the [Serbian] captives were brought out of the 'safe house' individually, summarily executed by a KLA gunman, and their
corpses transported swiftly to the operating clinic."
Despite the body trafficking charge, Thaci was a star attendee at the annual Global Initiative conference by the Clinton Foundation
in 2011, 2012, and 2013, where he posed for photos with Bill Clinton. Maybe that was a perk from the $50,000 a month lobbying contract
that Thaci's regime signed with The Podesta Group, co-managed by future Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta, as the
Daily Caller reported.
Clinton remains a hero in Kosovo where a statue of him was erected in the capital, Pristina. The Guardian newspaper noted that
the statue showed Clinton "with a left hand raised, a typical gesture of a leader greeting the masses. In his right hand he is holding
documents engraved with the date when NATO started the bombardment of Serbia, 24 March 1999." It would have been a more accurate
representation to depict Clinton standing on a pile of corpses of the women, children, and others killed in the U.S. bombing campaign.
In 2019, Bill Clinton and his fanatically pro-bombing former Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, visited Pristina, where they
were "treated like rock stars" as they posed for photos with Thaci. Clinton declared, "I love this country and it will always be
one of the greatest honors of my life to have stood with you against ethnic cleansing (by Serbian forces) and for freedom." Thaci
awarded Clinton and Albright medals of freedom "for the liberty he brought to us and the peace to entire region." Albright has reinvented
herself as a visionary warning against fascism in the Trump era. Actually, the only honorific that Albright deserves is "Butcher
of Belgrade."
Clinton's war on Serbia was a Pandora's box from which the world still suffers. Because politicians and most of the media portrayed
the war against Serbia as a moral triumph, it was easier for the Bush administration to justify attacking Iraq, for the Obama administration
to bomb Libya, and for the Trump administration to repeatedly bomb Syria. All of those interventions sowed chaos that continues cursing
the purported beneficiaries.
Bill Clinton's 1999 bombing of Serbia was as big a fraud as George W. Bush's conning this nation into attacking Iraq. The
fact that Clinton and other top U.S. government officials continued to glorify Hashim Thaci despite accusations of mass murder, torture,
and body trafficking is another reminder of the venality of much of America's political elite. Will Americans again be gullible the
next time that Washington policymakers and their media allies concoct bullshit pretexts to blow the hell out of some hapless foreign
land?
Bartiromo's interview with Barr on
"Sunday Morning Futures," is the first time the Attorney General has given a time frame for
the information. He also noted that he was surprised by the lack of public interest in Durham's
investigation.
Unfortunately, in the opinion of this writer, the lack of public interest in the Durham
probe may have more to do with the Justice Department's secrecy to discuss the investigation
publicly and the failure – as of yet – to indict or hold many of those involved
legally accountable for their actions.
Although Barr has been the most informative on the Durham investigation during his
interviews, other Justice Department officials have been less than cooperative when asked about
developments in the probe and therefore making it less likely to garner public interest.
Durham's investigation, however, is expanding on the evidence amassed by both Congress and
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz's December report. That report revealed
numerous omissions and lies in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Application on Carter
Page, a short term 2016 Trump campaign volunteer.
"So that has been surprising to me, that people aren't concerned about civil liberties and
the integrity of our governmental process in terms of the future of Durham's investigation,"
Barr said. "You know, he's pressing ahead as hard as he can. And I expect that, you know, we
will have some developments hopefully before the end of the summer." Still, Barr made it clear
that Durham's probe is expected to continue passed the November's election.
He noted one caveat, that depends "on who wins the election."
He also discussed with Bartiromo the unmasking of Trump campaign officials during the
2016 elections saying, "I would say it's unusual for an outgoing administration, high level
officials, to be unmasking very, you know, very much in the days they're preparing to leave
office. Makes you wonder what they were doing."
Attorney General William Barr is bringing increasing clarity to the focus of U.S. Attorney
John Durham's criminal investigation into the conduct of the Russia collusion
investigators.
In a series of recent interviews, the nation's chief enforcement officer has dropped some
big hints about what is under investigation, who is and isn't being investigated, and what
evidence uncovered by the Durham team is emerging as important.
Barr also has suggested what events in the timeline are emerging as important in the 2016-17
effort to find dirt on President Trump and his campaign and transition team.
Here are the seven most important revelations Barr has made over the last month.
1.
Timetable: Durham's investigation has been slowed by the pandemic. But some action is expected
by end of summer, and the probe could stretch beyond Election Day.
Barr told Fox News' Maria Bartiromo on Sunday that the coronavirus has slowed Durham's
ability to interview witnesses and use a grand jury if needed, though he did not officially
confirm there was grand jury activity in the case.
"It is a fact that there have not been grand juries in virtually all districts for a long
period of time," Barr said.
But most importantly, the attorney general laid out a likely timeline for when the first
actions might be taken in the case, while stressing the probe could carry beyond the
election.
"In terms of the future of Durham's investigation, he's pressing ahead as hard as he can,
and I expect that we will have some developments, hopefully before the end of the summer," Barr
said. "But as I've said, his investigation will continue. It's not going to stop because of the
election. What happens after the election may depend on who wins the election."
2. Barr
believes evidence used by the FBI to justify opening an investigation into the Trump campaign's
ties to Moscow was very thin.
The attorney general has made clear in multiple interviews that Australian diplomat
Alexander Downer's meeting with Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos at a London bar in May
2016 was a weak justification for opening Crossfire Hurricane.
Downer claimed Papadopoulos made comments about Russians possessing dirt on Hillary Clinton,
and the FBI believed that was enough to predicate a counterintelligence investigation.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz agreed in his report that was enough, but found
substantial evidence the FBI cheated afterwards to keep the probe going in the absence of
evidence of wrongdoing.
Barr does not seem to accept the opening of the FBI probe was justified.
Papadopoulos' alleged "comment in a London wine bar" would be "a very slender reed to get
law enforcement and intelligence agencies involved in investigating the campaign of one's
political opponent," Barr declared Sunday.
Barr isn't the only high-profile figure to think that. Former FBI Assistant Director for
Intelligence Kevin Brock has said the FBI memo opening Crossfire Hurricane did not meet the
standards for opening a counter-intelligence investigation.
3. Investigators are focused
on what happened before Crossfire Hurricane officially started, including when Christopher
Steele first began compiling his dossier.
In multiple interviews, Barr has made clear Durham's team is examining what actions
government officials and private individuals may have taken in the winter and spring of 2016
before the FBI officially opened its probe of the Trump campaign on July 31, 2016.
Perhaps the most tantalizing statement Barr has made on this came Sunday when he suggested
it was important that Steele began working on his dossier before July 2016, raising the
possibility that some unexplained events earlier that year may have been connected to that
early Steele work.
"I understand why it is important to try to determine whether there was any activity before
July, before the Papadopoulos wine bar conversation," Barr explained. "And so people are
looking at that. It's significant also that the dossier was initiated before July."
4.
Barr views the FBI's continuation of the Russia probe after the Steele dossier "collapsed" as
an illegitimate effort to remove the president.
Barr has repeatedly cited the fact that the FBI continued to rely on the Steele dossier
after the former MI6 agent's primary sub-source contradicted information in the dossier in
January 2017 and March 2017 -- and failed to tell the FISA court about the problems with the
repudiated evidence.
"The dossier pretty much collapsed at that point -- and yet they continued to use it as a
basis for pursuing this counterintelligence investigation," Barr noted this past weekend.
The attorney general suggested such behavior supports arguments that what was really going
on was an attempted coup to remove Trump from office. "It is the closest we have come to an
organized effort to push a president out of office," he said.
5. There are multiple
criminal investigations into leaks of classified information.
Barr made clear that Durham and others are examining multiple leaks for possible criminal
violations while cautioning proving leak cases can be challenging. One of those is focused on
who leaked Michael Flynn's call with the Russian ambassador.
"Leaking national defense information, unauthorized disclosure of that information is a
felony," Barr said. "We have a lot of leak investigations underway."
6. Barr is concerned
by the outgoing Obama administration's extensive unmasking of Americans' conversations ... but
don't expect Barack Obama or Joe Biden to get in trouble.
After the recent revelation that more than three dozen Obama administration officials sought
to unmask intercepted conversations of incoming Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn,
Barr declared, "It makes you wonder what they were doing."
"It's unusual for an outgoing administration, high-level officials, to be unmasking very
much in the days they're preparing to leave office," he added.
As a sign of that concern, Barr has named a U.S. attorney from Texas to assist Durham to
examine the unmaskings for any illegalities.
But Barr also tamped down any expectation that the former president or vice president will
be investigated, stating clearly they are not targets of the probe.
"As to President Obama and Vice President Biden, whatever their level of involvement, based
on the information I have today, I don't expect Mr. Durham's work will lead to a criminal
investigation of either man," the attorney general said last month. "Our concern over potential
criminality is focused on others."
7. Durham is examining whether political pressures
were applied during the intelligence community's assessment of Russia's intentions in 2016
election meddling. That could be bad news for former CIA chief John Brennan.
In the Obama administration's final days, Brennan, outgoing DNI James Clapper and then-FBI
Director James Comey release the Intelligence Community Assessment, which declared Russia
meddled in the 2016 election with hacking and Facebook ads and that Moscow's intention was to
help Trump win.
The first conclusion is widely accepted, while the second is more controversial, especially
now that evidence has been declassified showing Russia was feeding derogatory disinformation
about Trump to Steele. Why, experts wonder, would Russia be doing that if Putin wanted Trump to
win?
Barr said Durham is investigating whether any political pressure was brought to bear to come
to that second conclusion. Sources have told Just the News there is some evidence that CIA
analysts and others had concerns about the strength of the evidence about Russia's
intentions.
play_arrow Itinerant , 1 hour ago
The first conclusion is widely accepted ... declared Russia meddled in the 2016 election
with hacking and Facebook ads
And it's high time for a dose of reality.
1. There's no evidence of a hack , as CrowdStrike stated in interviews that have been
released. There is a lot of evidence that it was a leak from inside the DNC premises, and
that Guccifer is an Intelligence Agency persona.
2. There's no evidence that Putin (or his administration) directed any purported Russian
meddling campaign.
3. There's no evidence that the Facebook ads were not click bait and were ever intentioned
to cause "Division". No coherent account can be given as to what "disinformation" they were
trying to spread, and why the Russian leadership would want to spread such "disinformation".
In fact, "it was so sophisticated that it remained hidden in plain view". That's because the
whole story is just psychological projection, based on assumptions of what the Russians would
want to do (no connection to anything they've ever said). Just look at some of the examples,
and you can reach no other conclusion than: Click bait.
CallOfTheWild , 3 hours ago
The Watch Pot NEVER BOILS.....WTF
Brennan
Clapper
Comey
McCabe
Strzok
Page
Ohr
Halper
Mifsud
Baker
Preistep
Yates
Rosenstein
Obama
Wray
Simpson
Clinton x2
Weissmann
Lynch
Jarrett
Rice
Fritsch
Power
McLaughlin
Ferrante
Boomer's revenge , 6 hours ago
Un acceptable. They commited a treasonous Coup d'état with impunity, insulting and
ridiculing all of us as they did it. "Could smell the Trump voters at Walmart".
ComradeChe , 7 hours ago
There was genius in the "Russian Collision" narrative; they kept it up, incessantly, even
as it was factually falling apart. There was no link. And still they kept at it. The result
was that everyone is SICK TO DEATH of this crap. No one cares. The Trump haters gonna hate
regardless-- and everyone else, whether they back the president or not, are just over it. It
blew up in Pelosi's face-- but no one cares.
Now, most of America is three mortgage payments behind and they don't give a damn about
anything but trying to keep their lives together. Obama, Rice, Clapper, Brennan et al pulled
off the most egregious political crime in the history of the republic. Even in his wildest
dreams Tricky **** Nixon couldn't get the IRS, the NSA and the CIA to do political hits for
him. But Obama-- nails it. The trifecta: the IRS 'rogue agents from Cincinnati' stifle the
Tea Party; the FBI/CIA jerk off the FISA Court with a bought and paid for shovel full of BS,
and then use the NSA to spy on a political candidate-- and better yet, conspire with foreign
intelligence services who utilize electronic surveillance within the US, so the CIA can keep
its skirts clean; and lastly, the circular firing squad of the National Security council
facilitates the 'unmasking' of dozens of Americans who are not terrorists, or spies but
political opponents.
No this didn't happen in Guatemala. This happened in the US.
And you know what? Obama and all his minions ARE going to get away with it. Barry got away
with presenting a birth certificate cobbled together on Adobe Illustrator; they didn't even
bother to make a PDF out of it. It was BAM in your face, 23 different fonts on 15 different
layers. So what? Hillary got away with keeping hundreds of Top Secret Codeword documents on a
home made web server. So what? Then she got away with accepting a sweet &130 million
payoff for the Clinton Foundation, right after she okayed the transfer of 25% of our enriched
Uranium to... wait for it... Putin. And then the IC blames Trump for being a stooge of
Putin.
It's too rich. If you are waiting for justice, forget it. I've seen this movie before.
Arch_Stanton , 8 hours ago
1. Timetable: Durham's investigation has been slowed by the pandemic. But some action is
expected by end of summer, and the probe could stretch beyond Election Day.
There will be no action, or should I say inaction, until after the election
2. Barr believes evidence used by the FBI to justify opening an investigation into the
Trump campaign's ties to Moscow was very thin.
3. Investigators are focused on what happened before Crossfire Hurricane officially
started, including when Christopher Steele first began compiling his dossier.
4. Barr views the FBI's continuation of the Russia probe after the Steele dossier
"collapsed" as an illegitimate effort to remove the president.
This is true and we all knew this over 3 years ago.
5. There are multiple criminal investigations into leaks of classified information.
Multiple leaks? No kidding.
6. Barr is concerned by the outgoing Obama administration's extensive unmasking of
Americans' conversations ... but don't expect Barack Obama or Joe Biden to get in
trouble.
We are all far more than "concerned". This was a coup. Obama initiated this whole coup and
Biden was in on the planning and we know it. Why do they skate?
7. Durham is examining whether political pressures were applied during the intelligence
community's assessment of Russia's intentions in 2016 election meddling. That could be bad
news for former CIA chief John Brennan.
Hoping it's more than news. Hoping for indictments.
This is a joke, and I'm not surprised. If Trump loses, this whole affair will be dropped
and consigned to the memory hole immediately.
Chocura750 , 7 hours ago
Thin justification is enough considering the importance of the claim.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN , 8 hours ago
Perhaps the most tantalizing statement Barr has made on this came Sunday when he
suggested it was important that Steele began working on his dossier before July 2016,
raising the possibility that some unexplained events earlier that year may have been
connected to that early Steele work.
It was reported in real time in 2016 that the Steele Dossier work was initiated at the
request of rival Republican candidates (likely Jeb Bush, possibly Ted Cruz) and they handed
it off to the Clinton Campaign to continue. The Bush family then supported Clinton in the
election. This was a uni-party effort to keep control in the 2 families.
Gerb00 , 8 hours ago
They all skate by, no one goes to jail, they all get multi million dollar gooka dn movie
deals, mr senile and mr o-*** get nobel peace prizes and shrines where the lincoln memorial
used to be..
David Wooten , 8 hours ago
"...the attorney general laid out a likely timeline for when the first actions might be
taken in the case, while stressing the probe could carry beyond the election."
Wrongdoings by past administrations go beyond Obiden to Bush 43 or earlier and also
include most members of the Senate and a fair number in the House. They stretch from Russia
to Ukraine to Libya to Syria to the UK to France to Israel to Assange, etc. They cover
members of both parties in the US and back to Tony Blair in Britain and some very powerful
people. They are all tied together in some way.
It will take far longer than the election to get the bottom of it and, given the
anti-Trump atmosphere that prevails, Durham is unlikely to produce any unsealed indictments
before the election lest they be tainted with politics, ie, helping Trump - as Ken Starr's
report was tainted as undermining Clinton's election.
Those involved are so powerful that the best that can be expected is to remove them from
positions of power, both in and out of government. Some these guys would rather die or bring
on a nuclear war than spend years to decades in prison.
Don't hold your breath.
bumboo , 8 hours ago
Hush Hush. Durham and Barr are part of the establishment. Barr and Robert Muller are
friends (attend same Bible class). One of them invited the other one to his daughter's
wedding (nothing wrong). Part of the Cabal.
Durham investigated the Guantanamo tapes burning by a CIA officer and wrote the per
someone's instructions. The author is assuming that his readers are fools and lazy. Sorry,
those days are gone, thanks to alternate Media and citizen's journalism or empowerment. We
dont have relay journalists in their rocking chair and writing superficial stuff. Did the
writer address Joseph Misfud, the Maltese guy.
There is sufficient information in the public sphere, including inculpatory evidence that
would be more than sufficient to produce indictments. The fact that Trump's AG drags his feet
on this within months of the election suggests Trump continues to waffle and go soft in the
knees when it matters most. In spite of talking a big game, Trump is a softie.
He might be an incredibly sophisticated media manipulator, and good for him, but I'm not
really sure he understands that this burgeoning insurrection, including the complex campaign
to unseat him during his presidency, constitutes an insurgency against the Constitutional
Republic.
This makes the agents within the Deep State traitors, the executing agents acting in the
streets insurrectionists and BLM potentially foreign agents. Trump and his team seem to think
this is all just disgruntled political opposition. IT's nothing of the sort.
The belated discovery of disgraced FBI agent Peter Strzok's January 2017 notes raises
troubling new questions about whether President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden were
coordinating efforts during their final days in office to investigate Trump national security
adviser Michael Flynn -- even as the FBI wanted to shut down the case.
Investigators will need to secure testimony from Strzok, fired two years ago from the FBI,
to be certain of the exact meaning and intent of his one paragraph of notes, which were made
public in court on Wednesday.
But they appear to illuminate an extraordinary high-level effort by outgoing Obama-era
officials during the first weekend of January to find a way to sustain a counterintelligence
investigation of Flynn in the absence of any evidence of wrongdoing.
The Justice Department says the notes were written between Jan. 3-5, 2017, the very weekend
the FBI agent who had investigated Flynn's ties to Russia for five months recommended the case
be closed because there was "no derogatory" evidence that he committed a crime or posed a
counterintelligence threat. FBI supervisors overruled the agent's recommendation.
Strzok's notes appear to quote then-FBI Director James Comey as suggesting that Flynn's
intercepted calls with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak "appear legit," bolstering other
recently disclosed evidence showing the bureau saw nothing wrong with Flynn's behavior.
The notes also suggest Biden -- who once claimed he had no knowledge of the Flynn probe --
raised the issue of the Logan Act, an obscure, centuries-old law, as a possible avenue for
continuing to investigate Flynn.
And Strzok appears to quote Obama as suggesting the FBI assign "the right people" to pursue
the case.
You can read the notes here:
These conversations, if accurately portrayed in the Strzok notes, occurred during the same
three-day period in which FBI supervisors overruled their field agent's recommendation to shut
down the Flynn case and pivoted toward the strategy of luring Flynn into an FBI interview where
he might be caught lying.
Sidney Powell, Flynn's lawyer, laid out the potential ramifications of the notes in a court
filing on Wednesday, calling the new evidence "stunning and exculpatory."
"Mr. Obama himself directed that 'the right people' investigate General Flynn. This caused
former FBI Director Comey to acknowledge the obvious: General Flynn's phone calls with
Ambassador Kislyak 'appear legit,'" Powell argued in her new motion.
" According to Strzok's notes, it appears that Vice President Biden personally raised the
idea of the Logan Act. That became an admitted pretext to investigate General Flynn," she
added.
Even if the rebuked judge appeals the decision or the full appeals court reconsiders the
case, Flynn is likely on a path to being a free and innocent man.
The real impact of the notes may be on the Justice Department's ongoing investigation of the
Russia investigators, where U.S. Attorneys John Durham and Jeff Jensen are determining whether
the FBI or others committed crimes in deceiving the courts or Congress about the evidence in
the now-discredited Russia collusion allegations.
A former senior FBI official told Just the News that Strzok's notes about the White House
meeting are a red flag that the Comey-led bureau may have been involving itself illegitimately
in a political dispute between the outgoing Obama administration and incoming Trump
administration.
"It was a political meeting about a policy dispute, and the bureau had no business being
involved," Former Assistant Director for Intelligence Kevin Brock said. "No other FBI director
would ever have attended such a meeting.
"Comey is quoted in the notes as saying the Kislyak call appeared legit. At that point he
should have gotten up and left the room," Brock added.
"The FBI had no business being represented in that meeting. It did not have a
counterintelligence interest any longer."
A second impact of the notes could be on the campaign trail. A few months ago, Biden claimed
he was unaware of the Flynn probe as he was leaving the VP's office.
"I know nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn," he said.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/3Yrblo64caA
He then clarified his denial.
"I was aware that they asked for an investigation,"
Biden said. "But that's all I know about it, and I don't think anything else."
If Powell's interpretation of the notes is correct, Biden was knowledgeable enough to
suggest a possible pretext for continued investigation, the Logan Act. And he eventually
unmasked one of Flynn's intercepted phone calls a week later.
Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes told Just the News on Wednesday the
newly discovered notes affirm his long-held suspicion that the Obama White House was trying to
influence the FBI's Russia probe in untoward ways.
" Now we know both Obama and Biden were directly involved in planning the attack on Flynn
," Nunes said.
"The Obama administration exploited our intelligence community to spy on their political
opponents and engineer bogus investigations and prosecutions of them.
"This is the single biggest abuse of power I've seen in my lifetime," he added.
A Senate committee approved subpoenas Thursday for more than 50 mostly Obama-era officials
in a dramatic escalation of the investigation into origins of the Trump-Russia collusion
probe.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is
wielding the subpoena power, said the move will finally put on the hot seat top officials,
including former FBI Director James B. Comey and former Deputy Director Andrew McCabe.
"Comey and McCabe and that whole crowd -- their day is coming," Mr. Graham said.
Others targeted for subpoenas are former National Intelligence Director James R. Clapper,
former CIA chief John O. Brennan, former Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, former Deputy
Attorney General Sally Q. Yates, Justice Department official Bruce Ohr and FBI officials Lisa
Page, Peter Strzok, James Baker and Bill Priestap.
The panel's politically charged inquiry has the potential to rewrite the Russia collusion
narrative that until recently dominated Washington and colored voters' views of the Justice
Department and the Obama administration, in which presumptive Democratic presidential nominee
Joseph R. Biden served as vice president.
Democrats said the investigation is a fishing expedition intended to smear President Trump's
political enemies as the campaign season heats up.
"Never has a chairman devoted the full weight of this committee's resources to pursue a
wholly partisan investigation after being prompted by a presidential campaign," said Sen.
Patrick J. Leahy, Vermont Democrat and a panel member.
The committee's probe also is a response to public pressure from Trump supporters who are
frustrated with the lack of accountability for top officials at the FBI and Justice Department
who publicly pushed the unsubstantiated collusion accusations.
Accusations of collusion with Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election dogged Mr.
Trump since he took office and fueled Democrats' charges that he occupies the Oval Office
illegitimately.
Most of Mr. Trump's term was conducted under the cloud of special counsel Robert Mueller's
Russia investigation, which failed to dig up evidence of collusion or charge any Trump allies
on charges related to conspiring with Russia.
Mr. Trump calls the Russia probe a "hoax."
His supporters think it was a political hit job orchestrated by Democrats with the help of a
deep state.
In a party-line vote, Republicans on the panel granted Mr. Graham the authority to
subpoena individuals for documents and testimony about the origins of the Russia probe.
Mr. Graham has the power to subpoena "any current or former executive branch official or
employee involved in the Crossfire Hurricane investigation," the name of the FBI's
investigation into alleged ties to the Trump campaign and Russia.
He also has the authority to subpoena individuals involved in the dissemination of a
report by former British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled a salacious but unverified
opposition-research dossier against Mr. Trump funded by the Democratic National Committee and
the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign.
Fusion GPS founder Glenn R. Simpson and Nellie Ohr are expected to receive subpoenas for
their roles in commissioning and distributing the dossier.
Republicans contend that mounting evidence suggests the Russia probe was not on the up and
up.
A report last year by the Justice Department inspector general found multiple errors and
omissions in the FBI's application for a court order to surveil former Trump campaign adviser
Carter Page.
The omissions, which included potentially exculpatory evidence, have raised questions
about whether Mr. Page was a political target by anti-Trump officials in the FBI before and
after the election.
Mr. Graham also wants to probe the case against former National Security Adviser Michael
Flynn, who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian
ambassador.
The Justice Department moved this year to dismiss the case after spending roughly two years
prosecuting it. The department said the FBI did not have a sufficient basis to interview Flynn
because it sought to close the case after failing to uncover wrongdoing.
Sen. Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii Democrat, accused Mr. Graham of going over "ground that has
already been covered."
In a bid to upend the subpoena vote, Democrats sought to add a series of amendments to
compel testimony and documents from Mr. Trump's allies.
Among the individuals Democrats want to be subpoenaed are former Trump fixer Michael Cohen,
former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, Mr. Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, attorney
Rudolph W. Giuliani and Flynn.
The amendments were defeated easily in a series of party-line votes.
"The fact that you are turning down every single relevant witness tells us and tells the
world this is an irrelevant investigation," said Sen. Richard J. Durbin, Illinois Democrat.
Mr. Graham clapped back that Trump associates were heavily scrutinized in the Mueller
probe.
"I don't understand why you would want to do the Mueller investigation all over again after
we've spent 2½ years and $25 million doing it," said Mr. Graham. "I'm sorry it didn't
turn out the way people liked, but it is behind us. Now we are going to look at what happened
and the misconduct involved and hold people accountable."
Under committee rules, Mr. Graham cannot issue a subpoena unilaterally. The committee
chairman can issue a subpoena only with the consent of the ranking member or a committee
vote.
Democrats said the granting of subpoena power to one person violated the committee's
bipartisan spirit. They accused Mr. Graham of trying to grant himself "unilateral subpoena
authority."
"The resolution would give the chair sole authority to issue literally hundreds of subpoenas
without any agreement from the ranking member of any committee to vote on any specific
subpoena," said Dianne Feinstein of California, the ranking Democrat on the committee.
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee voted last week to authorize
subpoenas from individuals associated with the Russia probe. It is not clear how the two
committees will work together with similar investigations and subpoenas.
I was a bit concerned when I heard Lindsey Graham in essence exonerate Rosenstein from any guilt. The investigation has only
just begun. Anyone else get the feeling deals are being done. I mean Graham was in on it from the start wasn't he?
So He's obviously
got some sort of immunity deal to be allowed any where near such a vitally important investigation.
So it will be interesting
to see how they navigate around that one. Another big day tomorrow...I feel that General Flynn may have some interesting input
a little bit further down the track. Patriots world wide. WWG1WGA.
We know Stzrok is all over it but I fear they are looking at taking him down and sparing the other traitors. Time will tell.
In my opinion everyone involved was equally complicit. WWG1WGA UK
Trey you didn't do ANYTHING about it!!!! ALL TALK!!!! You were just on these committees as a gate keeper to ask the questions
that would produce the pre-written responses. YOU ARE COMPROMISED! Everybody watching.... Trey Gowdy KNEW this was a hoax and
DID NOTHING!
They gaslighted the whole nation. Amazing achievement. In other words, they are a real criminal gang, a mafia. No questions about it.
This is Nixon impeachment level staff. This are people that brought us Lybia, Syria: this senile Creepy Joe.
Saagar Enjeti blasts former President Obama after it was revealed in transcripts he was the
person who told then-deputy attorney general Sally Yates about Mike Flynn's intercepted phone
call with the Russian ambassador, Joe Biden responds to Flynn claims on Good Morning
America.
"I know nothing about those moves to investigate Flynn." "These documents clearly outline that you were in a meeting at a specific
time specifically about that." "OH! I'm sorry! I thought you asked if I was INVOLVED IN IT!"
The word is "entrapment" - Years ago, one of the officers in the investigations squad said to me, "How can you claim to be
better than them, if you break the law to catch 'em?" - Now I understand what he was saying.
The corrupt and despicable charade against Flynn conducted by at least the FBI and the so
called courts of justice in the United States has destroyed any possible semblance of the
idea that there is equal justice under the law or the laughable notion that anything remotely
like a fair trial is available to anyone for any alleged offence at all.
The message contained in this prosecution and those of other Trump supporters is quite
clear: any person who attempts to assist a political candidate not approved by so called
liberals will be punished. Flynn is an example of what will happen to Trump backers in
future.
I am amazed at the staying power of SST member Robert Willmann in even reporting this
disgusting slow motion attempted lynching.
To put that another way, I now understand why suspects in the USA occasionally risk their
lives by running from Police - they reason it is unlikely they will ever receive a fair
trial.
The net effect of all these so called legal procedures is to destroy what little is left
of America's international legal reputation that reached its highest point at the Nuremberg
trials. That will not be to our advantage when, instead of shredding international treaties,
we one day seek to negotiate the same.
The FBI is the secret police working on behalf of the interests of the oligarchs. The
federal courts role is to implement and enforce the interests of the oligarchs. The Supreme
Court's role is to come up with legal mumbo jumbo to justify this tyranny of the
minority.
All the judges in this case (Sullivan, Wilkins, Rao) as merely proxy warriors, tools of
the oligarchs. It's not coincidental they are also 'people of color'. This has been the m.o.
of the oligarchs for over a hundred years. It was the Spingarn brothers (two lawyers from a
rich Jewish family) who started the NAACP with their front man, the mixed race W.E.B. Du
Bois. The first mission of the NAACP, and the task assigned to Du Bois, to destroy Booker T.
Washington who had a large following in the black community and was advocating for more
harmonious race relations. The oligarchs (Spingarns, et al.) running the NAACP needed to
silence Washington because they wanted to create more racial division to gain power and
subvert American culture. You can read more about this fascinating history in Catholic
historian E. Michael Jones' "The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit" (Fidelity, 2008), pp. 679-715;
745-793; 831-843.
Here's a good interview where Jones touches on a lot of this in an interview with Dr. Kirk
Meighoo (Indo Caribbean Diaspora News): https://youtu.be/gtdWbTkBQxk
James Baker, who was general counsel for the bureau during the period surrounding the 2016
election, was welcomed by the social media giant's top lawyer Monday evening.
"Thrilled to welcome @thejimbaker to @Twitter as Deputy General Counsel. Jim is committed to
our core principles of an open internet and freedom of expression, and brings experience
navigating complex, global issues with a principled approach," said Twitter general counsel
Sean Edgett.
"Thanks @edgett!! I'm very excited to join such a great team @Twitter doing such important
work. Glad to be on board," Baker tweeted back.
"The FBI agent who first interviewed Steele about his anti-Trump research in London on July
5, 2016 was aware immediately of a connection to Clinton..." Notes and emails that have been
kept so far from Senate investigators show the FBI knew from its earliest interactions with
Christopher Steele in July 2016 that his Russia research project on Donald Trump was connected
to Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party .
The information, so far mentioned only glancingly and in footnotes of a Justice Department
report, could provide the Senate Judiciary Committee with the most powerful evidence yet to
confront witnesses about why the bureau concealed the political origins of Steele's work from
the FISA court.
" So far the bureau is slow-walking this stuff, " a source familiar with senators'
frustrations told Just the News. "We need to see these sort of documents before we question key
witnesses."
Chairman Lindsay Graham (R-S.C.) is seeking a vote later this week to authorize subpoenas
that would compel the Christopher Wray-led FBI to produce witnesses and outstanding documents
for the committee's investigation of the Russia investigators.
The effort to acquire the original source materials began last December after DOJ Inspector
General Michael Horowitz released his explosive report blaming the FBI for 17 mistakes,
omissions and acts of misconduct in seeking a FISA warrant against Trump campaign adviser
Carter Page.
While the headlines since that report have mostly focused on FISA abuses, Senate
investigators have also zeroed in on a handful of little-noticed passages in Horowitz's
narrative that reference original FBI source documents showing what agents and supervisors knew
about Steele, the former MI6 agent, and the firm that hired him, Fusion GPS.
It wasn't until late October 2017 that the public and Congress first learned that the law
firm Perkins Coie, on behalf of the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's
campaign, hired Glenn Simpson's Fusion GPS research firm to have Steele delve into Trump's
Russia connections .
And FBI officials have been vague in their explanations about when they knew Steele's
research was tied to Clinton and the DNC and why they did not explicitly inform the FISA court
that the Steele dossier used to secure the warrant was funded by Trump's election opponent.
But one passage and two footnotes in Horowitz's report that have largely escaped public
attention suggest the FBI agent who first interviewed Steele about his anti-Trump research in
London on July 5, 2016 was aware immediately of a connection to Clinton and that a separate
office of the FBI passed along information from an informant by Aug. 2, 2016 that Simpson's
Fusion GPS was connected to the DNC.
For instance, the agent in London contacted an Assistant Special Agent in Charge (ASAC) in
the New York field office (NYFO) shortly after interviewing Steele and obtaining one of the
anti-Trump memos that made up his dossier, according to information in Horowitz's report.
The agent sought advice July 13, 2016 on how to handle the sensitive election-year
allegations from the supervisor in New York, where the FBI had already opened a probe of Page
that would eventually be assumed by Washington headquarters.
"ASAC 1's notes from his July 13 call with Handling Agent 1 closely track the contents of
Report 80, identify Simpson as a client of a law firm, and include the following: 'law firm
works for the Republican party or Hillary and will use [the information described in Report 80]
at some point,'" the Horowitz report stated. "ASAC 1 told us that he would not have made this
notation if Handling Agent 1 had not stated it to him."
Footnote 223 in the report reveals a second line of evidence that came to the FBI from a
confidential human source (CHS) suggesting the Steele-Simpson-Fusion project was tied to
Democrats. That warning was immediately sent to Agent Peter Strzok, the case agent for the
Crossfire Hurricane probe investigating whether Trump and Russia colluded to hijack the 2016
election.
"At approximately the same time that Handling Agent 1 was reporting information about
Simpson to ASAC 1, an FBI agent from another FBI field office sent an email to his supervisor
stating that he had been contacted by a former CHS who 'was contacted recently by a colleague
who runs an investigative firm. The firm had been hired by two entities (the Democratic
National Committee as well as another individual...not name[d]) to explore Donald J. Trump's
longstanding ties to Russian entities.'"
"On or about August 2, 2016, this information was shared by a CD supervisor with the Section
Chief of CD's Counterintelligence Analysis Section I (Intel Section Chief), who provided it
that day to members of the Crossfire Hurricane team (then Section Chief Peter Strzok, SSA 1,
and the Supervisory Intel Analyst,)" the footnote adds.
Senate investigators want to see the original emails and notes from these conversations as
they plan to interrogate dozens of key witnesses in the Russia investigation about whether
there was an intentional effort by he FBI to hide from the courts and Congress the flaws in
their case, exculpatory evidence involving the Trump targets, and derogatory information about
Steele's credibility.
In the end, Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence that any Americans, including
anyone associated with the Trump campaign, colluded with Russia to influence the election.
And evidence that has since emerged shows the FBI determined early on that Steele's dossier
included debunked, uncorroborated information and possible Russian disinformation aimed at
smearing Trump , but agents proceeded anyway with their investigation.
" I presumed it was the Clinton campaign, and Glenn Simpson had indicated that . But I was
not aware of the technicality of it being the DNC that was actually the client of Perkins
Coie," Steele testified in March under questioning from lawyers for Russian bankers suing over
his research.
Steele confirmed during that testimony that his notes of a 2016 FBI meeting showed he told
agents about the Clinton connection.
Congressional investigators have now pieced together at least five instances early in the
Russia case where the FBI was warned of the political origins and motives of Steele's work but
failed to fully inform the courts.
Instead, the FBI's FISA warrant application told the judge Steele was working for a person
interested in possibly defeating Trump but without disclosing it was the opposition research
firm specifically hired by Clinton and the DNC through their law firm to find dirt on Trump in
Russia.
Senate investigators are trying to determine whether that omission was part of a larger,
intentional campaign to mislead the FISA court and Congress in order to keep the Russia
investigation going despite a lack of evidence supporting the collusion theory.
" Look, we've got to get to the bottom of this, to find out how they ended up with this
dossier, how it was believed to be accurate, when did they know it was not accurate? "
explained Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) one of the key members of the Judiciary
Committee.
If one ventures into the vast wasteland of American television it is possible to miss the
truly ridiculous content that is promoted as news by the major networks. One particular feature
of media-speak in the United States is the tendency of the professional reporting punditry to
go seeking for someone to blame every time some development rattles the National Security plus
Wall Street bubble that we all unfortunately live in. The talking heads have to such an extent
sold the conclusion that China deliberately released a lethal virus to destroy western
democracies that no one objects when Beijing is elevated from being a commercial competitor and
political adversary to an enemy of the United States. One sometimes even sees that it is all a
communist plot. Likewise, the riots taking place all across the U.S. are being milked for what
it's worth by the predominantly liberal media, both to influence this year's election and to
demonstrate how much the news oligarchs really love black people.
As is often the case, there are a number of inconsistencies in the narrative. If one looks
at the numerous photos of the protests in many parts of the country, it is clear that most of
the demonstrators are white, not black, which might suggest that even if there are significant
pockets of racism in the United States there is also a strong condemnation of that fact by many
white people. And this in a country that elected a black man president not once, but twice, and
that black president had a cabinet that included a large number of African-Americans.
Also, to further obfuscate any understanding of what might be taking place, the media and
chattering class is obsessed with finding white supremacists as
instigators of at least some of the actual violence. It would be a convenient explanation
for the Social Justice Warriors that proliferate in the media, though it is supported currently
by little actual evidence that anyone is exploiting right-wing groups.
Simultaneously, some on the right, to include the president, are blaming legitimately dubbed
domestic
terrorist group Antifa , which is perhaps more plausible, though again evidence of
organized instigation appears to be on the thin side. Still another source of the mayhem
apparently consists of some folks getting all excited by the turmoil and breaking windows and
tossing Molotov cocktails, as did
two upper middle class attorneys in Brooklyn last week.
Nevertheless, the search goes on for a guilty party. Explaining the demonstrations and riots
as the result of the horrible killing of a black man by police which has revulsed both black
and white Americans would be too simple to satisfy the convoluted yearnings of the likes of
Wolf Blitzer and Rachel Maddow.
Which brings us to Russia. How convenient is it to fall back on Russia which, together with
the Chinese, is reputedly already reported to be working hard to subvert the November U.S.
election. And what better way to do just that than to call on one of the empty-heads of the
Barack Obama administration, whose foreign policy achievements included the destruction of a
prosperous Libya and the killing of four American diplomats in Benghazi, the initiation of
kinetic hostilities with Syria, the failure to achieve a reset with Russia and the
assassinations of American citizens overseas without any due process. But Obama sure did talk
nice and seem pleasant unlike the current occupant of the White House.
The predictable Wolf Blitzer had a recent interview with perhaps the emptiest head of all
the empowered women who virtually ran the Obama White House. Susan Rice was U.N. Ambassador and
later National Security Advisor under Barack Obama. Before that she was a Clinton appointee who
served as Undersecretary of State for African Affairs. She is reportedly currently being
considered as a possible running mate for Joe Biden as she has all the necessary qualifications
being a woman and black.
While Ambassador and National Security Advisor, Rice had the reputation of being
extremely abrasive . She ran into trouble when she failed to be convincing in support of
the Obama administration exculpatory narrative regarding what went wrong in Benghazi when the
four Americans, to include the U.S. Ambassador, were killed.
"We have peaceful protesters focused on the very real pain and disparities that we're all
wrestling with that have to be addressed, and then we have extremists who've come to try to
hijack those protests and turn them into something very different. And they're probably also,
I would bet based on my experience, I'm not reading the intelligence these days, but based on
my experience this is right out of the Russian playbook as well. I would not be surprised to
learn that they have fomented some of these extremists on both sides using social media. I
wouldn't be surprised to learn that they are funding it in some way, shape, or form."
It should be noted that Rice, a devout Democrat apparatchik, produced no evidence whatsoever
that the Russians were or have been involved in "fomenting" the reactions to the George Floyd
demonstrations and riots beyond the fact that Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden all
believe that Moscow is responsible for everything. Clinton in particular hopes that some day
someone will actually believe her when she claims that she lost to Trump in 2016 due to Russia.
Even Robert Mueller, he of the Russiagate Inquiry, could not come up with any real evidence
suggesting that the relatively low intensity meddling in the election by the Kremlin had any
real impact. Nor was there any suggestion that Moscow was actually colluding with the Trump
campaign, nor with its appointees, to include National Security Advisor designate Michael
Flynn.
Fortunately, no one took much notice of Rice based on her "experience," or her judgement
insofar as she possesses that quality. Glenn Greenwald
responded :
"This is fuxxing lunacy -- conspiratorial madness of the worst kind -- but it's delivered
by a Serious Obama Official and a Respected Mainstream Newscaster so it's all fine This is
Infowars-level junk. Should Twitter put a 'False' label on this? Or maybe a hammer and sickle
emoji?"
Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Maria Zakharova accurately described the
Rice performance as a "perfect example of barefaced propaganda." She wrote on her Facebook
page "Are you trying to play the Russia card again? You've been playing too long – come
back to reality" instead of using "dirty methods of information manipulation" despite "having
absolutely no facts to prove [the] allegations go out and face your people, look them in the
eye and try telling them that they are being controlled by the Russians through YouTube and
Facebook. And I will sit back and watch 'American exceptionalism' in action."
It should be assumed that the Republicans will be coming up with their own candidate for
"fomenting" the riots and demonstrations. It already includes Antifa, of course, but is likely
to somehow also involve the Chinese, who will undoubtedly be seen as destroying American
democracy through the double whammy of a plague and race riots. Speaking at the White House,
National Security Adviser Robert O'Brien
warned about foreign incitement , including not only the Chinese, but also Iran and even
Zimbabwe. And, oh yes, Russia.
One thing is for sure, no matter who is ultimately held accountable, no one in the Congress
or White House will be taking the blame for anything.
Retired federal judge John Gleeson was recently appointed by U.S. District Judge Emmet
Sullivan to argue against dismissal of the case against former National Security Adviser
Michael Flynn and to advise him on whether the court should substitute its own charge of charge
for Flynn for now claiming innocence.
I have been highly critical of Sullivan's orders and particularly the importation of third
parties to make arguments that neither party supports in a criminal case.
https://imasdk.googleapis.com/js/core/bridge3.390.0_en.html#goog_1769897594
NOW PLAYING
Flynn asks appeals court to toss criminal charges
Now Gleeson has filed a brief that confirms the worst fears that many of us had about his
appointment. Gleeson assails what he called "a trumped-up accusation of government misconduct."
The ultimate position advocated in Gleeson's arguments would be a nightmare for criminal
defendants, criminal defense counsel and civil libertarians. Indeed, as discussed below,
Gleeson was previously reversed as a judge for usurping the authority of prosecutors.
Gleeson actually makes the Red Queen in "Alice in Wonderland" look like an ACLU lawyer.
After all she just called for "Sentence First–Verdict Afterward" Gleeson is dispensing
with any need for verdict on perjury, just the sentence. However, since these arguments are
viewed as inimical to the Trump Administration,
many seem blind to the chilling implications .
In his
82-page filing Gleeson notably rejects the idea of a perjury charge, which I previously
criticized as a dangerous and ridiculous suggestion despite the support from many legal
analysts. He notes that such a move would be "irregular" and
"I respectfully suggest that the best response to Flynn's perjury is not to respond in
kind. Ordering a defendant to show cause why he should not be held in contempt based on a
perjurious effort to withdraw a guilty plea is not what judges typically do. To help restore
confidence in the integrity of the judicial process, the Court should return regularity to
that process."
This seems a carefully crafted way of saying that the many calls for a perjury charge are as
out of line with prior cases as what these same critics allege was done by the Justice
Department.
However, Gleeson is not striking an independent or principled position. Rather, he is
suggesting that the Court simply treat Flynn as a perjurer, punish him as a perjurer, but not
give him a trial as a perjurer. Thus, he is advocating that the court "should take Flynn's
perjury into account in sentencing him on the offense to which he has already admitted
guilty."
Thus, according to Gleeson, the Court should first sentence a defendant on a crime that the
prosecutors no longer believe occurred in a case that prosecutors believe (and many of us have
argued) was marred by their own misconduct. He would then punish the defendant further by
treating his support for dismissal and claims of coercion as perjury. That according to former
judge Gleeson is a return to "regularity." I have been a criminal defense attorney for decades
and I have never even heard of anything like that. It is not "regular." It is ridiculous.
Gleeson himself came in for criticism in the filing by Flynn's counsel who note that the
former judge appointed by Sullivan not only publicly advocated against Flynn's position but as
a judge was chastised by the Second Circuit for misusing his position to grandstand in a case
involving a deferred prosecution agreement. The defense cited HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 863 F.3d 125, 136 (2d
Cir. 2017) where the Second Circuit reversed Gleeson for exaggerating his role in a way
that "would be to turn the presumption of regularity on its head."
The similarities to the present case are notable, including arguments that Gleeson intruded
upon prosecutorial discretion. The Second Circuit held:
"By sua sponte invoking its supervisory power at the outset of this case to oversee the
government's entry into and implementation of the DPA, the district court impermissibly
encroached on the Executive's constitutional mandate to "take Care that the Laws be
faithfully executed." U.S. Const. art. II, § 3. In the absence of evidence to the
contrary, the Department of Justice is entitled to a presumption of regularity -- that is, a
presumption that it is lawfully discharging its duties. Though that presumption can of course
be rebutted in such a way that warrants judicial intervention, it cannot be preemptively
discarded based on the mere theoretical possibility of misconduct. Absent unusual
circumstances not present here, a district court's role vis-à-vis a DPA is limited to
arraigning the defendant, granting a speedy trial waiver if the DPA does not represent an
improper attempt to circumvent the speedy trial clock, and adjudicating motions or disputes
as they arise."
The Court acknowledged that there may be cases warranting great judicial involvement.
However, the court found that Gleeson had acted on his own presumptions and not evidence. It
also reaffirmed that there is a presumption in favor of the prosecution that he
ignored:
"The district court justified its concededly "novel" exercise of supervisory power in this
context by observing that "it is easy to imagine circumstances in which a deferred
prosecution agreement, or the implementation of such an agreement, so transgresses the bounds
of lawfulness or propriety as to warrant judicial intervention to protect the integrity of
the Court." HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 2013 WL 3306161, at *6. We agree that it is not difficult to
imagine such circumstances. But the problem with this reasoning is that it runs headlong into
the presumption of regularity that federal courts are obliged to ascribe to prosecutorial
conduct and decisionmaking. That presumption is rooted in the principles that undergird our
constitutional structure. In particular, "because the United States Attorneys are charged
with taking care that the laws are faithfully executed, there is a `presumption of regularity
support[ing] their prosecutorial decisions and, in the absence of clear evidence to the
contrary, courts presume that they have properly discharged their official duties.'" United
States v. Sanchez, 517
F.3d 651 , 671 (2d Cir. 2008) (alteration in original) (quoting United States v.
Armstrong, 517 U.S.
456 , 464, 116 S.Ct. 1480, 134 L.Ed.2d 687 (1996)). In resting its exercise of
supervisory authority on hypothesized scenarios of egregious misconduct, the district court
turned this presumption on its head. See HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 2013 WL 3306161, at *6
("[C]onsider a situation where the current monitor needs to be replaced. What if the
replacement's only qualification for the position is that he or she is an intimate
acquaintance of the prosecutor proposing the appointment?" (citation omitted)).
Rather than
presume "in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary" that the prosecutors administering
the DPA were "properly discharg[ing] their official duties," the district court invoked its
supervisory power -- and encroached on the Executive's prerogative -- based on the mere
theoretical possibility that the prosecutors might one day abdicate those duties. Sanchez,
517 F.3d at 671 (internal quotation mark omitted)."
Gleeson can now argue that he found the case that he did not establish as a judge. However,
his brief is filled with sweeping presumptions against the motivations and analysis of the
Justice Department, even though many outsiders agree with that analysis. The Flynn case is
based on statements that even the FBI agents reportedly did not believe were intentional lies.
Moreover, there is a clear basis to question the materiality element to the criminal charge.
People can disagree reasonably on both points, but that is the point. The Justice Department
has decided that it agrees that the case is flawed in line with the analysis of various
experts. The court might not agree with that interpretation and many other experts may
vehemently oppose it. However, it is a legitimate legal argument that cannot be substituted by
the Court for its own preferences.
None of this seems to penetrate the analysis of Gleeson who shows the same aggrandizement of
judicial authority that got him reversed as a judge. He argues for a court potentially sending
someone to jail when the prosecutors no longer believe he is guilty of a crime and believe that
he was the victim of bias and abuse.
Imagine what that would portend for future criminal defendants who want to argue coercion
and abuse. Their counsel would have to warn them that they could be sent to prison for a longer
period for perjury even if the prosecutors agree with them. Moreover, Gleeson believes that
they should not even be afforded a trial as perjurers, just treated as perjurers.
That is being claimed in the name of "regularity." Unfortunately, such analysis has become
all too regular in this age of rage.
@Alfa158 It won't
work though. There isn't a significant generation of 'hyper-competent' people amidst a
suppressed populace. Instead you get idiocracy, where even the elites show signs of mental
impairment, increasingly as time goes by. The Romans were rendered idiotic by arbitrary and
ruthless imperial autocracy, which scythed through families and ancient clans, leaving only
careerist slaves in its wake.
Eventually even the emperors were idiots. Some of them think they can compartmentalize
competencies, so you see these absolutely castrated and chemically autistic nerds working the
buttons in technical academia. You can produce bureaucrats of technocracy this way, but
nothing much new will come of it.
Elon Musk is not the most competent. He is the scion of a diamond magnate family if I'm
not mistaken. He is a silly man, nothing against him, but most of us don't admire him
all.
We feel sorry for people that have this kind of cultish infatuation with the man, his
golf-carts, and space-rockets. He is complete with our own Marie Antoinette, Grimes, each an
absolute clown, clown royals for a clown society. Idiocracy.
Hilarious to see Alex Jones pimping him as like a new Howard Hughes. Most of the alt press
is fizzled, co-opted or neutralized in some way. Infatuation with big, great people, heroes
from the heavens of the stars, is a pathology, whether it's directed at Trump or Bernie or
whoever.
People need to cultivate the hero within, and generate the ground level sovereignty that
could restore (from the earth and man up) a free republic. There are a lot of authority
figures from the deathstar on Youtube telling us how they are patriots and are fighting back.
May be. Could also be the enemy fucking with us. Really no way to know, which again, is a
motivating factor for de-centralization and vesting sovereignty into free men, free
communities, and up. The federal entity is necessary, but cannot hover self-sufficiently over
a devastated (by corporate dictat -- for human resource extraction) populace. If the states
withdraw their channeled sovereignty from the federal entity, it should collapse. Otherwise
it is a foreign entity. To the extent we are ruled by a tiny cabal of vampires, we lose
justification for the belief that our rulers are ours at all. Such an arrangement of power
presents an attractive target (minimal points of failure) for a strategic adversarial
compromise.
One reason I don't want people being anti-antifa, is I understand most of those people
just want local self-governance. Food-not-bombs people mostly just want to have a nice little
community garden and not be turned into slaves by the system. These are the 'anarchists'.
I've met them, mostly they are not so bad. It's a lot of divide-and-conquer going on.
Apologies for the stream-of-consciousness; I've posted some of this before, just pounding
on the nail.
Now "Horrible Lisa" re-surfaced in MSNBC. Not surprising one bit. This is a deep state retirement package...
Notable quotes:
"... Barack Obama wanted to 'know everything' the FBI was 'doing' according to newly released text messages between FBI lovers Peter Strzok and Lisa Page ..."
Barack Obama wanted to 'know everything' the FBI was 'doing' according to newly released text messages between FBI lovers
Peter Strzok and Lisa Page ; reaction and analysis on 'The Five.'
Slime, slime and more slime. Obama headed up the whole thing. Zero integrity there.
The leaders of the Democratic Party, Barrak
Obama, Hillary Clinton, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazile, Chuck Schummer, Nancy Pelosi, Adam Shiff and his sisters father-in-law
George Soros.
Here is what this all boils down to. Hillary Clinton email to Donna Brazile, Oct., 17, 2016. "If that f*cking ba*tard
wins, we're all going to hang from nooses! You better fix this sh*t!"
So another rabid neocon is hired by neocon MSM and instantly was interviewed by neocon Madcow, blaming Russia for the coup
d'état against Trump that Obama administration with her help launched. Nothing new, nothing interesting.
Notable quotes:
"... Page testified that even by May 2017, they did not find such evidence that "it still existed in the scope of possibility that there would be literally nothing" to connect Trump and Russia. ..."
"... There was little reason to believe in this "insurance policy" given the absence of evidence. Yet, Page still viewed the effort led by Strzok as an indemnity in case of election. ..."
"... The Inspector General found that, soon after the first surveillance was ordered, FBI agents began to cast doubts on the veracity of the Steele document ..."
"... it was quickly established that no credible evidence existed to support the continuance of the investigation -- which Page called their "insurance policy." ..."
"... Page also left out her other emails including calling Trump foul names while praising Hillary Clinton and other opponents. Even if she were not involved in the ongoing controversy, her emails show her to be fervently opposed to both Trump and the Republicans. ..."
Lisa Page, the former FBI lawyer who resigned in the midst of the Russian investigation
scandal, has been hired a NBC and MSNBC as a legal analyst. The move continues a trend started
by CNN in hiring Trump critics, including officials terminated for misconduct, to offer legal
analysis on the Trump Administration.
We have previously discussed the use by CNN of figures like Andrew McCabe to give legal
analysis despite his being referred for possible criminal charges by the Inspector General for
repeatedly lying to federal investigators. The media appears intent on fulfilling the narrative
of President Trump that it is overly biased and hostile in its analysis. Indeed, it now appears
a marketing plan that has subsumed the journalistic mission.
Page appeared with Rachel Maddow and began her work as the new legal analyst by discussing
her own controversial work at the FBI. Page is still part of investigation by various
committees and the investigation being conducted by U.S Attorney John Durham.
I have
denounced President Trump for his repeated and often vicious references to Page's affair with
fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok . There is no excuse for such personal abuse. I also
do not view her emails as proof of her involvement in a deep-state conspiracy as opposed to
clearly inappropriate and partisan communications for someone involved in the investigation.
Indeed, Page did not appear a particularly significant figure in the investigation or even the
FBI as a whole. She was primarily dragged into the controversy due to her relationship with
Strzok.
However, Trump has legitimate reason to object (as he has) to this hiring as do those who
expect analysis from experts without a personal stake in the ongoing investigations. It has
long been an ethical rule in American journalism not to pay for interviews. Either NBC is
paying for exclusive rights to Page in interviews like the one on Maddow's show or it is hiring
an expert with a personal stake in these controversies to give legal analysis. Neither is a
good option for a network that represented the gold standard in journalism with figures like
John Chancellor, Edwin Newman, and Roger Mudd.
It is not that Page disagrees with the Administration on legal matters or these cases. It is
the fact that she is personally involved in the ongoing stories and has shown intense and at
times unhinged bias against Trump in communications with Strzok and others. She is the news
story, or at least a significant part of it.
Andrew A. Weissmann has also been retained as a legal analyst by NBC and MSNBC. While
Weissmann has been raised by Republicans as a lightening rod for his perceived partisan bias as
a member of the Mueller team, he does not have the type of personal conflict or interest in
these investigations. Weissmann is likely to be raised in the hearing over the next weeks into
the Flynn case in terms of prosecutorial decisions. (It is worth noting that Fox hired Trey
Gowdy at an analyst even though he would be commenting on matters that came before his
committee in these investigations.) In terms of balance, however, the appearance of both Page
and Weissmann giving analysis on the Administration's response to the protests is a bit
jarring for some .
Page was an unknown attorney in the FBI before she was forced into the public eye due to her
emails with Strzok. Her emails fueled the controversy over bias in the FBI. They were
undeniably biased and strident including the now famous reference to the FBI investigation as
"insurance" in case Trump was elected. In the email in August 2016, here's what Strzok
wrote:
I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office [Andrew McCabe
is the FBI deputy director and married to a Democratic Virginia State Senate candidate] for
that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an
insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you're 40
What particularly concerns me is that Page has come up recently in new disclosures in the Flynn
case . In newly released document is an email from former FBI lawyer Lisa Page to former
FBI special agent Peter Strzok, who played the leadership role in targeting Flynn. In the
email, Page suggests that Flynn could be set up by making a passing reference to a federal law
that criminalizes lies to federal investigators. She suggested to Strzok that "it would be an
easy way to just casually slip that in." So this effort was not about protecting national
security or learning critical intelligence. As I have noted, the email reinforces other
evidence that it was about bagging Flynn for the case in the legal version of a canned trophy
hunt.
It appears that, on January 4, 2017, the FBI's Washington Field Office issued a "Closing
Communication" indicating that the bureau was terminating "CROSSFIRE RAZOR" -- the newly
disclosed codename for the investigation of Flynn. That is when Strzok intervened. The FBI had
investigated Flynn and various databases and determined that "no derogatory information was
identified in FBI holdings." Due to this conclusion, the Washington Field Office concluded that
Flynn "was no longer a viable candidate as part of the larger CROSSFIRE HURRICANE umbrella
case." On that same day, however, fired FBI Special Agent Peter Strzok instructed the FBI case
manager handling CROSSFIRE RAZOR to keep the investigation open, telling him "Hey don't close
RAZOR." The FBI official replied, "Okay." Strzok then confirmed again, "Still open right? And
you're the case agent? Going to send you [REDACTED] for the file." The FBI official confirmed:
"I have not closed it Still open." Strzok responded "Rgr. I couldn't raise [REDACTED] earlier.
Pls keep it open for now."
Strzok also texted Page:
"Razor still open. :@ but serendipitously good, I guess. You want those chips and Oreos?"
Page replied "Phew. But yeah that's amazing that he is still open. Good, I guess."
Strzok replied "Yeah, our utter incompetence actually helps us. 20% of the time, I'm
guessing :)"
Page will be the focus of much of the upcoming inquiries both in Congress and the Justice
Department as will CNN's legal analyst Andrew McCabe.
In her Maddow segment, Page attempts to defuse the "insurance policy" email as all part of
her commitment to protecting the nation, not her repeatedly stated hatred for Trump. In what is
now a signature for MSNBC, Maddow did not ask a single probative question but actually helped
her frame the response. Even in echo journalistic circles, the echo between the two was
deafening.
Page explained"
"It's an analogy. First of all, it's not my text, so I'm sort of interpreting what I
believed he meant back three years ago, but we're using an analogy. We're talking about
whether or not we should take certain investigative steps or not based on the likelihood that
he's going to be president or not."
You have to keep in mind if President Trump doesn't become president, the
national-security risk, if there is somebody in his campaign associated with Russia,
plummets. You're not so worried about what Russia's doing vis-à-vis a member of his
campaign if he's not president because you're not going to have access to classified
information, you're not going to have access to sources and methods in our national-security
apparatus. So, the 'insurance policy' was an analogy. It's like an insurance policy when
you're 40. You don't expect to die when you're 40, yet you still have an insurance
policy."
Maddow then decided to better frame the spin:
"So, don't just hope that he's not going to be elected and therefore not press forward
with the investigation hoping, but rather press forward with the investigation just in case
he does get in there."
Page simply responds " Exactly ."
Well, not exactly.
Page is leaving out that, as new documents show, there never was credible evidence of any
Russian collusion. Recently, the Congress unsealed testimony from a long line of Obama
officials who denied ever seeing such evidence,
including some who publicly suggested that they had .
Indeed, Page testified that even by
May 2017, they did not find such evidence that "it still existed in the scope of possibility
that there would be literally nothing" to connect Trump and Russia.
There was little reason to
believe in this "insurance policy" given the absence of evidence. Yet, Page still viewed the
effort led by Strzok as an indemnity in case of election.
The Inspector General found that, soon after the first surveillance was ordered, FBI agents
began to cast doubts on the veracity of the Steele document and suggested it might be
disinformation from Russian intelligence. The IG said that, due to the relatively low standard
required for a FISA application, he could not say that the original application was invalid but
that it was quickly established that no credible evidence existed to support the continuance of
the investigation -- which Page called their "insurance policy."
Page also left out her other emails
including calling Trump foul names while praising Hillary Clinton and other opponents. Even if
she were not involved in the ongoing controversy, her emails show her to be fervently opposed
to both Trump and the Republicans.
Bias however has become the coin of the realm for some networks. Why have echo journalism
when you can have an analyst simply repeat her position directly? For viewers who become irate
at the appearance of opposing views (
as vividly demonstrated in the recent apology of the New York Times for publishing a
conservative opinion column ), having a vehemently biased and personally invested analyst
is reassuring. It is not like Page will suddenly blurt out a defense of Flynn or Trump or
others in the Administration.
With Page, NBC has crossed the Rubicon and left its objectivity scattered on the far
bank.
we_the_people, 11 minutes ago (Edited)
Nothing says professional journalism like hiring a dirty whore who was an active
participant in a coup to overthrow a duly elected President!
The level of insanity is truly amazing!
Heroism, 14 minutes ago
The MSM gets more Orwellian by the day, and today is like tomorrow.
More proof that corruption and deceit pay, big time. Surely, at some point viewers and voters
will say, "Enough!" and hit these purveyors of lies where it hurts--in the ratings and pocketbooks. Meanwhile,
the people will just willingly suffer..............
Hollywood once gave us the Cold War thriller called "The Hunt for Red October ." And now the
U.S. Senate and its Republican committee chairmen in Washington have launched a different sort
of hunt made for the movies.
Armed with subpoenas, Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Ron Johnson, R-Wis., want to
interrogate a slew of Obama-era intelligence and law enforcement officials hoping to identify
who invented and sustained the bogus Russia collusion narrative that hampered Donald Trump's
early presidency.
And while Graham and Johnson aren't exactly Sean Connery and Alec Baldwin, they and their
GOP cohorts have a theory worthy of a Tom Clancy novel-turned-movie: The Russia collusion
investigation was really a plot by an outgoing administration to thwart the new president.
"What we had was a very quiet insurrection that took place," Sen. Marsha Blackburn, the
Tennessee Republican, told Just the News on Thursday as she described the theory of Senate
investigators. "And there were probably dozens of people at DOJ and FBI that knew what was
going on.
"But they hate Donald Trump so much that they were willing to work under the cloak of law
and try to use that to shield them so that they could take an action on their disgust," she
added. "They wanted to prohibit him from being president. And when he won, they wanted to
render him ineffective at doing his job."
For much of the last two years, the exact theory that congressional Republicans held about
the bungled, corrupt Russia probe -- where collusion between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin
was ultimately disproven and FBI misconduct was confirmed -- was always evolving.
But after explosive testimony this week from former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein,
who openly accused the FBI of keeping him in the dark about flaws, failures and exculpatory
evidence in the case, the GOP believes it may prove the Russia case was a conspiracy to use the
most powerful law enforcement and intelligence tools in America to harm Trump.
Two years of declassified memos are now in evidence that show:
The FBI was warned before it used Christopher Steele's dossier as evidence to target the
Trump campaign with a FISA warrant that the former British spy might be the target of Russian
disinformation, that he despised Trump and that he was being paid to help Hillary Clinton's
campaign. But agents proceeded anyway.
The bureau was told by the CIA that its primary target, Trump adviser Carter Page, wasn't
a Russian spy but rather a CIA asset. But it hid that evidence from the DOJ and courts, even
falsifying a document to keep the secret.
The FBI opened a case on Trump adviser George Papadopoulos on the suspicion he might
arrange Russian dirt on Hillary Clinton but quickly determined he didn't have the Russian
contacts to pull it off. But the case kept going.
The FBI intercepted conversations between its informants and Papadopoulos and Page
showing the two men made numerous statements of innocence, and kept that evidence from the
DOJ and the courts.
The FBI investigated Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn for five months and
concluded there was no derogatory evidence he committed a crime or posed an intelligence
threat and recommended closing the case. But higher-ups overruled the decision and proceeded
to interview Flynn.
The FBI and DOJ both knew by August 2017 there was no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion
but allowed another 18 months of investigation to persist without announcing the president
was innocent.
That is just a handful of the key evidentiary anchors of the storyline Republicans have
developed. Now they want to know who helped carry out each of these acts.
"There are millions of Americans pretty upset about this," Graham said this week. "There
are people on our side of the aisle who believe this investigation, Crossfire Hurricane, was
one of the most corrupt, biased criminal investigations in the history of the FBI. And we'd
like to see something done about it ."
Graham tried to take action to approve 50-plus subpoenas from the Senate Judiciary Committee
to witnesses on Thursday but was forced to delay a week.
Johnson, meanwhile, successfully secured about three dozen subpoenas to get documents and
interviews with key witnesses from his Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
Committee.
Evidence is growing, Johnson said, that there was not a "peaceful and cooperative"
transition between the Obama and Trump administrations in 2017.
"The conduct we know that occurred during the transition should concern everyone and
absolutely warrants further investigation," he said.
With Rosenstein's testimony now behind them, the senators have some lofty targets for
interviews or testimony going forward, including fired FBI Director James Comey, his deputy
Andrew McCabe, ex-CIA Director John Brennan, and the former chiefs of staff for President
Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden.
Blackburn said during an interview with the John Solomon Reports podcast that the goal of
the subpoenas and witnesses was simple: to identify and punish the cast of characters who
sustained a Russia collusion narrative that was never supported by the evidence.
"Somebody cooked up the plot," she explained.
"Somebody gave the go-ahead to order, to implement it. Somebody did the dirty work and
carried it out -- and probably a lot of somebodies. And what frustrates the American people
is that nobody has been held accountable.
"Nobody has been indicted. Nobody has been charged, and they're all getting major book deals
and are profiting by what is criminal activity, if you look at the statutes that are on the
book, and if you say we're going to abide by the rule of law and be a nation of laws."
For Blackburn, identifying and punishing those responsible is essential for two goals: to
deter anyone in the future from abusing the FBI and FISA process again and to ensure Americans
there isn't a two-tiered system of justice in America.
"I think when you Google [Russia collusion] in future years, you're going to see a
screenshot of this cast of characters that cooked this up, because it is the ultimate plot,"
Blackburn said.
MSNBC announced on Friday that it has hired former FBI lawyer Lisa Page as an NBC News and
MSNBC national security and legal analyst.
On Friday night, President Trump blasted MSNBC's latest hiring decision.
"You must be kidding??? This is a total disgrace!" Trump tweeted.
Page made her debut as an MSNBC analyst during "Deadline: White House" alongside former
Mueller probe prosecutor Andrew Weissmann, who appears to have been rehired by the network
after they severed ties after it was announced he was hosting a Biden fundraiser, which was
ultimately canceled.
Both Page and Weissmann offered legal analysis on the ongoing feud between President Trump
and Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser over the presence of outside troops.
Page is best known for her publicized text exchanges with her lover, ex-FBI agent Peter
Strzok, which revealed extreme animosity towards Trump during the 2016 election and created the
perception that their political views fueled the Russia investigation.
The texts that sounded the alarm for GOP lawmakers was Strzok's reference to an "insurance
policy" that was discussed at Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe's office. Page denied that
meant the FBI had plotted to remove Trump if he won the election.
Last December, Page broke her silence and made her television debut on MSNBC's "The Rachel
Maddow Show," where she was asked about the "insurance policy" text.
"It's an analogy," Page explained. "First of all, it's not my text, so I'm sort of
interpreting what I believed he meant back three years ago, but we're using an analogy. We're
talking about whether or not we should take certain investigative steps or not based on the
likelihood that he's going to be president or not."
She continued, "You have to keep in mind ... if President Trump doesn't become president,
the national-security risk, if there is somebody in his campaign associated with Russia,
plummets. You're not so worried about what Russia's doing vis-à-vis a member of his
campaign if he's not president because you're not going to have access to classified
information, you're not going to have access to sources and methods in our national-security
apparatus. So, the 'insurance policy' was an anology. It's like an insurance policy when you're
40. You don't expect to die when you're 40, yet you still have an insurance policy."
MSNBC host Rachel Maddow chimed in, "So, don't just hope that he's not going to be elected
and therefore not press forward with the investigation hoping, but rather press forward with
the investigation just in case he does get in there."
many thoughtful observers on the right -- including Ross Douthat ,
Rod Dreher , and
Dan McCarthy -- have pointed out that the current protesting and rioting is likely to help
Donald Trump and the Republicans. That is, the ongoing violence, fomented by leftist elements,
including Black Lives Matter and Antifa, could boomerang against Joe Biden and his
Democrats.
However, the planted assumption here is that the vandals and looters want Joe Biden to win.
And that's not so obvious. Indeed, maybe the truth is just the reverse.
To be sure, the protesters and looters all hate Donald Trump. And yet actions speak louder
than words, and their actions on the street suggest a kind of anti-matter affection for the Bad
Orange Man. That is, each act of violence obscures the memory of George Floyd, who died at the
knee of a Minneapolis policeman, and raises the prospect of a national backlash against both
peaceful protestors and violent looters, offering a ray of hope for Trump.
Indeed, Douthat quotes Princeton political scientist Omar Wasow, whose research shows that
back in the 1960s, peaceful civil rights protests helped the Democrats, while violent
protests (also known as riots) hurt the Democrats. In Wasow's words, "proximity to
black-led nonviolent protests increased white Democratic vote-share whereas proximity to
black-led violent protests caused substantively important declines." And that's how Republican
Richard Nixon defeated Democrat Hubert Humphrey in 1968.
We might add that Humphrey was a lot like Biden. Both were gabby senators turned vice
presidents, regarded as reliable liberals, not as hard-edged leftists.
So now we're starting to see where Biden, a pillar of the smug liberal establishment -- he
once
told a group of donors that if he's elected, "nothing would fundamentally change" -- veers
away from the far-left ideologues amidst the mobs.
Let's let Andy Ngo –who has
shed blood , literally, while chronicling bullyboy leftists -- define the ideology of
Antifa and Black Lives Matter: "At its core, BLM is a revolutionary Marxist ideology. Alicia
Garza, Opal Tometi and Patrisse Cullors, BLM's founders, are self-identified Marxists who make
no secret of their worship of communist terrorists and fugitives, like Assata Shakur. They want
the abolition of law enforcement and capitalism. They want regime change and the end of the
rule of law. Antifa has partnered with Black Lives Matter, for now, to help accelerate the
breakdown of society."
We can observe that by "regime change," these revolutionary leftists don't mean replacing
Trump with Biden -- they mean replacing capitalism and the Constitution. In the meantime, if
one looks at a Twitter feed identified by Ngo as an Antifa hub, It's Going Down , one sees plenty of anti-Trump rhetoric,
along with general hard leftism, but nothing in support of Biden.
However, here's something interesting: The Biden campaign shows no small degree of
support for the street radicals. As Reuters
reported on May 30,
"At least 13 Biden campaign staff members posted on Twitter on
Friday and Saturday that they made donations to the Minnesota Freedom Fund, which opposes the
practice of cash bail, or making people pay to avoid pre-trial imprisonment. The group uses
donations to pay bail fees in Minneapolis."
We might observe that these 13 employees posted their pro-rioter sympathies on Twitter; in
other words, not only did they make no effort to hide their donations, but they also actively
bragged about them.
It could be argued, of course, that these are just 13 vanguard employees out of a campaign
staff that numbers in the hundreds, maybe even thousands. And yet as the Reuters piece adds,
Team Biden is not practicing political distancing from its in-house radicals: "Biden campaign
spokesman Andrew Bates said in a statement to Reuters that the former vice president opposes
the institution of cash bail as a 'modern day debtors prison.'"
When pressed by Reuters -- which is not exactly Fox News in its editorial stance -- the
official spox for Middle Class Joe was unwilling to say more: "The campaign declined to answer
questions on whether the donations were coordinated within the campaign, underscoring the
politically thorny nature of the sometimes violent protests."
So we can see: The Biden campaign is trying to maintain its equipoise between liberals and
mobs, even as the former is bleeding into the latter. Indeed, a look at Biden's Twitter feed
shows the same port-side balancing act. On May 30, for instance, he tweeted , "If we are complacent,
if we are silent, we are complicit in perpetuating these cycles of violence. None of us can
turn away. We all have an obligation to speak out."
There's enough ambiguity here, as well as in his other tweets, to leave everyone parsing,
and guessing, as to what, exactly, Biden is saying -- except, as he
said on June 2, that he opposes the use of chokeholds to restrain violent suspects, and
also opposes more equipment for the police. The only other thing we know for sure is that he
hasn't tweeted an iota of specific sympathy for the people other than George Floyd who have
died in the recent violence. One such is
Patrick Underwood , an African American employee of the Federal Protective Service; he was
shot and killed in Oakland, Calif. on May 29.
Yet while the Biden campaign attempts to keep its relationship with Antifa and its ilk
fuzzy, other Democrats have made themselves clear. For instance, in 2018, then-Congressman
Keith Ellison tweeted
out a photograph of himself holding a copy of a book, Antifa: The Anti-Fascist Handbook,
which the radical-chic types at The New Yorkerdescribed as
"A how-to for would-be activists, and a record of advice from anti-Fascist organizers past and
present." Ellison is now the attorney general for the state of Minnesota.
And on May 31, Ellison's son, Jeremiah, a Minneapolis city councilman, tweeted , "I hereby
declare, officially, my support for ANTIFA."
Still, if the Democrats can't quite quit Antifa, most are smart enough to recognize the
danger of being too closely associated with hooligans and radicals. Moreover, they need some
theory of the case they wish to make, which is that they loudly support the protests, even as
they mumble about the violence.
And Democrats have found their favored argument -- the one that conveniently takes them off
the hook. Indeed, it's an argument they increasingly deploy to explain everything bad that
happens: The Russians did it.
Thus on May 31, former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice said on CNN of the
tumult, "In my experience, this is right out of the Russian playbook."
We might allow that it's possible, even probable, that the Russian government has been
taking delight in this spate of violence in America. And it's similarly probable that the
governments of China, Iran, and Venezuela, too, have been pleased, to say nothing of varying
portions of the public in every country. And so sure, more than a few tweets and Facebook posts
have probably resulted -- after all, stories ripping the U.S. were right there, for instance,
on the front
page of China's Global Times .
Still, it's ridiculous to think that hundreds of thousands -- maybe millions -- of Americans
are taking their cues from a foreign power; we've got plenty of home-grown radicalism and
anger.
Yet even so, the Democrats have persisted in their Russia-dunnit narrative, because
it serves their political, and perhaps psychological, need -- the need to externalize criminal
behavior. In other words, don't blame us for the killings and lootings -- blame Moscow.
Okay, so back to Antifa and Black Lives Matter. The left wing of the Democratic Party --
including elements within the Biden campaign -- might like them, but there's no evidence that
they like Democrats back.
Indeed, if the violence keeps up, it will become obvious that the leftist radicals are
not trying to help Biden. To put it another way, the rads would become the objective
allies (a political science term connoting an ironic congruence of interest) of Trump.
To be sure, right now, Trump is running five or six points behind Biden in the
RealClearPolitics
polling average . And yet, just as Dreher, Douthat, and McCarthy suggest, if the violence
continues and Trump goes firm while Biden stays mushy, that could change.
Indeed, as we think of genuine radicalism, we would do well to look beyond the parochial
confines of American politics, Democrat vs. Republican. Instead, we might ponder the epic
panorama of leftist history, which offers radicals so much more inspiration than historically
centrist America.
For instance, we might look to Russia. But not to the Russia of Vladimir Putin , but
rather, to the Russia of Vladimir Lenin .
In the early 20th century, Lenin's Bolsheviks, awaiting their revolutionary moment, operated
according to a simple slogan: "The worse the better." That is, the enemy of Bolshevism was
incremental reform, or progress of any kind; the reds wanted conditions to get so bad as to
"justify" a communist revolution. And that's what Lenin and his comrades got in October 1917,
when they seized power in the midst of the calamities of World War One.
Yes, of course, the communists made conditions worse, not better, for ordinary Russians. And
yet things weren't worse for Lenin and his Bolsheviks -- they were now in power. So today,
that's the sort of dream that inspires Antifa radicals.
To be sure, an America dominated by Antifa and Black Lives Matter is a distant prospect. But
radicals figure that four more years of Trump in the White House will move the nation to even
higher levels of chaos -- and thus move them closer to power.
With all that in prospect for radicals -- that is, the worse, the better -- the
prospect of Joe Biden losing this year is a small price to pay. Actually, for them, it's no
price at all.
In the meantime, for America, there is no better. Only worse.
The Senate Should Focus On What The Flynn Transcripts Do Not Contain... Starting With A
Crime by Tyler
Durden Tue, 06/02/2020 - 22:45 Authored by Jonathan Turley,
Yesterday, the attorney hired by Judge Emmet Sullivan responded on his behalf to
defend his controversial orders in the case to invite third parties to argue the merits of the
motion to dismiss as well as raising his option to substitute his own criminal charge of
perjury against Flynn. The Justice Department responded with a 45-page filing to a
three-judge appeals court panel.
The attention will now focus on the appearance tomorrow of former Deputy Attorney General
Rod Rosenstein in the Senate. For me, the most pertinent question is why this investigation
continued past December and seemed to become to a search for a crime rather than the
investigation of any crime or collusion with Russia.
"Remember Ambassador, you're not talking to a diplomat, you're talking to a soldier."
When President Trump
's incoming national security adviser, Michael Flynn , said those words to then-Russian
Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, he also spoke to American intelligence agents listening in on the
call. For three years, congressional Democrats have assured us Flynn's calls to Kislyak were so
disturbing that they set off alarms in the closing days of the Obama administration.
They were right. The newly released transcripts of Flynn's calls are deeply disturbing --
not for their evidence of criminality or collusion but for the total absence of such evidence.
The transcripts, declassified Friday, strongly support new investigations by both the Justice
Department and by Congress, starting with next week's Senate testimony by former Deputy
Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.
It turns out Flynn's calls are not just predictable but even commendable at points. When the
Obama administration hit the Russians with sanctions just before leaving office, the incoming
Trump administration sought to avoid a major conflict at the very start of its term. Flynn
asked the Russian to focus on "common enemies" in order to seek cooperation in the Middle East.
The calls covered a variety of issues, including the sanctions.
What was not discussed was any quid pro quo or anything untoward or unlawful. Flynn stated
what was already known to be Trump policy in seeking a new path with Russia. Flynn did not
offer to remove sanctions but, rather, encouraged the Russians to respond in a reciprocal,
commensurate manner if they felt they had to respond.
The calls, and Flynn's identity, were leaked by as many as nine officials as the Obama
administration left office -- a serious federal crime, given their classified status . The most
chilling aspect of the transcripts, however, is the lack of anything chilling in the calls
themselves. Flynn is direct with Kislyak in trying to tone down the rhetoric and avoid
retaliatory moves. He told Kislyak, "l am a very practical guy, and it's about solutions. It's
about very practical solutions that we're -- that we need to come up with here." Flynn said he
understood the Russians might wish to retaliate for the Obama sanctions but encouraged them not
to escalate the conflict just as the Trump administration took office.
Kislyak later spoke with Flynn again and confirmed that Moscow agreed to tone down the
conflict in the practical approach laid out by Flynn. The media has focused on Flynn's later
denial of discussing sanctions; the transcripts confirm he did indeed discuss sanctions.
However, the Justice Department has not sought to dismiss criminal charges against him because
he told the truth but because his statements did not meet a key element of materiality for the
crime and were the result of troubling actions by high-ranking officials.
The real question is why the FBI continued to investigate Flynn in the absence of any crime
or evidence of collusion. In December 2016, investigators had found no evidence of any crime by
Flynn. They wanted to shut down the investigation; they were overruled by superiors, including
FBI special agent Peter Strzok, Deputy Director Andrew McCabe and Director James Comey. Strzok
told the investigators to keep the case alive, and McCabe is described as "cutting off" another
high-ranking official who questioned the basis for continuing to investigate Flynn. All three
officials were later fired, and all three were later found by career officials to have engaged
in serious misconduct as part of the Russia investigation.
Recently disclosed information revealed that Comey and President Obama discussed using the
Logan Act as a pretense for a criminal charge. The Logan Act criminalizes private negotiations
with foreign governments; it is widely viewed as unconstitutional and has never been used
successfully against any U.S. citizen since the earliest days of the Republic. Its use against
the incoming national security adviser would have been absurd. Yet, that unconstitutional crime
was the only crime Comey could come up with, long before there was a false statement by Flynn
regarding his calls.
Not until February 2017 did Comey circumvent long-standing protocols and order an interview
with Flynn. Comey later bragged that he "probably wouldn't have gotten away with it" in other
administrations, but he sent "a couple guys over" to question Flynn, who was settling into his
new office as national security adviser. We learned recently that Strzok discussed trying to
get Flynn to give false or misleading information in that interview, to enable a criminal
charge, and that FBI lawyer Lisa Page suggested agents "just casually slip" in a reference to
the criminal provision for lying and then get Flynn to slip up on the details.
Flynn did slip up. While investigators said they were not convinced he intentionally lied,
he gave a false statement. Later, special counsel Robert Mueller charged Flynn with that false
statement, to pressure him into cooperating; Flynn fought the case into virtual bankruptcy but
agreed to plead guilty when Mueller threatened to prosecute his son, too.
The newly released transcripts reveal the lack of a foundation for that charge. Courts have
held that the materiality requirement for such a charge requires that misstatements be linked
to the particular "subject of the investigation." The Justice Department found that the false
statement in February 2017 was not material "to any viable counterintelligence investigation --
or any investigation, for that matter -- initiated by the FBI." In other words, by that time,
these FBI officials had no crime under investigation but were, instead, looking for a crime.
The question is: Why?
So the transcripts confirm there never was a scintilla of criminal conduct or evidence of
collusion against Flynn before or during these calls. Indeed, there was no viable criminal
investigation to speak of when Comey sent "a couple guys over" to entrap Flynn; they already
had the transcripts and the knowledge that Flynn had done nothing wrong. Nevertheless, facing
the release of these transcripts, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)
bizarrely maintained that "Flynn posed a severe counterintelligence risk" because he could be
blackmailed over his false statement.
Putting aside the lack of prior evidence of criminality, Schiff ignores that there were
transcripts to prevent such blackmail. Indeed, in the interview, Flynn indicated he assumed
there was a transcript, and leaked media reports indicated that various officials were familiar
with the content of the calls. The key to blackmail would have been for the Russians to have
information that others did not have.
Ironically, in his calls with Kislyak, Flynn expressly sought a more frank, honest
relationship with Russia. He told Kislyak "we have to stop talking past each other on -- so
that means that we have to understand exactly what it is that we want to try to achieve, okay?"
That is a question that should now be directed at the FBI, to understand what it was trying to
achieve by continuing an investigation long after it ran out of crimes to investigate.
So one of key players of Russiagate gaslighting and Flynn entrapment trying the same dirty trick again. Nice...
Notable quotes:
"... "We have peaceful protesters focused on the very real pain and disparities that we're all wrestling with that have to be addressed, and then we have extremists who've come to try to hijack those protests and turn them into something very different. And they're probably also, I would bet based on my experience, I'm not reading the intelligence these days, but based on my experience this is right out of the Russian playbook as well." ..."
"... "I would not be surprised to learn that they have fomented some of these extremists on both sides using social media. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they are funding it in some way, shape, or form." ..."
President Barack Obama's former national security adviser Susan Rice suggested without evidence that the Russians could be behind
the violent demonstrations that have taken place across the U.S. following the death of George Floyd.
Speaking to CNN's Wolf Blitzer Sunday, Rice said:
"We have peaceful protesters focused on the very real pain and disparities that we're all wrestling with that have to be
addressed, and then we have extremists who've come to try to hijack those protests and turn them into something very different.
And they're probably also, I would bet based on my experience, I'm not reading the intelligence these days, but based on my experience
this is right out of the Russian playbook as well."
"I would not be surprised to learn that they have fomented some of these extremists on both sides using social media. I
wouldn't be surprised to learn that they are funding it in some way, shape, or form."
Rice admits she's not reading the intelligence anymore, so what makes her think the Russians are behind this?
She doesn't offer much more in the way of evidence for her assertion, other than that the Russians are the Democrats' always-present
bogeyman, ever ready from behind
their poorly translated social media posts to unleash mayhem upon the U.S.
Ever since the election of President Donald Trump, Democrats have blamed Russians for the outcome of the 2016 election.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller found evidence that Russian-linked accounts spent
a small amount of money placing social media ads for the purpose of influencing the 2016 election, but there's nothing to suggest
their efforts were successful. The Department of Justice abruptly dropped its prosecution of a Russian-based troll farm, days before
trial. Mueller also did not find evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia during the 2016 election.
Although the claims of Russian "collusion" in the 2016 election were eventually found to be nearly totally baseless, Rice's new
narrative, that Russians support 2020's post-Floyd rioting, appears to be even more fact-threadbare.
Rice's claim drew criticism from across the political spectrum.
Eoin Higgens, a senior editor at Common Dreams, tweeted "you cannot make
this sh– up. F -- - deranged" while former U.S. attorney Andrew McCarthy
tweeted "there she goes again."
There's a reason Rice's claim was not taken seriously -- besides the lack of evidence for the Russian meddling narrative that has
dominated the nation's political life since 2016, there's also the sheer ineptitude of the actual Russian trolling and ads themselves.
Just look at this ad the Russians funded from the 2016 election cycle for a taste of how convincing those Russians and their social
media campaigns can be:
I haven't seen condemnation across the political spectrum. There are a few hard-left progressives like Aaron Mate, Matt Taibbi,
and Glenn Greenwald of course, but they have always hated the RussiaGate conspiracy. I won't be holding my breath for any of the
#Resistance puppets castigate Rice. They can't, because #RussiaGate is foundational to their existence.
Y'all are really confusing me! During the civil rights marches, conservatives warned people that the "agitators" were Russian
tools. Now, you say that's crazy talk!.
Rice asserts that civic agitation is ". . .right out of the Russian playbook. . ." Let's presume she's had a peek into the
Russia playbook. Her statement can be falsified by the good fact checkers at this website!
Speaking for myself, I wouldn't be more surprised than Rice to learn that Russia is still in the outside agitator business.
Just a suggestion, of course. Someone as patriotic as Rice really should check it out.
The saddest thing is that she's been too lazy to come up even with the most jury-rigged conspiracy theory as to why Russians
would need it, despite the fact that emotional reaction-oriented rhetorical turds to... sculpture such a theory (albeit a very
debunkable one) are floating on the surface. A most deplorable intellectual sloth. What to expect from neolibs/neocons, though?
They're always like that. Say some folderol - and then go hiding in the kind Grandpa Bolton's venerable moustɑche.
I don't know which idea is more laughable - Black Americans are so lacking in agency that they aren't even responsible for their
own protests, or, the Russians are so diabolical that they can turn anyone and everyone into the Manchurian Candidate.
More likely, Susan Rice can't admit that her woke ideology has limitations. She needs a scapegoat so badly that she'll babble
any nonsense to accuse one. Hard to believe she was once the National Security Adviser.
I read on a libertarian oriented forum that the current protests are actually being done by the Chinese. Apparently, the Soviets
(Russians) instigated the riots in the late 60s.
Where are all the stars you ask" afterwards they will come out with concerts on TV, speeches big speeches that they real do care
you hear me, PC BS they will look tragic this time, all the makeup in the world won;t hide their deception, arrogance, utter idiocy
in White Towers.
Transcripts of under oath statements before the House Intelligence committee revealed neither Susan Rice nor other Obama administration
officials had any evidence of Russian meddling in 2016. Of course all proceeded with spreading baseless inuendo for years before
and afterwards.
So if not under oath anything Susan Rice alleges is simply not worth listening to.
Seems like so many presidents have been led into terrible foreign policy decisions by their Blob advisors...Obama by Susan Rice,
Samantha Power, and Hillary; Dubya by Cheney and Rumsfield; Carter by Zbiggy, Ford and Nixon (both who should have known better)
by Kissinger.
Susan Rice is more ignorant and has far lower intelligence than I ever suspected or she is playing politics and lying. The Russians
have no motive. The Russians have no hand to play. The Chinese who have bribed a long list of democratic politicians have a very
significant motive and a major hand to play in fomenting riots and race animosity...as a means to influence the November election
away from Trump to Biden.
Looks like regular consultation between Russians and incoming administration to me. Also it was lame duck President who unilaterally
decided to up his ante against Russians (criminally gaslighting the US public), expelled Russian diplomats to make the gaslighting
more plausible, and seized Russian diplomatic property in violation of international norms. It was Obama who unleashed
FBI dogs like Strzok and McCabe on Trump.
Russia later retaliated in a very modest way without seizing any US property, they just cut the level of the USA diplomatic
personnel in Russia to the level of Russian personnel in the USA.
Notable quotes:
"... To summarize--a total of eight different calls between Kislyak and Flynn were recorded between December 22, 2016 and January 19, 2017. Five of the eight calls were initiated by Ambassador Kislyak -- Mike Flynn only called Kislyak three times and two of those were in response to calls from Kislyak, who requested a call back or left a message. ..."
More Evidence of the Fraud Against General Michael Flynn by Larry C Johnson
I never ceased to be amazed at the dishonesty and laziness of the media when it comes to
reporting anything about Michael Flynn and the astonishing miscarriage of justice in bringing
charges against him. The documents declassified and released by the DNI last Friday exonerate
General Flynn and expose the FBI and the Mueller team as gargantuan liars. Even though Friday's
release of the declassified summaries and transcripts was overshadowed quickly by rioting in
Minnesota (you know, if it bleeds and burns it is the lede), the documents reveal General Flynn
as the consummate professional keen on serving his country and the Russian Ambassador as
disgusted by the petulance and arrogance of the Obama administration.
The declassified material released by newly installed Director for National Intelligence
actually consists of two different sets of documents--First, there are five summaries of
conversations for 22, 23, 29 (two on the 29th) December 2016 and 5 January. Second, there are
the full transcripts of the conversations for December 23, December 29, December 31 in 2016 and
January 12 and January 19, 2017.
To summarize--a total of eight different calls between Kislyak and Flynn were recorded
between December 22, 2016 and January 19, 2017. Five of the eight calls were initiated by
Ambassador Kislyak -- Mike Flynn only called Kislyak three times and two of those were in
response to calls from Kislyak, who requested a call back or left a message.
Here are the specifics of those calls.
December 22, 2016--This call apparently was made by Michael Flynn to the Russians,
responding to a request from President-elect Trump to ask Russia not to support the Egyptian UN
Security Council resolution condemning Israel. (Note--Flynn make calls to most members of the
UN Security Council).
December 23, 2016--Ambassador Kislyak calls Michael Flynn to report on his conversation with
President Putin regarding the previous day's request. Michael Flynn emphasizes to Kislyak that
the mutual goal is/should be stability in the Middle East. Flynn tells Kislyak, "We will not
achieve stability in the Middle East without working with each other against this radical
Islamist crowd." Kislyak remarks, "responding to your telephone call, and our conversations we
will try to help to postpone the vote and to allow for consultations."
December 29, 2016--Kislyak calls Flynn and leaves a simple message, "need to talk."
December 29, 2016--Michael Flynn returns Kislyak's phone call. First, Kislyak wants to
discuss the Middle East policy. The Russians want to convey to the President-elect that the
Russians will not be supporting the American colleagues at the Security Council. Flynn says it
is good. Second, the Russians are very interested with working with the President-elect's team
to help the peace process in Syria. Thirdly, the Kremlin would like to . . . have a first
conversation on January 21 rst between the presidents. Putin's idea is to congratulate Trump
and discuss issues. . . . Flynn tells Kislyak: Do not allow this administration to box us in
right now! . . . . depending on what actions the Obama Administrations takes over this current
issue of the cyber stuff, . . . they're gonna dismiss some number of Russians out of the
country, I understand all that . . . I know you have to have some sort of action, but to only
make it reciprocal; don't go any further than you have to because I don't want us to get into
something that have to escalate to tit-for-tat. . . . I really do not want us to get into the
situation where we everybody goes back and forth and everybody had to be a tough guy here. We
don't need that right now. We need cool heads to prevail. And we need to be very steady about
what we are going to do because we have absolutely a common threat in the Middle East.
December 31, 2016--Russian Ambassador Kislyak calls General Flynn. Kislyak tells Flynn, "And
I just wanted to tell you that we found that these actions [were] targeted not only against
Russia, but also against the president elect. . . . and with all our rights to respond we have
decided not to act now because, its because people are dissatisfied with the lost . . .
elections and, and its very deplorable. . . . Flynn responds, "we are not going to agree on
everything, you know that, but, but I think that we have a lot of things in common. A lot. And
we have to figure out how, how to achieve those things, . . .and be smart about it and keep the
temperature down globally, as well as not just here in the United States and also over in
Russia.
January 5, 2017--Lt. General Mike FLYNN phones Ambassador Sergey KISLYAK to express his
condolences on the death of GRU Director Igor SERGUN, who died unexpectedly today from unknown
causes.
January 12, 2017--Mike Flynn returns Kislyak's phone call and discusses possible conference
on Syria in Astana.
January 19, 2017--Kislyak leaves voicemail for Flynn, inquiring about scheduling of a phone
call between Putin and Trump after the inauguration.
"Before General Flynn's voce message turns on, there is an open line, barely audible
chat.
Someone asks Chernyshev, "Which agency are we talking about?" Chernyshev asks as to
confirm if he understands the question and responds in the same time: "Which Agency
hackers
did the hacking? Believe me, Americans did hacked this all."
The full exchange between General Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak throws much light on the
subsequent Sunday morning mis-speaking by the Vice-President Pence.
From the first telephone call, Flynn tells Kislyak that President-elect Trump will only be
inaugurated 3-weeks hence. Therefore Trump in late-December cannot formally make foreign
policy decisions immediately.
In a later exchange about Russia's proposed Astana Peace Conference to de-escalate ISIS
activity In Syria, Flynn responds that Russia has Trump's backing to begin preparations with
the Syrians, Turks et al. On his part, Flynn will begin pencilling-in who would be on a
future US delegation.
It goes without saying that Vice President-elect Pence, during this period had a full-time
job marshaling the Transition and may not have been in the loop on these tentative Russian
peace initiatives. When asked on a Sunday morning talk show, Pence could correctly say
President Trump had no "official communications" with the Kremlin. But to later trash &
demand Flynn's dismissal for "lying to him" about the informal phone calls was
inappropriate.
Pence could easily have told Americans that President-elect Trump was establishing
informal relations, through multiple phone calls, with world leaders and he, Pence, was not
party to all of them. No one in the fledgling Trump Administration was lying to him.
Hi Larry.why not tackle this knot from the Russian end.Russia has been fighting in Syria
since jisr al shugour massacre in the groves.There naval base on the med was threatened and
Gazprom stood to lose control of energy resources flowing out of the me too Europe.That has
now been achieved.Not only that but Wagner group are in Libyan with Russian air support.From
that point of view what was Flynn's role in this
I wonder sometimes whether the new administration, from Trump downwards, realised just
what they were up against after that unexpected election victory.
Yes, I think that evidence thus far revealed suggests that the sedition was far along, and
this even before Trump's victory - an insurance policy, if you will, and way beyond any
opposition research, as much of the "information", if not at root fabricated, was otherwise
illegally gathered.
And immediate that election victory, things went into overdrive as the seditionists'
panicked, doubling and tripling down on their illegal actions to frame a projected
impeachment narrative as their next tactic. I hesitate to call it their next strategy, as it
was too knee jerk to be characterized in that fashion.
So, no, I think that the new Trump administration had little idea of just how this
transition of administration was, counter to most prior precedents, planned to be
undermined with the full intent to invalidate the election of President Trump, and if
possible, to overturn it .
This was sedition on multiple levels, crimes deliberately embarked upon to destroy the
Constitution and the Republic by any means that these traitors deemed efficacious.
I believe Trump knew he was being spied on as Adm. Rogers informed him and thereafter he
moved his transition organization away from Trump Tower.
In any case why did Trump throw Flynn under the bus? In hindsight that was a huge mistake.
Another huge mistake in hindsight was not cleaning house at the DOJ, FBI and the intel
agencies early. That allowed Rosenstein and Wray to get Mueller going and created the pretext
of the investigation to bury all the incriminating evidence. Trump never declassified
anything himself which he could have and broke open the plot. He then gave Barr all
classification authority who sat on it for a year. Look how fast Ric Grenell declassified
stuff. There was no "sources & methods" the usual false justification.
It is unconscionable how severely Flynn was screwed over. Why is Wray still there? How
many of the plotter cohort still remain?
Looks like regular consultation between Russians and incoming administration to me. Also it was lame duck President who unilaterally
decided to up his ante against Russians (criminally gaslighting the US public), expelled Russian diplomats to make the gaslighting
more plausible, and seized Russian diplomatic property in violation of international norms. It was Obama who unleashed
FBI dogs like Strzok and McCabe on Trump.
Russia later retaliated in a very modest way without seizing any US property, they just cut the level of the USA diplomatic
personnel in Russia to the level of Russian personnel in the USA.
More Evidence of the Fraud Against General Michael Flynn by Larry C Johnson
I never ceased to be amazed at the dishonesty and laziness of the media when it comes to
reporting anything about Michael Flynn and the astonishing miscarriage of justice in bringing
charges against him. The documents declassified and released by the DNI last Friday exonerate
General Flynn and expose the FBI and the Mueller team as gargantuan liars. Even though Friday's
release of the declassified summaries and transcripts was overshadowed quickly by rioting in
Minnesota (you know, if it bleeds and burns it is the lede), the documents reveal General Flynn
as the consummate professional keen on serving his country and the Russian Ambassador as
disgusted by the petulance and arrogance of the Obama administration.
The declassified material released by newly installed Director for National Intelligence
actually consists of two different sets of documents--First, there are five summaries of
conversations for 22, 23, 29 (two on the 29th) December 2016 and 5 January. Second, there are
the full transcripts of the conversations for December 23, December 29, December 31 in 2016 and
January 12 and January 19, 2017.
To summarize--a total of eight different calls between Kislyak and Flynn were recorded
between December 22, 2016 and January 19, 2017. Five of the eight calls were initiated by
Ambassador Kislyak -- Mike Flynn only called Kislyak three times and two of those were in
response to calls from Kislyak, who requested a call back or left a message.
Here are the specifics of those calls.
December 22, 2016--This call apparently was made by Michael Flynn to the Russians,
responding to a request from President-elect Trump to ask Russia not to support the Egyptian UN
Security Council resolution condemning Israel. (Note--Flynn make calls to most members of the
UN Security Council).
December 23, 2016--Ambassador Kislyak calls Michael Flynn to report on his conversation with
President Putin regarding the previous day's request. Michael Flynn emphasizes to Kislyak that
the mutual goal is/should be stability in the Middle East. Flynn tells Kislyak, "We will not
achieve stability in the Middle East without working with each other against this radical
Islamist crowd." Kislyak remarks, "responding to your telephone call, and our conversations we
will try to help to postpone the vote and to allow for consultations."
December 29, 2016--Kislyak calls Flynn and leaves a simple message, "need to talk."
December 29, 2016--Michael Flynn returns Kislyak's phone call. First, Kislyak wants to
discuss the Middle East policy. The Russians want to convey to the President-elect that the
Russians will not be supporting the American colleagues at the Security Council. Flynn says it
is good. Second, the Russians are very interested with working with the President-elect's team
to help the peace process in Syria. Thirdly, the Kremlin would like to . . . have a first
conversation on January 21 rst between the presidents. Putin's idea is to congratulate Trump
and discuss issues. . . . Flynn tells Kislyak: Do not allow this administration to box us in
right now! . . . . depending on what actions the Obama Administrations takes over this current
issue of the cyber stuff, . . . they're gonna dismiss some number of Russians out of the
country, I understand all that . . . I know you have to have some sort of action, but to only
make it reciprocal; don't go any further than you have to because I don't want us to get into
something that have to escalate to tit-for-tat. . . . I really do not want us to get into the
situation where we everybody goes back and forth and everybody had to be a tough guy here. We
don't need that right now. We need cool heads to prevail. And we need to be very steady about
what we are going to do because we have absolutely a common threat in the Middle East.
December 31, 2016--Russian Ambassador Kislyak calls General Flynn. Kislyak tells Flynn, "And
I just wanted to tell you that we found that these actions [were] targeted not only against
Russia, but also against the president elect. . . . and with all our rights to respond we have
decided not to act now because, its because people are dissatisfied with the lost . . .
elections and, and its very deplorable. . . . Flynn responds, "we are not going to agree on
everything, you know that, but, but I think that we have a lot of things in common. A lot. And
we have to figure out how, how to achieve those things, . . .and be smart about it and keep the
temperature down globally, as well as not just here in the United States and also over in
Russia.
January 5, 2017--Lt. General Mike FLYNN phones Ambassador Sergey KISLYAK to express his
condolences on the death of GRU Director Igor SERGUN, who died unexpectedly today from unknown
causes.
January 12, 2017--Mike Flynn returns Kislyak's phone call and discusses possible conference
on Syria in Astana.
January 19, 2017--Kislyak leaves voicemail for Flynn, inquiring about scheduling of a phone
call between Putin and Trump after the inauguration.
"Before General Flynn's voce message turns on, there is an open line, barely audible
chat.
Someone asks Chernyshev, "Which agency are we talking about?" Chernyshev asks as to
confirm if he understands the question and responds in the same time: "Which Agency
hackers
did the hacking? Believe me, Americans did hacked this all."
The full exchange between General Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak throws much light on the
subsequent Sunday morning mis-speaking by the Vice-President Pence.
From the first telephone call, Flynn tells Kislyak that President-elect Trump will only be
inaugurated 3-weeks hence. Therefore Trump in late-December cannot formally make foreign
policy decisions immediately.
In a later exchange about Russia's proposed Astana Peace Conference to de-escalate ISIS
activity In Syria, Flynn responds that Russia has Trump's backing to begin preparations with
the Syrians, Turks et al. On his part, Flynn will begin pencilling-in who would be on a
future US delegation.
It goes without saying that Vice President-elect Pence, during this period had a full-time
job marshaling the Transition and may not have been in the loop on these tentative Russian
peace initiatives. When asked on a Sunday morning talk show, Pence could correctly say
President Trump had no "official communications" with the Kremlin. But to later trash &
demand Flynn's dismissal for "lying to him" about the informal phone calls was
inappropriate.
Pence could easily have told Americans that President-elect Trump was establishing
informal relations, through multiple phone calls, with world leaders and he, Pence, was not
party to all of them. No one in the fledgling Trump Administration was lying to him.
Hi Larry.why not tackle this knot from the Russian end.Russia has been fighting in Syria
since jisr al shugour massacre in the groves.There naval base on the med was threatened and
Gazprom stood to lose control of energy resources flowing out of the me too Europe.That has
now been achieved.Not only that but Wagner group are in Libyan with Russian air support.From
that point of view what was Flynn's role in this
I wonder sometimes whether the new administration, from Trump downwards, realised just
what they were up against after that unexpected election victory.
Yes, I think that evidence thus far revealed suggests that the sedition was far along, and
this even before Trump's victory - an insurance policy, if you will, and way beyond any
opposition research, as much of the "information", if not at root fabricated, was otherwise
illegally gathered.
And immediate that election victory, things went into overdrive as the seditionists'
panicked, doubling and tripling down on their illegal actions to frame a projected
impeachment narrative as their next tactic. I hesitate to call it their next strategy, as it
was too knee jerk to be characterized in that fashion.
So, no, I think that the new Trump administration had little idea of just how this
transition of administration was, counter to most prior precedents, planned to be
undermined with the full intent to invalidate the election of President Trump, and if
possible, to overturn it .
This was sedition on multiple levels, crimes deliberately embarked upon to destroy the
Constitution and the Republic by any means that these traitors deemed efficacious.
I believe Trump knew he was being spied on as Adm. Rogers informed him and thereafter he
moved his transition organization away from Trump Tower.
In any case why did Trump throw Flynn under the bus? In hindsight that was a huge mistake.
Another huge mistake in hindsight was not cleaning house at the DOJ, FBI and the intel
agencies early. That allowed Rosenstein and Wray to get Mueller going and created the pretext
of the investigation to bury all the incriminating evidence. Trump never declassified
anything himself which he could have and broke open the plot. He then gave Barr all
classification authority who sat on it for a year. Look how fast Ric Grenell declassified
stuff. There was no "sources & methods" the usual false justification.
It is unconscionable how severely Flynn was screwed over. Why is Wray still there? How
many of the plotter cohort still remain?
I never ceased to be amazed at the dishonesty and laziness of
the media when it comes to reporting anything about Michael Flynn and the astonishing
miscarriage of justice in bringing charges against him. The documents declassified and released
by the DNI last Friday exonerate General Flynn and expose the FBI and the Mueller team as
gargantuan liars. Even though Friday's release of the declassified summaries and transcripts
was overshadowed quickly by rioting in Minnesota (you know, if it bleeds and burns it is the
lede), the documents reveal General Flynn as the consummate professional keen on serving his
country and the Russian Ambassador as disgusted by the petulance and arrogance of the Obama
administration.
The declassified
material released by newly installed Director for National Intelligence actually consists
of two different sets of documents--First, there are five summaries of conversations for 22,
23, 29 (two on the 29th) December 2016 and 5 January. Second, there are the full transcripts of
the conversations for December 23, December 29, December 31 in 2016 and January 12 and January
19, 2017.
To summarize--a total of eight different calls between Kislyak and Flynn were recorded
between December 22, 2016 and January 19, 2017. Five of the eight calls were initiated by
Ambassador Kislyak--Mike Flynn only called Kislyak three times and two of those were in
response to calls from Kislyak, who requested a call back or left a message.
Here are the specifics of those calls.
December 22, 2016--This call apparently was made by Michael Flynn to the Russians,
responding to a request from President-elect Trump to ask Russia to not support the Egyptian UN
Security Council resolution condemning Israel. (Note--Flynn made calls to most members of the
UN Security Council).
December 23, 2016--Ambassador Kislyak calls Michael Flynn to report on his conversation with
President Putin regarding the previous day's request. Michael Flynn emphasizes to Kislyak that
the mutual goal is/should be stability in the Middle East. Flynn tells Kislyak, "We will not
achieve stability in the Middle East without working with each other against this radical
Islamist crowd." Kislyak remarks, "responding to your telephone call, and our conversations we
will try to help to postpone the vote and to allow for consultations."
December 29, 2016--Kislyak calls Flynn and leaves a simple message, "need to talk."
December 29, 2016--Michael Flynn returns Kislyak's phone call.
First, Kislyak wants to discuss the Middle East policy. The Russians want to convey to the
President-elect that the Russians will not be supporting the American colleagues at the
Security Council. Flynn says it is good.
Second, the Russians are very interesting with working with the President-elect's team to
help the peace process in Syria.
Third, the Kremlin would like to . . . have a first conversation on January 21st between the
presidents. Putin's idea is to congratulate Trump and discuss issues. . . . Flynn tells
Kislyak: Do not allow this administration to box us in right now! . . . . depending on what
actions the Obama Administrations takes over this current issue of the cyber stuff, . . .
they're gonna dismiss some number of Russians out of the country, I understand all that . . . I
know you have to have some sort of action, but to only make it reciprocal; don't go any further
than you have to because I don't want us to get into something that have to escalate to
tit-for-tat. . . . I really do not want us to get into the situation where we everybody goes
back and forth and everybody had to be a tough guy here. We don't need that right now. We need
cool heads to prevail. And we need to be very steady about what we are going to do because we
have absolutely a common threat in the Middle East.
December 31, 2016--Russian Ambassador Kislyak calls General Flynn. Kislyak tells Flynn, "And
I just wanted to tell you that we found that these actions [were] targeted not only against
Russia, but also against the president elect. . . . and with all our rights to responds we have
decided not to act now because, its because the Obama people are dissatisfied that they lost
the elections and, and its very deplorable. . . . Flynn responded, "we are not going to agree
on everything, you know that, but I think that we have a lot of things in common. A lot. And we
have to figure out how to achieve those things, . . .and be smart about it and keep the
temperature down globally, as well as not just here in the United States and also over in
Russia.
January 5, 2017--Lt. General Mike FLYNN phones Ambassador Sergey KISLYAK to express his
condolences on the death of GRU Director Igor SERGUN, who died unexpectedly today from unknown
causes.
January 12, 2017--Mike Flynn returns Kislyak's phone call and discusses possible conference
on Syria in Astana, Kazakstan.
January 19, 2017--Kislyak leaves voicemail for Flynn, inquiring about scheduling of a phone
call between Putin and Trump after the inauguration.
Now, let us take a new look at the Mueller team's Statement of Offense . The Mueller team got
a key fact wrong. According to the Statement of Offense:
b. On or about December 28, 2016, the Russian Ambassador contacted FLYNN.
Nope. The date was 29 December 2016. Screwing up a date is not an end-of-the-world mistake,
but it is inexcusable nonetheless.
Let me remind you what Michael Flynn told FBI Agents Strzok and Pientka when they asked if
he "might have asked Kislyak not to escalate the situation, to keep the Russian response
reciprocal." Flynn said, according to the second draft of the FBI 302 recounting the
conversation, "NOT REALLY, I DON'T REMEMBER."
You can read for yourself Flynn's entire exchange with Kislyak. It covered a variety of
topics. It was not the only issue Flynn was dealing with as the incoming National Security
Advisor. He had lots of conversations, not only with Kislyak, but with other diplomats from
other countries. The fact that he did not precisely remember what he said to Kislyak should not
be surprising.
The real question is why did the FBI withhold the transcript of this conversation? They
could have said, "here is the transcript of your conversation with Ambassador Kislyak, is that
an accurate account?" But they did not. I defy any of you to recall with 100% accuracy a
conversation you had with someone almost a month earlier.
The most fascinating revelation from this transcripts is Ambassador Kislyak stating that
Russia was aware of the Obama Administration's efforts to portray normal diplomatic contacts
between Moscow and the Trump campaign as something nefarious and that Obama was targeting
Trump. Kislyak said:
"And I just wanted to tell you that we found that these actions [were] targeted not only
against Russia, but also against the president elect."
Kislyak and his bosses understood perfectly that the Obama team was attempting a silent coup
and were willing to risk conflict with Russia in order to sell that lie. This is beyond
outrageous on the part of Obama and his crew of white collared criminals. It is sedition. It is
treason.
No honest person can read these transcripts without acknowledging that Flynn spoke as a
diplomat intent on serving the interests of America. He was not engaged in treachery, as
alleged by the corrupt Judge Emmett Sullivan. In fact, Flynn held his tongue with regard to the
Obama crew. He could have trashed them and spoke ill of them. But he did not.
These transcripts show Flynn as a man of honor. A genuine professional. They also expose the
fraud perpetrated on the American public by an FBI and Special Prosecutor intent on smearing
Flynn as acting on behalf of the Russians. Michael Flynn did no such thing.
"Before General Flynn's voce message turns on, there is an open line, barely audible
chat.
Someone asks Chernyshev, "Which agency are we talking about?" Chernyshev asks as to
confirm if he understands the question and responds in the same time: "Which Agency
hackers
did the hacking? Believe me, Americans did hacked this all."
The full exchange between General Flynn and Ambassador Kislyak throws much light on the
subsequent Sunday morning mis-speaking by the Vice-President Pence.
From the first telephone call, Flynn tells Kislyak that President-elect Trump will only be
inaugurated 3-weeks hence. Therefore Trump in late-December cannot formally make foreign
policy decisions immediately.
In a later exchange about Russia's proposed Astana Peace Conference to de-escalate ISIS
activity In Syria, Flynn responds that Russia has Trump's backing to begin preparations with
the Syrians, Turks et al. On his part, Flynn will begin pencilling-in who would be on a
future US delegation.
It goes without saying that Vice President-elect Pence, during this period had a full-time
job marshaling the Transition and may not have been in the loop on these tentative Russian
peace initiatives. When asked on a Sunday morning talk show, Pence could correctly say
President Trump had no "official communications" with the Kremlin. But to later trash &
demand Flynn's dismissal for "lying to him" about the informal phone calls was
inappropriate.
Pence could easily have told Americans that President-elect Trump was establishing
informal relations, through multiple phone calls, with world leaders and he, Pence, was not
party to all of them. No one in the fledgling Trump Administration was lying to him.
Hi Larry.why not tackle this knot from the Russian end.Russia has been fighting in Syria
since jisr al shugour massacre in the groves.There naval base on the med was threatened and
Gazprom stood to lose control of energy resources flowing out of the me too Europe.That has
now been achieved.Not only that but Wagner group are in Libyan with Russian air support.From
that point of view what was Flynn's role in this
Another is the political assassination of Gen. Flynn. There was indeed a coordinated
conspiracy to find a scapegoat to prevent the shifting from a pro-China/anti-Russia policy to
a pro-Russia/China-as-actual-competitor policy under a DJT presidency.
If you think none of the above carry any weight and you could play a game of shuttlecock
with them not caring which is brought forth, then you might think along Jackrabbit's lines
that the DJT-phenomenon is complete bullshit.
I would argue that the line that DJT is some working-class hero is probably bullshit, but
when it comes to two warring factions of elites fighting over the direction of America, the
struggle right now is very real.
"... What is happening now is the exact same thing as Hong Kong. In any given instance of mass revolt, you have two warring factions, usually funded at the top by diametrically opposed elites. ..."
"... In Hong Kong, it is pro-western, old-guard/money versus Chinese new-guard. ..."
"... Look at the degree of organization (or lack thereof) which was able to politically assassinate Gen. Flynn! You had the dem establishment and billionaires like the Clintons, Obama-faction sycophants all the way up to the top. ..."
You are completely wrong, of course. What is happening now is the exact same thing as Hong Kong. In any given instance of mass revolt, you have two warring factions, usually funded at the top by diametrically opposed elites.
In Hong Kong, it is pro-western, old-guard/money versus Chinese new-guard. In America, we have the old-guard/money represented currently by the DJT-phenomenon, meaning Anti-globalist nationalists, and,
on the other side, you have new-money internationalists and neolibs represented by billionaires, big-tech, the democratic party
and garden-variety globalists.
Look at the degree of organization (or lack thereof) which was able to politically assassinate Gen. Flynn! You had the dem
establishment and billionaires like the Clintons, Obama-faction sycophants all the way up to the top.
You think that this event is entirely grassroots? Give me a f*cking break, vk. You are such a blatantly obvious Chinese shill, no doubt probably employed by globalist entities,
that the fact you are unable to employ an effective and probable analysis on these current "protests" reaffirm to me exactly what
you are and what you stand for.
You could also have the same oligarchs funding both sides in a divide and conquer strategy. This is a common strategy that
has been used in Turkey among others in the runup to the 1980 coup. It was also used by the US and Israel in their funding of
both sides in the Iran/Iraq war in the 80s.
In the former it was used to ramp up violence to justify a military coup. That is very probable here, except that martial law
might be the objective. Similar to the Iran/Iraq, the stoking of violence between liberals and conservatives may simply be to
wear them out for when the economy truly tanks to justify in the minds of the sheeple a greater oppression of demonstrations in
future.
US is becoming like Israel even more. Considering same people rule both countries, and same people train cops in both of them,
is it surprising 99%-ers in US are becoming treated like Palestinians?
Margot Cleveland ( @ProfMJCleveland ) "What Flynn didn't say is treason, but Obama saying
he'll have more flexibility after the election is diplomacy. "
Scenario: Obama wanted a hot Russians confrontation incident to land on the Resolute Desk
the same day Obama moved out and Trump moved in. But the Russians did not take Obama's bait
after expelling the Russians for" election interference"..
Why not - something is up - snoop on Flynn to find out - is Trump cutting a side deal with
Putin, and/or violating the Logan Act - gotcha either way, So Obama thinks. Which was never
his strong suit.
So Flynn is gone and who benefits? The Israelis got their capitol and the word 'occupied'
decoupled from territories, which they didn't need Flynn for, and the common enemy policy
against ISIS and Astana/Syria peace plan are both dead.
The Biden campaign has quietly canceled a fundraiser headlined by
Andrew Weissman - former special counsel Robert Mueller's 'attack dog' lawyer who
hand-picked the so-called '13 angry Democrats.'
Weissman, who attended Hillary Clinton's election night party in 2016, donated to Obama and
the DNC, yet somehow conducted an unbiased investigation that turned up snake-eyes, was set to
do a June 2 "fireside chat" with Biden , according to the
WSJ , which notes that the fundraiser was pulled right after it was posted late last week -
shortly after the Trump campaign began to latch onto it.
Yes, there's more value in keeping the lie going that the mueller special counsel hasn't
already been established beyond any doubt as a fraudulent and deeply unethical partisan
takedown scheme against Trump https://t.co/5wuFYpgggr https://t.co/mxaHomTaQO
Weissman - known as the "architect" of the case against former Trump campaign chairman Paul
Manafort - notably reached out to a
Ukrainian oligarch for dirt on Trump and his team days after FBI agent Peter Strzok texted
"There's no big there there" regarding the Trump investigation in exchange for 'resolving the
Firtash case' in Chicago, in which he was charged in 2014 with corruption and bribery linked to
a US aerospace deal.
According to investigative journalist John Solomon, Firtash turned down Weissman's offer
because he didn't have credible information or evidence against Trump , Manafort, or anyone
else.
US Attorney for West Texas John Bash has been asked by AG Bill Bar to review the Obama
administration's 'unmasking' practices from before and after the 2016 presidential election,
according
Fox News , citing the DOJ.
Meanwhile, DOJ spokeswoman Kerri Kupec told Fox News '
"Hannity" on Wednesday that US Attorney John Durham is also looking into the "unmasking," but
that Bash has been assigned to dig deeper .
"Unmasking inherently isn't wrong, but certainly, the frequency, the motivation and the
reasoning behind unmasking can be problematic, and when you're looking at unmasking as part of
a broader investigation-- like John Durham's investigation-- looking specifically at who was
unmasking whom, can add a lot to our understanding about motivation and big picture events,"
said Kupec.
Unmasking is a tool frequently used during the course of intelligence work and occurs
after U.S. citizens' conversations are incidentally picked up in conversations with foreign
officials who are being monitored by the intelligence community. The U.S. citizens'
identities are supposed to be protected if their participation is incidental and no
wrongdoing is suspected. However, officials can determine the U.S. citizens' names through a
process that is supposed to safeguard their rights . In the typical process, when officials
are requesting the unmasking of an American, they do not necessarily know the identity of the
person in advance.
Republicans became highly suspicious of the number of unmasking requests made by the Obama
administration concerning Flynn, and have questioned whether other Trump associates were
singled out. -
Fox News
In short, Bash - a trusted operator within the Trump administration - will dig even deeper
into the Obama administration's use of unmasking against its political opponents.
Looks like Strzok and Page played larger role in Obamagate/Russiagate then it was assumed
initially
Notable quotes:
"... Just 17 days before President Trump took office in January 2017, then-FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok texted bureau lawyer Lisa Page, his mistress, to express concern about sharing sensitive Russia probe evidence with the departing Obama White House. ..."
"... Strzok related Priestap's concerns about the potential the evidence would be politically weaponized if outgoing Director of National Intelligence James Clapper shared the intercept cuts with the White House and President Obama, a well-known Flynn critic. ..."
"... "He, like us, is concerned with over sharing," Strzok texted Page on Jan. 3, 2017, relating his conversation with Priestap. ..."
"... The investigators are trying to determine whether Obama's well-known disdain for Flynn, a career military intelligence officer, influenced the decision by the FBI leadership to reject its own agent's recommendation to shut down a probe of Flynn in January 2017 and instead pursue an interview where agents might catch him in a lie. ..."
"... "The evidence connecting President Obama to the Flynn operation is getting stronger," one investigator with direct knowledge told me. ..."
"... Former Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert Ray said Friday that the Flynn matter was at the very least a "political scandal of the highest order" and could involve criminal charges if evidence emerges that officials lied or withheld documents to cover up what happened. ..."
"... "I imagine there are people who are in the know who may well have knowingly withheld information from the court and from defense counsel in connection with the Michael Flynn prosecution," Ray told Fox News . ..."
"... April 2014: Flynn is forced out as the chief of DIA by Obama after clashing with the administration over the Syrian civil war, the rise of ISIS, and other policies. The Obama administration blames his management style for the departure. ..."
"... Jan. 3, 2017: Strzok and Page engage in the text messages about Obama's daily briefing and the concerns about giving the Flynn intercept cuts to the White House. ..."
"... Jan. 4, 2017: Lead agent in Flynn Crossfire Razor probe prepares closing memo recommending the case be shut down for lack of derogatory evidence. Strzok texts agent asking him to stop the closing memo because the "7th floor" leadership of the FBI is now involved. ..."
"... Jan. 5, 2017: Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates attends Russia briefing with Obama at the White House and is stunned to learn Obama already knows about the Flynn-Kislyak intercept . Then-FBI Director James Comey claims Clapper told the president, but Clapper has denied telling Obama. ..."
"... Investigators are trying to determine whether Obama asked for the Flynn intercept or it was offered to him and by whom. They also want to know how many times Comey and Obama talked about Flynn in December 2016 and January 2017. ..."
"... "We need to determine what motivated the FBI on Jan. 4, 2017 to overrule its own agent who believed Flynn was innocent and the probe should be closed," one investigator said. ..."
"... Obama weaponized everything he could, ..."
"... The idea that Obama was the center of anything is misdirection. The 'deep state,' as much as I loathe the term, is nothing but State clerks bent by their sense of self importance, venality in the adherence to 'rules,' and motivated by either their greed or their indignation that their status position is merely relative. ..."
"... The Flynn persecution is just the tip of the iceberg of corruption, illegal surveillance, perjury, money laundering, skimming and sedition. ..."
"... One can only imagine all the times Obama weaponized the intelligence agencies against his political opponents that will never be exposed ..."
"... John and Sarah Carter have knocked it out of the park since the Obama attempted coup started. ..."
"... In Watergate, the underlying crime was "Nixon spied on the Democrats". Everything else was just a question of who did what, and how much. ..."
"... How come there's never any mention of "London Collusion", as if UK interference in U.S. politics and society is quite alright -- even when it's highly detrimental? ..."
"... Brennan went over and met with MI-6 right about the time that Trump announced his candidacy. I think the whole Russia-Collusion thing was their idea and they put Brennan on to it. Set it all up for him, complete with a diagram so he wouldn't **** it up. That's what MI-6 does. ..."
"... MI-6, like Christopher Steele, hated Trump because they BADLY want World Government. Have been sabotaging Brexit for years. ..."
"... It's easier for me to imagine Obama as puppet than a ringleader. He always seemed to be a fake, manufactured sort of person. As if he was focus-group-tested and approved. ..."
Agents fretted sharing Flynn intel with departing Obama White House would become fodder for
'partisan axes to grind.'
Just 17 days before President Trump took office in January 2017, then-FBI
counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok texted bureau lawyer Lisa Page, his mistress, to express
concern about sharing sensitive Russia probe evidence with the departing Obama White House.
Strzok had just engaged in a conversation with his boss, then-FBI Assistant Director William
Priestap, about evidence from the investigation of incoming National Security Adviser Michael
Flynn, codenamed Crossfire Razor, or "CR" for short.
The evidence in question were so-called "tech cuts" from intercepted conversations between
Flynn and Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak, according to the texts and interviews with
officials familiar with the conversations.
Strzok related Priestap's concerns about the potential the evidence would be politically
weaponized if outgoing Director of National Intelligence James Clapper shared the intercept
cuts with the White House and President Obama, a well-known Flynn critic.
"He, like us, is concerned with over sharing," Strzok texted Page on Jan. 3, 2017,
relating his conversation with Priestap.
"Doesn't want Clapper giving CR cuts to WH. All political, just shows our hand and
potentially makes enemies."
Page seemed less concerned, knowing that the FBI was set in three days to release its
initial assessment of Russian interference in the U.S. election.
"Yeah, but keep in mind we were going to put that in the doc on Friday, with potentially
larger distribution than just the DNI," Page texted back.
Strzok responded, "The question is should we, particularly to the entirety of the lame
duck usic [U.S Intelligence Community] with partisan axes to grind."
That same day Strzok and Page also discussed in text messages a drama involving one of the
Presidential Daily Briefings for Obama.
"Did you follow the drama of the PDB last week?" Strzok asked.
"Yup. Don't know how it ended though," Page responded.
"They didn't include any of it, and Bill [Priestap] didn't want to dissent," Strzok
added.
"Wow, Bill should make sure [Deputy Director] Andy [McCabe] knows about that since he was
consulted numerous times about whether to include the reporting," Page suggested.
You can see the text messages recovered from Strzok's phone here.
The text messages, which were never released to the public by the FBI but were provided to
this reporter in September 2018, have taken on much more significance to both federal and
congressional investigators in recent weeks as the Justice Department has requested that
Flynn's conviction be thrown out and his charges of lying to the FBI about Kislyak
dismissed.
U.S. Attorney Jeff Jensen of Missouri (special prosecutor for DOJ), the FBI inspection
division, three Senate committees and House Republicans are all investigating the handling of
Flynn's case and whether any crimes were committed or political influence exerted.
The investigators are trying to determine whether Obama's well-known disdain for Flynn, a
career military intelligence officer, influenced the decision by the FBI leadership to reject
its own agent's recommendation to shut down a probe of Flynn in January 2017 and instead pursue
an interview where agents might catch him in a lie.
They also want to know whether the conversation about the PDB involved Flynn and "reporting"
the FBI had gathered by early January 2017 showing the incoming national security adviser was
neither a counterintelligence nor a criminal threat.
"The evidence connecting President Obama to the Flynn operation is getting stronger," one
investigator with direct knowledge told me.
"The bureau knew it did not have evidence to justify that Flynn was either a criminal or
counterintelligence threat and should have shut the case down. But the perception that Obama
and his team would not be happy with that outcome may have driven the FBI to keep the probe
open without justification and to pivot to an interview that left some agents worried
involved entrapment or a perjury trap."
The investigator said more interviews will need to be done to determine exactly what role
Obama's perception of Flynn played in the FBI's decision making.
Recently declassified evidence show a total of 39 outgoing Obama administration officials
sought to unmask Flynn's name in intelligence interviews between Election Day 2016 and
Inauguration Day 2017, signaling a keen interest in Flynn's overseas calls.
Former Whitewater Independent Counsel Robert Ray said Friday that the Flynn matter was at
the very least a "political scandal of the highest order" and could involve criminal charges if
evidence emerges that officials lied or withheld documents to cover up what happened.
"I imagine there are people who are in the know who may well have knowingly withheld
information from the court and from defense counsel in connection with the Michael Flynn
prosecution,"
Ray told Fox News .
"If it turns out that that can be proved, then there are going to be referrals and
potential false statements, and/or perjury prosecutions to hold those, particularly those in
positions of authority, accountable," he added.
Investigators have created the following timeline of key events through documents produced
piecemeal by the FBI over two years:
April 2014: Flynn is forced out as the chief of DIA by Obama after clashing with the
administration over the Syrian civil war, the rise of ISIS, and other policies. The Obama
administration blames his management style for the departure.
July 31, 2016:
FBI opens Crossfire Hurricane probe into possible ties between Trump campaign and Russia,
focused on Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos. Flynn is not an initial target of that
probe.
Aug. 15, 2016: Strzok and Page engage in their infamous text exchange about having an
insurance policy just in case Trump should be elected. "I want to believe the path you threw
out for consideration in Andy's office -- that there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm
afraid we can't take that risk. It's like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die
before you're 40," one text reads.
Aug. 16, 2016: FBI opens a sub-case under the Crossfire Hurricane umbrella codenamed
Crossfire Razor focused on whether Flynn was wittingly or unwittingly engaged in
inappropriate Russian contact.
Aug. 17, 2016: FBI and DNI provide Trump and Flynn first briefing after winning the
nomination, including on Russia. FBI slips in an agent posing as an assistant for the
briefing to secretly get a read on Flynn for the new investigation, according to the
Justice
Department inspector general report on Russia case. "SSA 1 told us that the briefing
provided him 'the opportunity to gain assessment and possibly some level of familiarity with
[Flynn]. So, should we get to the point where we need to do a subject interview ... would
have that to fall back on,'" the IG report said.
Sept, 2, 2016: While preparing a talking points memo for Obama ahead of a conversation
with Russian leader Vladimir Putin involving Russian election interference, Page texts
Strzok that Obama wants to be read-in on everything the FBI is doing on the Russia
collusion case. "POTUS wants to know everything we're doing," Page texted.
Nov. 10, 2016: Two days after Trump won the election, the president-elect meets with
Obama at the White House and the outgoing president encourages the
incoming president not to hire Flynn as an adviser.
Jan. 3, 2017: Strzok and Page engage in the text messages about Obama's daily briefing
and the concerns about giving the Flynn intercept cuts to the White House.
Jan. 4, 2017:
Lead agent in Flynn Crossfire Razor probe prepares closing memo recommending the case be
shut down for lack of derogatory evidence. Strzok texts agent asking him to stop the closing
memo because the "7th floor" leadership of the FBI is now involved.
Jan. 5–23, 2017: FBI prepares to conduct an interview of Flynn. The discussions
lead Priestap, the assistant director, to openly question in his
handwritten notes whether the bureau was "playing games" and trying to get Flynn to lie
so "we can prosecute him or get him fired."
Jan. 24, 2017: FBI conducts interview with Flynn.
Investigators are trying to determine whether Obama asked for the Flynn intercept or it was
offered to him and by whom. They also want to know how many times Comey and Obama talked about
Flynn in December 2016 and January 2017.
"We need to determine what motivated the FBI on Jan. 4, 2017 to overrule its own agent who
believed Flynn was innocent and the probe should be closed," one investigator said.
arrowrod , 26 minutes ago
Grenell comes in for a month, releases a **** load of "secret poop", then is replaced.
President Trump should fire the head of the FBI and replace with Grenell. I know, too
easy.
"Expletive deleted", (I'm looking for new cuss words) the FBI and DOJ appear to be a bunch
of stumble bum hacks, yet continue to get away with murder.
Schiff, lied and lied, but had immunity, because anything said on the house floor is safe
from prosecution. Yet, GOP congress critters didn't go on the house floor and read the
transcript from the testimony of the various liars.
"Rebellion to tyranny is obedience to God."-ThomasJefferson , 3 hours ago
Obama weaponized everything he could, including race, gender, religion, truth, law
enforcement, judiciary, news industry, intelligence community, international allies and
foes.
The most corrupt administration in the history of the republic. The abuse of power is mind
numbing.
Only one way to rectify the damage the Obama administration has done to the USA is to
systematically undo every single thing they touched.
Decimus Lunius Luvenalis , 3 hours ago
The idea that Obama was the center of anything is misdirection. The 'deep state,' as much
as I loathe the term, is nothing but State clerks bent by their sense of self importance,
venality in the adherence to 'rules,' and motivated by either their greed or their
indignation that their status position is merely relative.
Soloamber , 3 hours ago
The motive was to get Flynn fired and lay the ground work to impeach Trump . The problem is Flynn actually did nothing wrong but he was targeted , framed , and
blackmailed into claiming he lied over nothing illegal .
They destroyed his reputation , they financially ruined him and once they did that the sleazy prosecutors ran like rabbits . The judge is so in the bag , he bullied Flynn with implied threats about treason . The Judge is going to get absolutely fragged . Delay delay delay but the jig is up .
DOJ says case dropped and the Judge wants to play prosecutor . The Judge should be investigated along with the other criminals who framed Flynn . Who is the judge tied to ? Gee I wonder .
Nature_Boy_Wooooo , 4 hours ago
"As long as I'm alive the Republican party won't let anything happen to you."
"Thanks John McCain!......now let's set the trap."
"Let's do it Barry."
THORAX , 4 hours ago
The Flynn persecution is just the tip of the iceberg of corruption, illegal surveillance,
perjury, money laundering, skimming and sedition.
subgen , 4 hours ago
One can only imagine all the times Obama weaponized the intelligence agencies against his
political opponents that will never be exposed
sborovay07 , 5 hours ago
John and Sarah Carter have knocked it out of the park since the Obama attempted coup
started. CNN should give their fake Pulitzers too the two reporters who told the truth. It
been like the tree that falls in the forest. However, once the arrests start more people will
see the tree that fell. These treasonists
need to pay for their crimes Bigly.
Omni Consumer Product , 4 hours ago
There's too much spookology here for a jury - much less the public - to decipher.
You need a smoking gun, like a tape of Obama saying "I want General Flynn assassinated
because Orange Man Bad".
In Watergate, the underlying crime was "Nixon spied on the Democrats". Everything else was
just a question of who did what, and how much.
That's what is need here to swell the mass of public opinion. Of course, leftwing true
believers of "the Resistance" will never accept it, but that is what is needed to convince
the significant minority of more centrist Americans who haven't made a final decision
yet.
Lux , 5 hours ago
How come there's never any mention of "London Collusion", as if UK interference in U.S.
politics and society is quite alright -- even when it's highly detrimental?
fackbankz , 5 hours ago
The Crown took us over in 1913. We're just the muscle.
Lord Raglan , 5 hours ago
Brennan went over and met with MI-6 right about the time that Trump announced his
candidacy. I think the whole Russia-Collusion thing was their idea and they put Brennan on to
it. Set it all up for him, complete with a diagram so he wouldn't **** it up. That's what
MI-6 does.
MI-6, like Christopher Steele, hated Trump because they BADLY want World Government. Have
been sabotaging Brexit for years.
Brennan's just not smart or creative enough to have figured out the Hoax on his own. He's
certainly corrupt enough.
flashmansbroker , 4 hours ago
More likely, the Brits were asked to do a favor.
Steele Hammorhands , 5 hours ago
It's easier for me to imagine Obama as puppet than a ringleader. He always seemed to be a
fake, manufactured sort of person. As if he was focus-group-tested and approved.
Side Note: Does anyone remember when Obama referred to himself as "the first US president
from Kenya" and then laughed about it?
I'm afraid it won't matter how thorough the alternative media debunking of Russiagate
becomes – as long as mainstream media sticks to the story, the neoliberal majority will
too, because it is like catnip to them, absolving responsibility for the defeat, casting
Clinton as the victim of an evil foreign despot, and delegitimizing Trump. Truth is tossed to
the wind by this freight train of powerful interests.
I have little hope Barr and Durham will indict anyone high level.
Ray twice mentioned something about Sanders getting hosed again in the 2020 primary. I
thought it seemed weird how suddenly the primary was declared "over." If there is evidence of
DNC shenanigans in 2020, that would be a very interesting and timely topic.
On June 12, Assange announces Wikileaks will soon be releasing "emails pertinent to
Hillary". On June 14th, Crowdstrike announces: someone, probably the Russians, has hacked the
DNC and taken a Trump opposition research document; the very next day, G2.0 makes his first
public appearance and posts the DNC's Trump oppo research document, with "Russian
fingerprints" intentionally implanted in its metadata. (We now know that he had actually
acquired this from PODESTA's emails, where it appears as an attachment – oops!)
Moreover, G2.0 announces that he was the source of the "emails pertinent to Hillary" –
DNC emails – that Assange was planning to release.
This strongly suggests that the G2.0 persona was working in collusion with Crowdstrike to
perpetrate the hoax that the GRU had hacked the DNC to provide their emails to Wikileaks.
Consistent with this, multiple cyberanalyses point to G2.0 working at various points In the
Eastern, Central, and Western US time zones. (A mere coincidence that the DNC is in the
eastern zone, and that Crowdstrike has offices in the central and western zones?)
If Crowdstrike honestly believed that the DNC had been hacked by the GRU, would there have
been any need for them to perpetrate this fraud?
It is therefore reasonable to suspect, as Ray McGovern has long postulated, that
Crowdstrike may have FAKED a GRU hack, to slander Russia and Assange, while distracting
attention from the content of the released emails.
As far as we know, the only "evidence" that Crowdstrike has for GRU being the perpetrator
of the alleged hack is the presence of "Fancy Bear" malware on the DNC server. But as
cyberanalysts Jeffrey Carr and George Eliason have pointed out, this software is also
possessed by Ukrainian hackers working in concert with Russian traitors and the Atlantic
Council – with which the founders of Crowdstrike are allied.
Here's a key question: When Assange announced the impending release of "emails pertinent
to Hillary" on June 12, how did Crowdstrike and G2.0 immediately know he was referring to DNC
emails? Many people – I, for example – suspected he was referring to her deleted
Secretary of State emails.
Here's a reasonable hypothesis – Our intelligence agencies were monitoring all
communications with Wikileaks. If so, they could have picked up the communications between SR
and Wikileaks that Sy Hersh's FBI source described. They then alerted the DNC that their
emails were about to leaked to Wikileaks. The DNC then contacted Crowdstrike, which arranged
for a "Fancy Bear hack" of the DNC servers. Notably, cyberanalysts have determined that about
2/3 of the Fancy Bear malware found on the DNC servers had been compiled AFTER the date that
Crowdstrike was brought in to "roust the hackers".
Of course, this elaborate hoax would have come to grief if the actual leaker had come
forward. Which might have had something to do with the subsequent "botched robbery" in which
SR was slain.
DNC staffer Seth Rich was murdered on July 10, 2016, amid contoversy over who provided DNC
emails to Wikileaks and over a pending lawsuit concerning voter suppression during the 2016
primaries. Wikileaks offered a $20,000 reward for information about his murder, leading some
to believe he was their source for the DNC emails. He was reported to have been a potential
witness in the voter suppression lawsuit filed the day after his death.
Obama ears protrude above this whole revaval of McCarthysim. he should end like the senator
McCarthy -- disgraced. And the damage caused by RussiaGate was already done and is
irrevocable.
CrowdStrike – the forensic investigation firm hired by the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) to inspect its computer servers in 2016 – admitted to Congressional
investigators as early as 2017 that it had no direct evidence of Russian hacking, recently
declassified documents show.
CrowdStrike's president Shawn Henry testified, "There's not evidence that [documents and
emails] were actually exfiltrated [from the DNC servers]. There's circumstantial evidence but
no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated." This was a crucial revelation because the
thousand ships of Russiagate launched upon the positive assertion that CrowdStrike had
definitely proven a Russian hack. This sworn admission has been hidden from the public for over
two years, and subsequent commentary has focused on that singular outrage.
The next deductive step, though, leads to an equally crucial point: Circumstantial evidence
of Russian hacking is itself flimsy and collapses when not propped up by a claim of conclusive
forensic testing.
THE COVER UP.
On March 19, 2016, Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman, John Podesta, surrendered his emails
to an unknown entity in a "spear phishing" scam. This has been called a "hack," but it was not.
Instead, it is was the sort of flim-flam hustle that happens to gullible dupes on the
internet.
The content of the emails was beyond embarrassing. They
showed election fraud and coordination with the media against the candidacy of Bernie
Sanders. The DNC and the Clinton campaign needed a cover story.
There already existed in Washington brooding suspicion that Vladimir Putin was working to
influence elections in the West. The DNC and the Clinton campaign set out to retrofit that
supposition to explain the emails.
On January 16, 2016, a silk-stocking Washington D.C. think tank, The Atlantic Council
(remember that name), had issued a
dispatch under the banner headline: "US Intelligence Agencies to Investigate Russia's
Infiltration of European Political Parties."
The lede was concise: "American intelligence agencies are to conduct a major investigation
into how the Kremlin is infiltrating political parties in Europe, it can be revealed."
There followed a series of pull quotes from an article that appeared in the The Telegraph ,
including that "James Clapper, the US Director of National Intelligence" was investigating
whether right wing political movements in Europe were sourced in "Russian meddling."
The dispatch spoke of "A dossier" that revealed "Russian influence operations" in Europe.
This was the first time trippy words like "Russian meddling" and "dossier" would appear
together in the American lexicon.
Most importantly, the piece revealed the Obama administration was spying on conservative
European political parties. This means, almost necessarily under the Five
Eyes Agreement , foreign agents were returning the favor and spying on the Trump
campaign.
Blaming Russia would be a handy way to deal with the Podesta emails. The problem was the
technologically impossibility of identifying the perpetrator in a phishing scheme. The only way
to associate Putin with the emails was circumstantially. The DNC retained CrowdStrike to
provide assistance.
On June 12, 2016, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange
announced : "We have upcoming leaks in relation to Hillary Clinton . . . We have emails
pending publication."
Two days later, CrowdStrike fed the Washington Post a
story , headlined, "Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on
Trump."
The improbable tale was that the Russians had hacked the DNC computer servers and got away
with some opposition research on Trump. The article quoted CrowdStrike's chief technology
officer and co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch, who also happens to be a senior fellow at the
Atlantic Council.
The next day, a new blog – Guccifer 2.0 – appeared on the
internet and announced:
Worldwide known cyber security company CrowdStrike announced that the Democratic National
Committee (DNC) servers had been hacked by "sophisticated" hacker groups.
I'm very pleased the company appreciated my skills so highly))) But in fact, it was easy,
very easy.
Guccifer may have been the first one who penetrated Hillary Clinton's and other Democrats'
mail servers. But he certainly wasn't the last. No wonder any other hacker could easily get
access to the DNC's servers.
Shame on CrowdStrike: Do you think I've been in the DNC's networks for almost a year and
saved only 2 documents? Do you really believe it?
Here are just a few docs from many thousands I extracted when hacking into DNC's
network.
Guccifer 2.0 posted hundreds of pages of Trump opposition research allegedly hacked from the
DNC and emailed copies to Gawker and The Smoking Gun . In raw form, the opposition research was
one of the documents obtained in the Podesta emails, with a notable difference: It was widely
reported the document now contained "
Russian fingerprints ."
The document had been cut and pasted into a separate Russian Word template that yielded
an abundance of Russian "error "messages . In the
document's metadata was the name of the Russian secret police founder, Felix Dzerzhinsky,
written in the Russian language. The three-parenthesis formulation from the original post ")))"
is the Russian version of a smiley face used
commonly on social media. In addition, the blog's author deliberately used a Russian
VPN service visible in its emails even though there would have been many options to hide
national affiliation.
CrowdStrike would later test the computers and declare this to be the work of sophisticated
Russian spies. Alperovitch described it as, " skilled operational tradecraft ."
There is nothing skilled, though, in ham-handedly disclosing a Russian identity on the
internet when trying to hide it. The more reasonable inference is that this was a set-up. It
certainly looks like Guccifer 2.0 suddenly appeared in coordination with the Washington Post 's
article that appeared the previous day.
THE FRAME UP.
Knowing as we now do that CrowdStrike never corroborated a hack by forensic analysis, the
reasonable inference is that somebody was trying to frame Russia. Most likely, the entities
that spent three years falsely leading the world to believe that direct evidence of a hack
existed – CrowdStrike and the DNC – were the ones involved in the frame-up.
Lending weight to this theory: at the same moment CrowdStrike was raising a false Russian
flag, a different entity, Fusion GPS – also paid by the DNC – was inventing a
phony dossier that ridiculously connected Trump to Russia.
Somehow, the ruse worked.
Rather than report the content of the incriminating emails, the watchdog press instead
reported CrowdStrike's bad explanation: that Putin-did-it.
Incredibly, Trump was placed on the defensive for email leaks that showed his opponent
fixing the primaries. His campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, was forced to resign because a
fake ledger suddenly appeared out of Ukraine connecting him to Russia.
Trump protested by stating the obvious: the federal government has "no idea" who was behind
the hacks. The FBI and CIA called him a liar, issuing a "
Joint Statement " that cited Guccifer 2.0, suggesting 17 intelligence agencies agree that
it was the Russians.
Hillary Clinton took advantage of this "intelligence assessment" in the October debate to
portray Trump as Putin's stooge"
"We have 17, 17 intelligence agencies, civilian and military who have all concluded that
these espionage attacks, these cyber-attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin.
And they are designed to influence our election. I find that deeply disturbing,"
said Clinton.
The media's fact checkers
excoriated Trump for lying. This was the ultimate campaign dirty trick: a joint operation
by the intelligence agencies and the media against a political candidate. It has since been
learned that the "17 intelligence agencies" claptrap was always
false . Those responsible for the exaggeration were James Clapper, James Comey and John
Brennan.
Somehow, Trump won anyway.
Those who assert that it is a "conspiracy theory" to say that CrowdStrike would fabricate
the results of computer forensic testing to create a false Russian flag should know that it was
caught doing exactly that around the time it was inspecting the DNC computers.
On Dec. 22, 2016, CrowdStrike caused an international stir when it claimed to have uncovered
evidence that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery computer app to help pro-Russian
separatists. Voice of America later determined the claim
was false , and CrowdStrike retracted its finding. Ukraine's Ministry of Defense was forced
to eat crow and admit that the hacking never happened. If you wanted a computer testing firm to
fabricate a Russian hack for political reasons in 2016, CrowdStrike was who you went out and
hired.
Perhaps most insidiously, the Obama administration played the phony Russian interference
card during the transition to try to end Trump's presidency before it started. As I
wrote in December 2017:
Michael Flynn was indicted for a conversation he had with the Russian ambassador on
December 28, 2016, seven weeks after the election.
That was the day after the outgoing president expelled 35 Russian diplomats -- including
gardeners and chauffeurs -- for interfering in the election. Yes, that really happened.
The Obama administration had wiretapped Flynn's conversation with the ambassador, hoping
to find him saying something they could use to support their wild story about collusion.
The outrage, for some reason, is not that an outgoing administration was using wiretaps to
listen in on a successor's transition. It is that Flynn might have signaled to the Russians
that the Trump administration would have a different approach to foreign policy.
How dare Trump presume to tell an armed nuclear state to stand down because everyone in
Washington was in a state of psychological denial that he was elected?
Let's establish one thing early here: It is okay for an incoming administration to
communicate its foreign policy preferences during a transition even if they differ from the
lame duck administration .
.If anything, Flynn was too reserved in his conversation with the Russian ambassador. He
should have said, "President-elect Trump believes this Russian collusion thing is a fantasy
and these sanctions will be lifted on his first day in office."
That would have been perfectly legal. It also happens to be what FBI Director Comey and
the rest were hoping Flynn would do. They wanted to get a Trump official on tape making an
accommodation to the Russians.
The accommodation would then be cited to suggest a quid pro quo that proved the
nonexistent collusion. Instead, Flynn was uncharacteristically noncommittal in his
conversation with the ambassador. Drat!
They did have a transcript of what he said, though. This is where the tin-pot dictator
behavior of Comey is fully displayed. He invited Flynn to be interviewed by the FBI,
supposedly about Russian collusion to steal the election.
If you're Flynn, you say, "Sure, I want to tell you 15 different ways that there was no
collusion and when do you want to meet."
What Flynn did not know was that the purpose of the interview had nothing to do with the
election. It would be a test pitting Flynn's memory against the transcript.
Think about that for a moment. Comey did not need to ask Flynn what was said in the
conversation with the ambassador -- he had a transcript. The only reason to ask Flynn about
it was to cross him up.
That is the politicization of the FBI. It is everything Trump supporters rail against when
they implore him to drain the swamp. The inescapable conclusion is that the FBI set a trap
for the incoming national security advisor to affect the foreign policy of the newly elected
president.
Flynn made the mistake of not being altogether clear about what he had discussed with the
ambassador. In his defense, he did not believe he was sitting there to tell the FBI how the
Trump administration was dealing with Russia going forward. The conversation was supposed to
be about the election.
He certainly did not think the FBI would unmask his comments in a FISA wiretap and compare
them to his answers. That would be illegal.
Exhibit 5 to the DOJ's recent Motion to Dismiss the Flynn indictment confirms the Obama
administration's bad faith in listening in on his conversation with the ambassador. The
plotters admit , essentially,
that they looked at the transcript to see whether Flynn said anything that caused Russia to
stand-down. Had General Flynn promised to lift the sanctions, the Obama administration would
have claimed it was the pro quo that went with the quid of Putin's interference.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/KeSHRR5bMr0
After Trump's inauguration, the FBI and Justice Department launched a special counsel
investigation that accepted, as a given, CrowdStrike's dubious conclusion that Russia had
interfered in the election. The only remaining question was whether Trump himself colluded in
the interference. There followed a two-year inquiry that did massive political damage to Trump
and the movement that put him in office.
Tucker Carlson rightly made Trey Gowdy squirm recently for Republican acquiescence in the shoddy
underpinnings of the Russia hoax. It was not only Gowdy, though. Establishment
politicians and
pundits have been all too willing for years to wallow in fabricated
Russian intrigue , at the expense of the Trump presidency.
This perfectly illustrates Republican perfidy: Gifted with undeserved victory in a
generational realignment that they were dragged to kicking and screaming, they proceed to
question its source and validity. Because if Trump was a product of KGB- esque intrigue, then
Hillary was a victim of meddling. Trump was a hapless beneficiary. The deplorables were not
only racist losers, they were also Putin's unwitting stooges.
As I first noted
in December 2016, the Washington establishment deliberately set out to fan Russian anxiety to
conduct war against the Trump administration. Perhaps it is time to admit that those of us
chided as " crazies
" who doubted Russian interference – including Trump
himself – were right all along.
In the after-action assessment of what went wrong, it should be noted that non-insiders are
the ones who have called this from the beginning, in places like
here ,
here ,
here , here
, and here . That
is partly what the president means when he Tweets support for his " keyboard warriors ." As
Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany pointed out on Friday, the
White House press corps has completely missed the story.
Thank you to all of my great Keyboard Warriors. You are better, and far more brilliant,
than anyone on Madison Avenue (Ad Agencies). There is nobody like you!
-- Donald J. Trump
(@realDonaldTrump) May 15,
2020
This scandal is huge, much bigger than Watergate, and compromising in its resolution is
destructive. If Republicans continue to stupidly concede phony
Russian intrigue , the plotters
will say they were justified to investigate it.
The recent CrowdStrike testimony drop ended any chance at middle ground. This was a rank
political operation and indicting a few FBI agents is not going to resolve anything.
CrowdStrike's circumstantial evidence that launched this probe is ridiculous. We'll soon
know if the Durham investigation has the will to defy powerful insiders of both parties and say
so.
Fantastic interview. all Obama gang should be prosecuted for their attempt of coup
d'état. Farkas behaviors looks like standard operating procecure for the neocon scum
That an effective but dirty trick on the part of this neocon prostitute Evelyn Farkas :
"Putin want me to lose, send me some money"
Farkas is running primarily for the same reason that Andy mccabes wife ran - so she can
pick up her payment from the dnc in the form of campaign contributions. It's money
laundering
Boom 12:03 Yes Saagar, that's what I
was hollering! This is far more insidious. There was NO ONE in power that believed birtherism
whereas the entire National Security apparatus pushed this bogus coup on the President. The
NSA, CIA, FBI, and media were all complicit. Do not let Krystal get away with a false
equivalence. She is bullshitting. Chuck Schumer even threatened Trump on national television
saying that the intelligence agencies have six ways til Sunday to take you down.
I wish Farcas had spent a bit more time talking on MSNBC , I'm sure she would have coughed
up more material. I would also like to see her texts and phone calls received after that a
appearance, I'm sure some Obama people were pulling their hair out as she was spilling the
whole scenario and called her immediately after.
Russiagate was built on the willingness of a lot of people to believe the worst about
Trump. That's it. Which honestly says more about the narrow-mindedness of Trump haters than
it does about Trump himself. Whatever Trump is or isn't, and I'm no Trump supporter though I
never got seduced into hating him, the one truth to come out of this is that his haters don't
care about evidence, or the rule of law, or even common sense.
If Russian interference was as de-stabilizing to our democracy as these people would have
led us to believe, then, how de-stabilizing would carelessly weaponizing it potentially be?
These people have no place in government or any form of public discourse. They are a
malignancy.
False flag operation by CIA or CrowdStrike as CIA constructor: CIA ears protrude above Gussifer 2.0 hat.
Notable quotes:
"... Guccifer 2.0 fabricated evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC (using files that were really Podesta attachments) . ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0’s Russian breadcrumbs mostly came from deliberate processes & needless editing of documents . ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0’s Russian communications signals came from the persona choosing to use a proxy server in Moscow and choosing to use a Russian VPN service as end-points (and they used an email service that forwards the sender’s IP address, which made identifying that signal a relatively trivial task.) ..."
"... A considerable volume of evidence pointed at Guccifer 2.0’s activities being in American timezones (twice as many types of indicators were found pointing at Guccifer 2.0’s activities being in American timezones than anywhere else). ..."
"... The American timezones were incidental to other activities (eg. blogging , social media , emailing a journalist , archiving files , etc) and some of these were recorded independently by service providers. ..."
"... A couple of pieces of evidence with Russian indicators present had accompanying locale indicators that contradicted this which suggested the devices used hadn’t been properly set up for use in Russia (or Romania) but may have been suitable for other countries (including America) . ..."
"... On the same day that Guccifer 2.0 was plastering Russian breadcrumbs on documents through a deliberate process, choosing to use Russian-themed end-points and fabricating evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC, the operation attributed itself to WikiLeaks. ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 chose to use insecure communications to ask WikiLeaks to confirm receipt of “DNC emails” on July 6, 2016. Confirmation of this was not provided at that time but WikiLeaks did confirm receipt of a “1gb or so” archive on July 18, 2016. ..."
"... The alleged GRU officer we are told was part of an operation to deflect from Russian culpability suggested that Assange “may be connected with Russians”. ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 fabricated evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC, covered itself (and its files) in what were essentially a collection of “Made In Russia” labels through deliberate processes and decisions made by the persona, and, then, it attributed itself to WikiLeaks with a claim that was contradicted by subsequent communications between both parties. ..."
"... While we are expected to accept that Guccifer 2.0’s efforts between July 6 and July 18 were a sincere effort to get leaks to WikiLeaks, considering everything we now know about the persona, it seems fair to question whether Guccifer 2.0’s intentions towards WikiLeaks may have instead been malicious. ..."
"... Guccifer 2.0 was always John Brennan 1.0 ..."
"... Was Guccifer II part of the Stefan Halper organization that lured Papadopoulos and maliciously maligned others? ..."
"... I believe Guccifer 2.0 was created by the CIA to falsely pin blame on the Russians for info that Seth Rich gave to WikiLeaks. Read for yourself: http://g-2.space/ ..."
Why would an alleged GRU officer - supposedly part of an operation to deflect Russian culpability - suggest that
Assange “may be connected with Russians?”
In December, I reported on digital forensics evidence
relating to Guccifer 2.0 and highlighted several key points about the mysterious persona that Special Counsel Robert Mueller
claims was a front for Russian intelligence to leak Democratic Party emails to WikiLeaks:
A considerable volume of evidence pointed at
Guccifer 2.0’s activities being in American timezones (twice as many types of indicators were found pointing at Guccifer
2.0’s activities being in American timezones than anywhere else).
A couple of pieces of evidence with Russian indicators present had accompanying
locale indicators that contradicted this which suggested the devices used hadn’t been properly set up for use in Russia (or
Romania) but may have been suitable for other countries (including America).
On the same day that Guccifer 2.0 was plastering Russian breadcrumbs on documents through a deliberate process, choosing to
use Russian-themed end-points and fabricating evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC, the operation attributed itself to WikiLeaks.
This article questions what Guccifer 2.0’s intentions were in relation to WikiLeaks in the context of what has been
discovered by independent researchers during the past three years.
Timing
On June 12, 2016, in an interview
with ITV’s Robert Peston, Julian Assange confirmed that WikiLeaks had emails relating to Hillary Clinton that the
organization intended to publish. This announcement was prior to any reported contact with Guccifer 2.0 (or with DCLeaks).
On June 14, 2016, an article was published
in The Washington Post citing statements from two CrowdStrike executives alleging that Russian intelligence hacked
the DNC and stole opposition research on Trump. It was apparent that the statements had been made in the 48 hours prior to
publication as they referenced claims of kicking hackers off the DNC network on the weekend just passed (June 11-12, 2016).
On that same date, June 14, DCLeaks contacted WikiLeaks via Twitter DM and for some reason suggested that both parties
coordinate their releases of leaks. (It doesn’t appear that WikiLeaks responded until September 2016).
[CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry testified under
oath behind closed doors on Dec. 5, 2017 to the U.S. House intelligence committee that his company had no evidence that Russian
actors removed anything from the DNC servers. This testimony was only released earlier
this month.]
By stating that WikiLeaks would “publish them soon” the Guccifer 2.0 operation implied that it had received
confirmation of intent to publish.
However, the earliest recorded communication between Guccifer 2.0 and WikiLeaks didn’t occur until a week later (June
22, 2016) when WikiLeaks reached out to Guccifer 2.0 and suggested that the persona send any new material to them
rather than doing what it was doing:
[Excerpt from Special Counsel Mueller’s report. Note: “stolen from the DNC” is an editorial insert by the special
counsel.]
If WikiLeaks had already received material and confirmed intent to publish prior to this direct message, why would
they then suggest what they did when they did? WikiLeaks says it had no prior contact with Guccifer 2.0 despite what
Guccifer 2.0 had claimed.
Here is the full conversation on that date (according to the application):
@WikiLeaks: Do you have secure communications?
@WikiLeaks: Send any new material here for us to review and it will have a much higher impact than what
you are doing. No other media will release the full material.
@GUCCIFER_2: what can u suggest for a secure connection? Soft, keys, etc? I’m ready to cooperate with
you, but I need to know what’s in your archive 80gb? Are there only HRC emails? Or some other docs? Are there any DNC docs?
If it’s not secret when you are going to release it?
@WikiLeaks: You can send us a message in a .txt file here [link redacted]
@GUCCIFER_2: do you have GPG?
Why would Guccifer 2.0 need to know what material WikiLeaks already had? Certainly, if it were anything Guccifer 2.0
had sent (or the GRU had sent) he wouldn’t have had reason to inquire.
The more complete DM details provided here also suggest that both parties had not yet established secure communications.
Further communications were reported to have taken place on June 24, 2016:
@GUCCIFER_2: How can we chat? Do u have jabber or something like that?
@WikiLeaks: Yes, we have everything. We’ve been busy celebrating Brexit. You can also email an encrypted
message to [email protected]. They key is here.
and June 27, 2016:
@GUCCIFER_2: Hi, i’ve just sent you an email with a text message encrypted and an open key.
@WikiLeaks: Thanks.
@GUCCIFER_2: waiting for ur response. I send u some interesting piece.
Guccifer 2.0 said he needed to know what was in the 88GB ‘insurance’ archive that WikiLeaks had posted on June 16,
2016 and it’s clear that, at this stage, secure communications had not been established between both parties (which would
seem to rule out the possibility of encrypted communications prior to June 15, 2016, making Guccifer 2.0’s initial claims about WikiLeaks even
more doubtful).
There was no evidence of WikiLeaks mentioning this to Guccifer 2.0 nor any reason for why WikiLeaks couldn’t
just send a DM to DCLeaks themselves if they had wanted to.
(It should also be noted that this Twitter DM activity between DCLeaks and Guccifer 2.0 is alleged by Mueller to be
communications between officers within the same unit of the GRU, who, for some unknown reason, decided to use Twitter DMs to
relay such information rather than just communicate face to face or securely via their own local network.)
Guccifer 2.0 lied about DCLeaks being a sub-project of WikiLeaks and then, over two months later, was seen trying to
encourage DCLeaks to communicate with WikiLeaks by relaying an alleged request from WikiLeaks that there is no
record of WikiLeaks ever making (and which WikiLeaks could have done themselves, directly, if they had wanted
to).
@GUCCIFER_2: hi there, check up r email, waiting for reply.
This was followed up on July 6, 2016 with the following conversation:
@GUCCIFER_2: have you received my parcel?
@WikiLeaks: Not unless it was very recent. [we haven’ t checked in 24h].
@GUCCIFER_2: I sent it yesterday, an archive of about 1 gb. via [website link]. and check your email.
@WikiLeaks: Wil[l] check, thanks.
@GUCCIFER_2: let me know the results.
@WikiLeaks: Please don’t make anything you send to us public. It’s a lot of work to go through it and the
impact is severely reduced if we are not the first to publish.
@GUCCIFER_2: agreed. How much time will it take?
@WikiLeaks: likely sometime today.
@GUCCIFER_2: will u announce a publication? and what about 3 docs sent u earlier?
@WikiLeaks: I don’t believe we received them. Nothing on ‘Brexit’ for example.
@GUCCIFER_2: wow. have you checked ur mail?
@WikiLeaks: At least not as of 4 days ago . . . . For security reasons mail cannot be checked for some
hours.
@GUCCIFER_2: fuck, sent 4 docs on brexit on jun 29, an archive in gpg ur submission form is too fucking
slow, spent the whole day uploading 1 gb.
@WikiLeaks: We can arrange servers 100x as fast. The speed restrictions are to anonymise the path. Just
ask for custom fast upload point in an email.
@GUCCIFER_2: will u be able to check ur email?
@WikiLeaks: We’re best with very large data sets. e.g. 200gb. these prove themselves since they’re too
big to fake.
@GUCCIFER_2: or shall I send brexit docs via submission once again?
@WikiLeaks: to be safe, send via [web link]
@GUCCIFER_2: can u confirm u received dnc emails?
@WikiLeaks: for security reasons we can’ t confirm what we’ve received here. e.g., in case your account
has been taken over by us intelligence and is probing to see what we have.
@GUCCIFER_2: then send me an encrypted email.
@WikiLeaks: we can do that. but the security people are in another time zone so it will need to wait some
hours.
@WikiLeaks: what do you think about the FBl’ s failure to charge? To our mind the clinton foundation
investigation has always been the more serious. we would be very interested in all the emails/docs from there. She set up
quite a lot of front companies. e.g in sweden.
@GUCCIFER_2: ok, i’ll be waiting for confirmation. as for investigation, they have everything settled, or
else I don’t know how to explain that they found a hundred classified docs but fail to charge her.
@WikiLeaks: She’s too powerful to charge at least without something stronger. s far as we know, the
investigation into the clinton foundation remains open e hear the FBI are unhappy with Loretta Lynch over meeting Bill,
because he’s a target in that investigation.
@GUCCIFER_2: do you have any info about marcel lazar? There’ve been a lot of rumors of late.
@WikiLeaks: the death? [A] fake story.
@WikiLeaks: His 2013 screen shots of Max Blumenthal’s inbox prove that Hillary secretly deleted at least
one email about Libya that was meant to be handed over to Congress. So we were very interested in his co-operation with the
FBI.
@GUCCIFER_2: some dirty games behind the scenes believe Can you send me an email now?
@WikiLeaks: No; we have not been able to activate the people who handle it. Still trying.
@GUCCIFER_2: what about tor submission? [W]ill u receive a doc now?
@WikiLeaks: We will get everything sent on [weblink].” [A]s long as you see \”upload succseful\” at the
end. [I]f you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo [sic] days prefable [sic] because the DNC is
approaching and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after.
@GUCCIFER_2: ok. I see.
@WikiLeaks: [W]e think the public interest is greatest now and in early october.
@GUCCIFER_2: do u think a lot of people will attend bernie fans rally in philly? Will it affect the dnc
anyhow?
@WikiLeaks: bernie is trying to make his own faction leading up to the DNC. [S]o he can push for
concessions (positions/policies) or, at the outside, if hillary has a stroke, is arrested etc, he can take over the
nomination. [T]he question is this: can bemies supporters+staff keep their coherency until then (and after). [O]r will they
dis[s]olve into hillary’ s camp? [P]resently many of them are looking to damage hilary [sic] inorder [sic] to increase their
unity and bargaining power at the DNC. Doubt one rally is going to be that significant in the bigger scheme. [I]t seems many
of them will vote for hillary just to prevent trump from winning.
@GUCCIFER_2: sent brexit docs successfully.
@WikiLeaks: :))).
@WikiLeaks: we think trump has only about a 25% chance of winning against hillary so conflict between
bernie and hillary is interesting.
@GUCCIFER_2: so it is.
@WikiLeaks: also, it’ s important to consider what type of president hillary might be. If bernie and
trump retain their groups past 2016 in significant number, then they are a restraining force on hillary.
[Note: This was over a week after the Brexit referendum had taken place, so this will not have had any impact on the
results of that. It also doesn’t appear that WikiLeaks released any Brexit content around this time.]
On July 14, 2016, Guccifer 2.0 sent an email to WikiLeaks, this was covered in the Mueller report:
It should be noted that while the attachment sent was encrypted, the email wasn’t and both the email contents and name of the
file were readable.
The persona then opted, once again, for insecure communications via Twitter DMs:
@GUCCIFER_2: ping. Check ur email. sent u a link to a big archive and a pass.
@WikiLeaks: great, thanks; can’t check until tomorrow though.
On July 17, 2016, the persona contacted WikiLeaks again:
@GUCCIFER_2: what bout now?
On July 18, 2016, WikiLeaks responded and more was discussed:
@WikiLeaks: have the 1 Gb or so archive.
@GUCCIFER_2: have u managed to extract the files?
@WikiLeaks: yes. turkey coup has delayed us a couple of days. [O]therwise all ready[.]
@GUCCIFER_2: so when r u about to make a release?
@WikiLeaks: this week. [D]o you have any bigger datasets? [D]id you get our fast transfer details?
@GUCCIFER_2: i’ll check it. did u send it via email?
@WikiLeaks: yes.
@GUCCIFER_2: to [web link]. [I] got nothing.
@WikiLeaks: check your other mail? this was over a week ago.
@GUCCIFER_2:oh, that one, yeah, [I] got it.
@WikiLeaks: great. [D]id it work?
@GUCCIFER_2:[I] haven’ t tried yet.
@WikiLeaks: Oh. We arranged that server just for that purpose. Nothing bigger?
@GUCCIFER_2: let’s move step by step, u have released nothing of what [I] sent u yet.
@WikiLeaks: How about you transfer it all to us encrypted. [T]hen when you are happy, you give us the
decrypt key. [T]his way we can move much faster. (A]lso it is protective for you if we already have everything because then
there is no point in trying to shut you up.
@GUCCIFER_2: ok, i’ll ponder it
Again, we see a reference to the file being approximately one gigabyte in size.
Guccifer 2.0’s “so when r u about to make a release?” seems to be a question about his files. However, it could have been
inferred as generally relating to what WikiLeaks had or even material relating to the “Turkey Coup” that WikiLeaks had
mentioned in the previous sentence and that were published by the following day (July 19, 2016).
The way this is reported in the Mueller report, though, prevented this potential ambiguity being known (by not citing the
exact question that Guccifer 2.0 had asked and the context immediately preceding it.
Four days later, WikiLeaks published the DNC emails.
Later that same day, Guccifer 2.0 tweeted: “@wikileaks published #DNCHack docs I’d
given them!!!”.
Guccifer 2.0 chose to use insecure communications to ask WikiLeaks to confirm receipt of “DNC emails” on July 6, 2016.
Confirmation of this was not provided at that time but WikiLeaks did confirm receipt of a “1gb or so” archive on July 18,
2016.
Guccifer 2.0’s emails to WikiLeaks were also sent insecurely.
We cannot be certain that WikiLeaks statement about making a release was in relation to Guccifer 2.0’s material and
there is even a possibility that this could have been in reference to the Erdogan leaks published by WikiLeaks on July
19, 2016.
Ulterior Motives?
While the above seems troubling there are a few points worth considering:
Guccifer 2.0’s initial claim about sending WikiLeaks material(and
that they would publish it soon) appears to have been made without justification and seems to be contradicted by
subsequent communications from WikiLeaks.
If the archive was “about 1GB” (as Guccifer 2.0 describes it) then it would be too small to have been all of the
DNC’s emails (as these, compressed, came to 1.8GB-2GB depending on compression method used, which, regardless, would be
“about 2GB” not “about 1GB”). If we assume that these were DNC emails, where did the rest of them come from?
Assange has maintained
that WikiLeaks didn’t publish the material that Guccifer 2.0 had sent to them. Of course, Assange could just be
lying about that but there are some other possibilities to consider. If true, there is always a possibility that Guccifer 2.0
could have sent them material they had already received from another source or other emails from the DNC that they didn’t
release (Guccifer 2.0 had access to a lot of content relating to the DNC and Democratic party and the persona also offered
emails of Democratic staffers to Emma Best, a self-described journalist, activist and ex-hacker, the month after WikiLeaks published
the DNC emails, which, logically, must have been different emails to still have any value at that point in time).
On July 6, 2016, the same day that Guccifer 2.0 was trying to get WikiLeaks to confirm receipt of DNC emails (and
on which Guccifer 2.0 agreed not to publish material he had sent them), the persona posted a series of files to his blog
that were exclusively DNC email attachments.
It doesn’t appear any further communications were reported between the parties following the July 18, 2016 communications
despite Guccifer 2.0 tweeting on August 12, 2016: “I’ll send the major trove of the
#DCCC materials and emails to #wikileaks keep following…” and, apparently, stating
this to The Hill too.
As there are no further communications reported beyond this point it’s fair to question whether getting confirmation of
receipt of the archive was the primary objective for Guccifer 2.0 here.
Even though WikiLeaks offered Guccifer 2.0 a fast server for large uploads, the persona later suggested he needed
to find a resource for publishing a large amount of data.
Despite later claiming he would send (or had sent) DCCC content to WikiLeaks,WikiLeaks never
published such content and there doesn’t appear to be any record of any attempt to send this material to WikiLeaks.
Considering all of this and the fact Guccifer 2.0 effectively covered itself in “Made In Russia” labels (by plastering
files in Russian metadata and choosing to use a
Russian VPN service and a proxy in Moscow for
it’s activities) on the same day it first attributed itself to WikiLeaks, it’s fair to suspect that Guccifer 2.0 had
malicious intent towards WikiLeaks from the outset.
If this was the case, Guccifer 2.0 may have known about the DNC emails by June 30, 2016 as this is when the persona first
started publishing attachments from those emails.
Seth Rich Mentioned By Both Parties
WikiLeaks Offers Reward
On August 9, 2016, WikiLeaks tweeted:
ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information
leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.
In an interview with Nieuwsuur that was posted the same day, Julian
Assange explained that the reward was for a DNC staffer who he said had been “shot in the back, murdered”. When the interviewer
suggested it was a robbery Assange disputed it and stated that there were no findings.
When the interviewer asked if Seth Rich was a source, Assange stated, “We don’t comment on who our sources are”.
When pressed to explain WikiLeaks actions, Assange stated that the reward was being offered because WikiLeaks‘
sources were concerned by the incident. He also stated that WikiLeaks were investigating.
Speculation and theories about Seth Rich being a source for WikiLeaks soon propagated to several sites and across
social media.
On that same day, in a DM conversation with the actress Robbin Young, Guccifer 2.0 claimed that Seth was his source (despite
previously claiming he obtained his material by hacking the DNC).
Why did Guccifer 2.0 feel the need to attribute itself to Seth at this time?
[Note: I am not advocating for any theory and am simply reporting on Guccifer 2.0’s effort to attribute itself to Seth
Rich following the propagation of Rich-WikiLeaks association theories online.]
Special Counsel Claims
In Spring, 2019, Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who was named to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. general
election, delivered his final report.
It claimed:
Guccifer 2.0 contradicted his own hacking claims to allege that Seth Rich was his source and did so on the same day that
Julian Assange was due to be interviewed by Fox News (in relation to Seth Rich).
No communications between Guccifer 2.0 and Seth Rich have ever been reported.
Suggesting Assange Connected To Russians
In the same conversation Guccifer 2.0 had with Robbin Young where Rich’s name is mentioned (on August 25, 2016), the
persona also provided a very interesting response to Young mentioning “Julian” (in reference to Julian Assange):
The alleged GRU officer we are told was part of an operation to deflect from Russian culpability suggested that
Assange “may be connected with Russians”.
Guccifer 2.0’s Mentions of WikiLeaks and Assange
Guccifer 2.0 mentioned WikiLeaks or associated himself with their output on several occasions:
July 22nd, 2016: claimed credit when WikiLeaks published the DNC leaks.
August 12, 2016: It was reported in The Hill that Guccifer 2.0 had released material to the publication. They
reported: “The documents released to The Hill are only the first section of a much larger cache. The bulk, the hacker
said, will be released on WikiLeaks.”
August 12, 2016: Tweeted that he would “send the major trove of the #DCCC materials
and emails to #wikileaks“.
September 15, 2016: telling DCLeaks that WikiLeaks wanted to get in contact with them.
October 4, 2016: Congratulating WikiLeaks on their 10th anniversary via
its blog. Also states: “Julian, you are really cool! Stay safe and sound!”. (This was the same day on which Guccifer
2.0 published his “Clinton Foundation” files that were clearly
not from the Clinton Foundation.)
October 17, 2016: via Twitter, stating “i’m here and ready for new releases.
already changed my location thanks @wikileaks for a good job!”
Guccifer 2.0 also made some statements in response to WikiLeaks or Assange being mentioned:
June 17, 2016: in response to The Smoking Gun asking if Assange would publish the same material it was
publishing, Guccifer 2.0 stated: “I gave WikiLeaks the
greater part of the files, but saved some for myself,”
August 22, 2016: in response to Raphael Satter suggesting that Guccifer 2.0 send leaks to WikiLeaks,the
persona stated: “I gave wikileaks a greater part of docs”.
August 25, 2016: in response to Julian Assange’s name being mentioned in a conversation with Robbin Young, Guccifer
2.0 stated: “he may be connected with Russians”.
October 18, 2016: a BBC reported asked Guccifer 2.0 if he was upset that WikiLeaks had “stole his thunder” and “do
you still support Assange?”. Guccifer 2.0 responded: “i’m
glad, together we’ll make America great again.”.
Guccifer 2.0 fabricated evidence to claim credit for hacking the DNC, covered itself (and its files) in what were essentially
a collection of “Made In Russia” labels through deliberate processes and decisions made by the persona, and, then, it attributed
itself to WikiLeaks with a claim that was contradicted by subsequent communications between both parties.
Guccifer 2.0 then went on to lie about WikiLeaks, contradicted its own hacking claims to attribute itself to Seth Rich
and even alleged that Julian Assange “may be connected with Russians”.
While we are expected to accept that Guccifer 2.0’s efforts between July 6 and July 18 were a sincere effort to get
leaks to WikiLeaks, considering everything we now know about the persona, it seems fair to question whether Guccifer
2.0’s intentions towards WikiLeaks may have instead been malicious.
xxx 2 minutes ago (Edited)
Everything involving the Russian hoax was set up by the Deep States around the world.
Implicate, discredit and destroy all those like Rich, Assange, Flynn and those who knew the
truth. Kill the messenger....literally.
xxx 10 minutes ago
here's what really happened:
an American hacker breached Podesta's gmail on March 13 2016 and then uploaded it to
Wikileaks via Tor sometime between April and May.
the NSA and CIA have hacked into Wikileaks' Tor file server to watch for new leaks to stay
ahead of them to prepare. they saw Podesta's emails leaked and launched a counter infowar
operation.
Brennan's CIA created the Guccifer 2.0 persona, with phony Russian metadata artifacts,
using digital forgery techniques seen in Vault7. Crowdstrike was already on the premises of
DNC since 2015, with their overly expensive security scanner watching the DNC network.
Crowdstrike had access to any DNC files they wanted. CIA, FBI and Crowdstrike colluded to
create a fake leak of DNC docs through their Guccifer 2.0 cutout. they didn't leak any docs
of high importance, which is why we never saw any smoking guns from DNC leaks or DCLeaks.
you have to remember, the whole point of this CIAFBINSA operation has nothing to do with
Hillary or Trump or influencing the election. the point was to fabricate criminal evidence to
use against Assange to finally arrest him and extradite him as well as smear Wikileaks ahead
of the looming leak of Podesta's emails.
if CIAFBINSA can frame Assange and Wikileaks as being criminal hackers and/or Russian
assets ahead of the Podesta leaks, then they can craft a narrative for the MSM to ignore or
distrust most of the Podesta emails. and that is exactly what happened, such as when Chris
Cuomo said on CNN that it was illegal for you to read Wikileaks, but not CNN, so you should
let CNN tell you what to think about Wikileaks instead of looking at evidence yourself.
this explains why Guccifer 2.0 was so sloppy leaving a trail of Twitter DMs to incriminate
himself and Assange along with him.
if this CIAFBINSA entrapment/frame operation ever leaks, it will guarantee the freedom of
Assange.
xxx 11 minutes ago
According to Wikipedia, "Guccifer" is Marcel Lazar Lehel, a Rumanian born in 1972, but
"Guccifer 2.0" is someone else entirely.
Is that so?
xxx 20 minutes ago (Edited)
The guy from Cyrptome always asserted Assange was some type of deep state puppet, that he
was connected somehow. This wouldn't be news to me and its probably why he was scared as
hell. The guy is as good as dead, like S. Hussein. Seth Rich was just a puppet that got
caught in the wrong game. He was expendable obviously too because well he had a big mouth, he
was expendable from the beginning. Somebody mapped this whole **** out, thats for sure.
xxx 28 minutes ago
I am sick and tired of these Deep State and CIA-linked operations trying to put a wrench
in the prosecution of people who were engaged in a coup d'etat.
xxx 29 minutes ago
********
xxx 33 minutes ago
At this point what difference does it make? We are all convinced since 2016. It is not
going to convince the TDS cases roaming the wilderness.
No arrests, no subpoenas, no warrants, no barging in at 3 am, no perp walks, no tv
glare...
Pres. Trump is playing a very risky game. Arrest now, or regret later. And you won't have
much time to regret.
The swamp is dark, smelly and deep,
And it has grudges to keep.
xxx 37 minutes ago
Meanwhile- Guccifer 1.0 is still?
- In prison?
- Released?
- 48 month sentence in 2016. Obv no good behavior.
Nice article. Brennan is the dolt he appears.
xxx 41 minutes ago
+1,000 on the investigative work and analyzing it.
Sadly, none of the guilty are in jail. Instead. Assange sits there rotting away.
xxx 44 minutes ago
Why would an alleged GRU officer - supposedly part of an operation to deflect Russian
culpability - suggest that Assange "may be connected with Russians?"
Because the AXIS powers of the CIA, Brit secret police and Israeli secret police pay for
the campaign to tie Assange to the Russians...
A lot of interest in this story about Psycho Joe Scarborough. So a young marathon runner
just happened to faint in his office, hit her head on his desk, & die? I would think
there is a lot more to this story than that? An affair? What about the so-called
investigator? Read story!
xxx 45 minutes ago
Why make it harder than it is? Guccifer II = Crowdstrike
xxx 51 minutes ago
Guccifer 2.0 was always John Brennan 1.0
xxx 58 minutes ago (Edited)
Was Guccifer II part of the Stefan Halper organization that lured Papadopoulos and
maliciously maligned others?
xxx 1 hour ago
"His name was Seth Rich." The unofficial motto of ZeroHedge...
xxx 1 hour ago
James Guccifer Clapper.
xxx 1 hour ago
Mossad. And their subsidiary CIA.
xxx 1 hour ago
Crowd Strike CEO'S admission under oath that they had no evidence the DNC was hacked by
the Russians should make the Russian Hoax predicate abundantly clear.
Justice for Seth Rich!
xxx 1 hour ago
Any influence Assange had on the election was so small that it wouldn't move the needle
either way. The real influence and election tampering in the US has always come from the
scores of lobbyists and their massive donations that fund the candidates election runs
coupled with the wildly inaccurate and agenda driven collusive effort by the MSM. Anyone
pointing fingers at the Russians is beyond blind to the unparalleled influence and power
these entities have on swaying American minds.
xxx 1 hour ago
ObamaGate.
xxx 1 hour ago (Edited)
Uugh ONCE AGAIN... 4chan already proved guccifer 2.0 was a larp, and the files were not
"hacked", they were leaked by Seth Rich. The metadata from the guccifer files is different
from the metadata that came from the seth rich files. The dumb fuckers thought they were
smart by modifying the author name of the files to make it look like it came from a russian
source. They were so ******* inept, they must have forgot (or not have known) to modify the
unique 16 digit hex key assigned to the author of the files when they were created..... The
ones that seth rich copied had the system administrators name (Warren Flood) as the author
and the 16 digit hex key from both file sources were the same - the one assigned to warren
flood.
Really sloppy larp!!!
xxx 1 hour ago
This link has all the detail to show Guccifer 2.0 was not Russia. I believe Guccifer 2.0
was created by the CIA to falsely pin blame on the Russians for info that Seth Rich gave to
WikiLeaks. Read for yourself: http://g-2.space/
xxx 1 hour ago
This is what people are. Now the species has more power than it can control and that it
knows what to do with.
What do you think the result will be?
As for these games of Secret - it's more game than anything truly significant. The
significant exists in the bunkers, with the mobile units, in the submarines. Et. al.
But this is a game in which some of the players die - or wish they were dead.
xxx 1 hour ago
And.....?
Public figures and political parties warrant public scrutiny. And didn't his expose in
their own words expose the democrats, the mass media, the bureaucracy to the corrupt frauds
that they are?
xxx 1 hour ago
Other than the fact that they didn't steal the emails (unless you believe whistleblowers
are thief's, one mans source is another mans thief, it's all about who's ox is being gored
and you love "leaks" don't you? As long as they work in your favor. Stop with the piety.
xxx 15 minutes ago
That's not the story at all. Did you just read this article?
The democrats were super duper corrupt (before all of this).
They fucked around to ice Bernie out of the primary.
A young staffer Seth Rich knew it and didn't like it. He made the decision to leak the
info to the most reputable org for leaks in the world Wikileaks.
IF the DNC had been playing fair, Seth Rich wouldn't have felt the need to leak.
So, the democrats did it to themselves.
And then they created Russiagate to cover it all up.
And murdered a young brave man ... as we know.
xxx 1 hour ago
Assange, another problem Trump failed to fix.
xxx 1 hour ago
Sounds like it came from the same source as the Trump dossier ... MI5.
While Flynn is a questionable figure with his Iran warmongering and the former tenure as a
Turkey lobbyist, it is important to understand that in Kislyak call he mainly played the role
of Israel lobbyist. This important fact was carefully swiped under the carpet by FBI
honchos.
Only the second and less important part of the call (the request to Russia to postpone the
reaction after the Obama expulsion of diplomats) was related to Russia. Not sure it was
necessary: Russia probably understood that this was a provocation and would wait for the dust
to settle in any case. Revenge is a dish that is better served cold. Later Russia used this
as a pretext to equalize the number of US diplomats in Russia with the number of Russian
diplomat in the USA which was a knockdown for any color revolution plans in this country:
people with the knowledge of the country and connections to its neoliberal fifth column were
sent packing.
But Russian neoliberal compradors were decimated earlier after EuroMaydan in Kiev, so this
was actually a service to the USA allowing to save the USA same money (as Trump
acknowledged)
Also strange how former chief of DIA fell victim of such a crude trap administered by a
second, if nor third rate person -- Strzok. Looks like he was already on the hook and, as
such, defenseless for his Turkey lobbing efforts. Which makes Comey-McCabe attempt to entrap
him look like a shooing fish in the tank.
Note to managerial class neoliberals (PMC). Your Russiagate stance is to be expected and
has nothing to do with virtue.
it was the urban and suburban PMC that gets its news from the establishment press --
the New York Times, Washington Post and NPR, that believed and supported the story.
"... With the entirety of Russigate finally collapsing under the enormous weight and stench of its own BS, the picture that is beginning
to emerge for me is one of an insider deep-state psy-op designed to cover for the crimes committed by the DNC, the Clinton Foundation
and the 2016 Hillary campaign; kill for the foreseeable future any progressive threat to the neo-liberal world order; and take down
a president that the bipartisan DC and corporate media elite fear and loathe. And why do they fear him? Because he is free to call them
out on certain aspects of their criminality and corruption, and has. ..."
"... Hubris, cynicism and a basic belief in the stupidity of the US public all seem to have played a part in all this, enabled by
a corporate media with a profit motive and a business model that depends on duping the masses. ..."
"... Anyone who still believes in democracy in the USA has his head in the sand (or someplace a lot smellier). ..."
"... The corruption in the USA is wide and deep and trump is NOT draining the swamp. ..."
"... A further point: the Mueller report insinuates that G2.0 had transferred the DNC emails to Wikileaks as of July 18th, and Wikileaks
then published them on July 22nd. This is absurd for two reasons: There is no way in hell that Wikileaks could have processed the entire
volume of those emails and attachments to insure their complete authenticity in 4 days. ..."
"... Indeed, when Crowdstrike's Shawn Henry had been chief of counterintelligence under Robert Mueller, he had tried to set Assange
up by sending Wikileaks fraudulent material; fortunately, Wikileaks was too careful to take the bait. ..."
Fascinating, important and ultimately deeply disturbing. This is why I come to Consortium News.
With the entirety of Russigate finally collapsing under the enormous weight and stench of its own BS, the picture that
is beginning to emerge for me is one of an insider deep-state psy-op designed to cover for the crimes committed by the DNC, the
Clinton Foundation and the 2016 Hillary campaign; kill for the foreseeable future any progressive threat to the neo-liberal world
order; and take down a president that the bipartisan DC and corporate media elite fear and loathe. And why do they fear him? Because
he is free to call them out on certain aspects of their criminality and corruption, and has.
Hubris, cynicism and a basic belief in the stupidity of the US public all seem to have played a part in all this, enabled
by a corporate media with a profit motive and a business model that depends on duping the masses.
Anonymous , May 22, 2020 at 12:01
These convos alone look like a script kiddie on IRC doing their low functioning version of sock puppetry. Didn't know anyone
at all fell for that
Ash , May 22, 2020 at 17:21
Because smooth liars in expensive suits told them it was true in their authoritative TV voices? Sadly they don't even really
need to try hard anymore, as people will evidently believe anything they're told.
Bob Herrschaft , May 22, 2020 at 12:00
The article goes a long way toward congealing evidence that Guccifer 2.0 was a shill meant to implicate Wikileaks in a Russian
hack. The insinuation about Assange's Russian connection was over the top if Guccifer 2.0 was supposed to be a GRU agent and the
mention of Seth Rich only contradicts his claims.
OlyaPola , May 22, 2020 at 10:40
Spectacles are popular.Although less popular, the framing and derivations of plausible belief are of more significance; hence
the cloak of plausible denial over under-garments of plausible belief, in facilitation of revolutions of immersion in spectacles
facilitating spectacles' popularity.
Some promoters of spectacles believe that the benefits of spectacles accrue solely to themselves, and when expectations appear
to vary from outcomes, they resort to one-trick-ponyness illuminated by peering in the mirror.
Skip Scott , May 22, 2020 at 08:35
This is a great article. I think the most obvious conclusion is that Guccifer 2.0 was a creation to smear wikileaks and distract
from the CONTENT of the DNC emails. The MSM spent the next 3 years obsessed by RussiaGate, and spent virtually no effort on the
DNC and Hillary's collusion in subverting the Sander's campaign, among other crimes.
I think back to how many of my friends were obsessed with Rachel Madcow during this period, and how she and the rest of the
MSM served the Empire with their propaganda campaign. Meanwhile, Julian is still in Belmarsh as the head of a "non-state hostile
intelligence service," the Hillary camp still runs the DNC and successfully sabotaged Bernie yet again (along with Tulsi), and
the public gets to choose between corporate sponsored warmonger from column A or B in 2020.
Anyone who still believes in democracy in the USA has his head in the sand (or someplace a lot smellier).
Guy , May 22, 2020 at 12:19
Totally agree .The corruption in the USA is wide and deep and trump is NOT draining the swamp.
I take it the mentioned time zones are consistent with Langley.
treeinanotherlife , May 22, 2020 at 00:34
"Are there only HRC emails? Or some other docs? Are there any DNC docs?"
G2 is fishing to see if Wiki has DNC docs. Does not say "any DNC docs I sent you". And like most at time thought Assange's
"related to hillary" phrase likely (hopefully for some) meant Hillary's missing private server emails. For certain G2 is not an
FBI agent>s/he knows difference between HRC and DNC emails.
A further point: the Mueller report insinuates that G2.0 had transferred the DNC emails to Wikileaks as of July 18th, and Wikileaks
then published them on July 22nd. This is absurd for two reasons: There is no way in hell that Wikileaks could have processed
the entire volume of those emails and attachments to insure their complete authenticity in 4 days.
Indeed, it is reasonable to expect that Wikileaks had been processing those emails since at least June 12, when Assange announced
their impending publication. (I recall waiting expectantly for a number of weeks as Wikileaks processed the Podesta emails.) Wikileaks
was well aware that, if a single one of the DNC emails they released had been proved to have been fraudulent, their reputation
would have been toast. Indeed, when Crowdstrike's Shawn Henry had been chief of counterintelligence under Robert Mueller,
he had tried to set Assange up by sending Wikileaks fraudulent material; fortunately, Wikileaks was too careful to take the bait.
Secondly, it is inconceivable that a journalist as careful as Julian would, on June 12th, have announced the impending publication
of documents he hadn't even seen yet. And of course there is no record of G2.0 having had any contact with Wikileaks prior to
that date.
It is a great pleasure to see "Adam Carter"'s work at long last appear in such a distinguished venue as Consortium News. It
does credit to them both.
Skip Edwards , May 22, 2020 at 12:33
How can we expect justice when there is no justification for what is being done by the US and British governments to Julian
Assange!
@Realist Quite right. I should have written that sentence differently in that by "like
Brennan," I meant an individual allowed to rise by obtaining compromising information on
everyone, most especially his intelligence colleagues.
Our system abhors such an arrogation of power or at least it used to. Not to put too fine
a point on it but that's what happens when you construct a surveillance state and then turn
it over to filth like Brennan.
This really isn't very complicated. It's utterly untenable in our great republic to have
the former CIA Director shouting every other day that the duly elected POTUS is treasonous
and much be removed from office by any means necessary.
It's impossible to overstate how serious this situation is when those who are needed on
the side of our republic and legitimate constitutional authority are distracting with squeaks
about Michael Ledeen's daughter no less.
I'm not laying this all at Brennan's door. Like Beria, his presence at the pinnacle of
power was more symptom than cause. He's no evil genius which, when you think about it, makes
the continued craven obedience to him by Democrats, RINO Republicans, Allied Media and, yes,
most who were in the IC, that much more pathetic.
A second Senate panel, the Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator Lindsey Graham of South
Carolina, is working on a similar timetable, with plans to issue a report before the November 3
presidential vote. It began Thursday to discuss subpoenas of former top Obama administration
and national security officials, with a vote set for June 4 to give Graham broad subpoena
power.
Graham has suggested he will call, among others, former FBI Director James Comey, his former
deputy Andrew McCabe, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA
Director John Brennan, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former White House Chief of
Staff Denis McDonough. At least initially, Graham has downplayed calls by Trump for issuing
subpoenas to Obama and Biden.
The initial focus of the Judiciary Committee will be the case of retired General Michael
Flynn, who resigned in February 2017 as Trump's national security adviser and later pled guilty
to lying to the FBI about his contacts with then-Russian Ambassador to the US Sergey
Kislyak.
Over the past month, the Flynn case has become the war cry of Trump and his ultra-right
backers at Breitbart News, Fox News and among congressional Republicans. They claim that Flynn
was the victim of a "perjury trap" set up by Comey at the instigation of Obama and Biden to
disrupt the incoming Trump administration.
Attorney General William Barr intervened to quash the sentencing of Flynn on perjury
charges, taking the unprecedented action of dropping prosecution on charges to which Flynn had
twice pled guilty before a federal judge. That judge, Emmett Sullivan, is now considering
whether to allow the dropping of the charges and has asked for outside groups to file
friend-of-the-court pleadings on the question.
The Senate investigations accelerated after a Tuesday meeting between Trump and leading
Senate Republicans, at which he demanded they "get tough" against the Democrats by issuing
subpoenas and holding televised hearings during the summer.
On the same day, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell abandoned his previous reluctance to
hold such hearings, declaring that the Obama administration had used "the awesome power of the
federal government to pry into their political rivals."
"An American citizen's campaign for the American presidency was treated like a hostile
foreign power by our own law enforcement," he said, "in part because a Democrat-led executive
branch manipulated documents, hid contrary evidence, and made a DNC-funded dossier a launchpad
for an investigation."
... ... ...
The fall election campaign sparked an internal conflict within the FBI
between pro-Trump and pro-Clinton factions. On October 7, the "intelligence community" issued a
warning that Russia was seeking to intervene in the election on behalf of Trump. Then, on
October 29, Comey released his notorious letter to Congress announcing the reopening of the
FBI's investigation into Clinton's use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary
of state. This unprecedented action, in violation of Justice Department rules against
interfering with an election, arguably tipped the outcome to Trump, given his narrow margins in
industrial states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania.
After Trump's surprise election victory, the attention of the intelligence agencies and the
Obama administration shifted to Flynn, Trump's top foreign policy aide and his choice to become
White House national security adviser. Obama warned Trump against naming Flynn, who had been
fired in 2014 as part of an internal conflict within the intelligence establishment, with
Clapper and CIA Director John Brennan pressing for his dismissal.
On December 29, 2016, Obama imposed stiff diplomatic sanctions on the Russian government,
expelling a large number of its representatives in the United States on the spurious grounds
that he was "retaliating" for Russian interference in the US presidential election. In fact,
there has never been any evidence that Russian actions consisted of anything more than
purchasing a few Facebook ads, for less than $100,000, trivial in comparison to the $5 billion
expended by the campaigns for Trump and Clinton.
Immediately after Obama's announcement of sanctions, Flynn called the Russian ambassador to
the United States, Kislyak, to urge the Putin government not to respond in kind, assuring him
that the incoming Trump administration would review the matter afresh. Such contacts are
routine during any transition between outgoing and incoming US administrations, but Flynn
apparently considered the content of the discussions to be politically embarrassing and lied
about them when interviewed by FBI agents.
On January 5, 2017, Obama and his closest aides were briefed by the intelligence agencies on
the anti-Russia investigation, on the eve of a similar briefing delivered to President-elect
Trump in New York City. It appears that Obama was less enthusiastic about the targeting of
Flynn than the security chiefs, including Clapper and Comey, and Flynn continued to receive
full briefings from the outgoing national security adviser, Susan Rice.
On January 12, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, a regular conduit for the
intelligence agencies, made public the December 29 Flynn-Kislyak phone call, touching off the
chain of events that led to Flynn's firing a month later. It is perhaps ironic, in view of the
current "Obamagate" campaign, that Ignatius voiced the then-common view in the "intelligence
community" that Obama was dragging his feet on the anti-Russia campaign. His column was
headlined, "Why Did Obama Dawdle on Russian Hacking?"
These apparently tactical differences led Comey to send FBI agents to the White House on
January 24, 2017 to interview Flynn about his conversations with Kislyak without notifying the
Department of Justice, in violation of the usual protocol, because Acting Attorney General
Sally Yates reportedly shared Obama's concern that too direct an attack on Flynn and Trump
might backfire.
Besides the various Senate investigations, the Department of Justice is conducting its own
review of the origins of the Russia investigation, which led ultimately to the appointment of
special counsel Robert Mueller. This review, headed by US Attorney John Durham, is expected to
include testimony under oath from the same set of former Obama aides who are to be subpoenaed
by the Senate.
FBI Director Christopher Wray announced Friday that he has ordered the bureau to conduct an
internal review of its handling of the probe into former national security adviser
Michael Flynn , which has led to his years long battle in federal court.
It's like the fox guarding the hen house.
Wray's decision to investigate also comes late. The bureau's probe only comes after numerous
revelations that former senior FBI officials and agents involved in Flynn's case allegedly
engaged in misconduct to target the three star general, who became
President Donald Trump's most trusted campaign advisor.
Despite all these revelations, Wray has promised that the bureau will examine whether any
employees engaged in misconduct during the court of the investigation and "evaluate whether any
improvements in FBI policies and procedures need to be made." Based on what we know, how can we
trust an unbiased investigation from the very bureau that targeted Flynn.
Let me put it to you this way, over the past year Wray has failed to cooperate with
congressional investigations. In fact, many Republican lawmakers have called him out publicly
on the lack of cooperation saying, he cares more about protecting the bureaucracy than exposing
and resolving the culture of corruption within the bureau.
Wray's Friday announcement, is in my opinion, a ruse to get lawmakers off his back.
How can we trust that Wray's internal investigation will expose what actually happened in
the case of Flynn, or any of the other Trump campaign officials that were targeted by the
former Obama administration's intelligence and law enforcement apparatus.
It's Wray's FBI that continues to battle all the Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act
requests regarding the investigation into Flynn, along with any requests that would expose
information on the Russia hoax investigation. One in particular, is the request to obtain all
the text messages and emails sent and received by former Deputy Director
Andrew McCabe.
The FBI defended itself in its Friday announcement saying that in addition to its own
internal review, it has already cooperated with other inquiries assigned by Attorney General
William Barr. But still Wray has not approved subpoena's for employees and others that
lawmakers want to interview behind closed doors in Congress.
The recent documented discoveries by the Department of Justice make it all the more
imperative that an outside review of the FBI's handling of Flynn's case is required. Those
documents, which shed light on the actions by the bureau against Flynn, led to the DOJ's
decision to drop all charges against him. It was, after all, DOJ Attorney Jeffery Jensen who
discovered the FBI documents regarding Flynn that have aided his defense attorney Sidney Powell
in getting the truth out to they American people.
Powell, like me, doesn't believe an internal review is appropriate.
"Wow? And how is he going to investigate himself," she questioned in a Tweet. "And how could
anyone trust it? FBI Director Wray opens internal review into how bureau handled Michael Flynn
case."
--
Sidney Powell 🇺🇸⭐⭐⭐ (@SidneyPowell1) May
22, 2020
Last week, this reporter published the growing divide between Congressional Republicans on
the House Judiciary Committee and Wray. The lawmakers have accused Wray of failing to respond
to numerous requests to speak with FBI Special Agent Joe Pientka, who along with former FBI
Special Agent Peter Strzok, conducted the now infamous White House interview with Flynn on Jan.
24, 2017.
Further, the lawmakers have also requested to speak with the FBI's former head of the
Counterintelligence Division ,
Bill Priestap, whose unsealed handwritten notes revealed the possible 'nefarious'
motivations behind the FBI's investigation of Flynn.
"Michael Flynn was wronged by the FBI," said a senior Republican official last week, with
direct knowledge of the Flynn investigation.
"Sadly
Director Wray has shown little interest in getting to the bottom of what actually
happened with the Flynn case. Wray's lackadaisical attitude is an embarrassment to the rank
and file agents at the bureau, whose names have been dragged through the mud time and time
again throughout the Russia-gate investigation. Wray needs to wake up and work with Congress.
If he doesn't maybe it's time for him to go. "
Powell argued that Flynn had pleaded guilty because his former Special Counsel Robert
Mueller, along with his prosecutors, threatened to target his son. Those prosecutors also
coerced Flynn, whose finances were depleted by his previous defense team. Mueller's team got
Flynn to plead guilty to lying to the FBI about a phone conversation he had with the former
Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential transition period. However, the
agents who interviewed him did not believe he was lying.
Currently the DOJ's request to dismiss the case is now pending before federal Judge Emmet
Sullivan. Sullivan has failed to grant the DOJ's request to dismiss the case and because of
that Powell has filed a writ of mandamus to the U.S. D.C. Court of Appeals seeking the
immediate removal of Sullivan, or to dismiss the prosecution as requested by the DOJ.
In the weeks before the 2016
presidential election, the most powerful former leaders of the Central Intelligence Agency did everything they could to elect
Hillary Clinton and defeat Donald Trump. President Obama’s former acting CIA chief Michael Morrell published a
full-throated endorsement of Clinton in the New York Times and claimed “Putin ha[s] recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting
agent of the Russian Federation,” while George W. Bush’s post-9/11 CIA and NSA Chief, Gen. Michael Hayden, writing in
the Washington Post, refrained from endorsing Clinton outright but echoed Morrell by accusing Trump of being a “useful fool,
some naif, manipulated by Moscow” and sounding “a little bit the conspiratorial Marxist.” Meanwhile, the intelligence community
under James Clapper and John Brennan fed
morsels to both the Obama DOJ and the US media to suggest a Trump/Russia conspiracy and fuel what became the Russiagate
investigation.
In his extraordinary election-advocating Op-Ed, Gen. Hayden, Bush/Cheney’s CIA Chief, candidly explained the reasons for the
CIA’s antipathy for Trump: namely, the GOP candidate’s stated opposition to allowing CIA regime change efforts in Syria to
expand as well as his opposition to arming Ukrainians with lethal weapons to fight Russia (supposedly “pro-Putin” positions
which, we are now all supposed
to forget, Obamalargely
shared).
As has been true since President Harry Truman’s creation of the CIA after World War II, interfering in other countries and
dictating or changing their governments — through campaigns of mass murder, military coups, arming guerrilla groups, the
abolition of democracy, systemic disinformation, and the imposition of savage despots — is regarded as a divine right, inherent
to American exceptionalism. Anyone who questions that or, worse, opposes it and seeks to impede it (as the CIA perceived Trump
was) is of suspect loyalties at best.
The CIA’s antipathy toward Trump continued after his election victory. The agency became the primary
vector for anonymous, illegal leaks designed to depict Trump as a Kremlin agent and/or blackmail victim. It worked to ensure
the leak of the Steele dossier that clouded at least the first two years of Trump’s presidency. It drove the scam Russiagate
conspiracy theories. And before Trump was even inaugurated, open warfare erupted between the president-elect and the agency to
the point where Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer explicitly warned Trump on the Rachel Maddow Show that he was
risking full-on subversion of his presidency by the agency:
Democrats, early in Trump’s presidency, saw clearly that the CIA had become one of Trump’s most devoted enemies, and thus began
viewing them as a valuable ally. Leading out-of-power Democratic foreign policy elites from the Obama administration and Clinton
campaign joined forces not only with Bush/Cheney neocons but also former CIA officials to create new foreign
policy advocacy groups designed to malign and undermine Trump and promote hawkish confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.
Meanwhile, other ex-CIA and Homeland Security officials, such as John Brennan and James Clapper, became beloved liberal
celebrities by being hired
by MSNBC and CNN to deliver liberal-pleasing anti-Trump messaging that, on a virtually daily basis, masqueraded
as news.
Oliver Stone's "The Untold History of the US" opened up my eyes to how shameful our
history really is. The American Empire is no better then Great Britain, the very power this
country was supposed to rise above.
When a system is fully controlled by the big corporation/money every action and move must
serve it's master. Some are directly related to their immediate interest and some to prevent
any future challenge to it.
"...At CBS, we had been contacted by the CIA, as a matter of fact, by the time I became
the head of the news and public affairs division in 1954 shifts had been established ... I
was told about them and asked if I'd carry on with them...." -- Sid Mickelson, CBS News
President 1954-61, describing Operation Mockingbird
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, by John Perkins, was a NYTimes best-seller about the
methods CIA use to dominate countries in Latin America and in Asia. John Perkins never was
interviewed by Us Media.
FBI was converted into free floating secret police free to investigate anybody.
Notable quotes:
"... Well, there is the infamous Strzok-Page SMS where Page states that the WH wants to know everything. This occurred MONTHS before January 4, 2017. ..."
"... Mike Flynn was eyeballs deep in conflicts of interest between his business and his national security role. ..."
"... part of the call was to ask Russia to veto a vote which should also be drilled into as they had not taken office yet and actively undermined a sitting government ..."
"... The FBI asked about the call because they wanted to leak it without revealing they had intercepted the communications of a incoming National Security Advisor. The call might have been perfectly normal and legal but given the Russia hysteria of the time it was perfectly usable as a smear. ..."
"... So they went in and ambushed Flynn without a lawyer to either get him on the record and leak it or better yet lie about it. Flynn didn't know how depraved the Obama administration had become and didn't imagine they had unmasked him and also couldn't believe they would dare entrap him like some criminal by asking him about a call they already had intercepted. That was his mistake. ..."
"... Obama is an armed terrorist at the behest of the CIA for a proxy war in Libya (North Africa) and Syria ..."
03: 45 - Well, there is the infamous Strzok-Page SMS where Page states that the WH wants
to know everything. This occurred MONTHS before January 4, 2017.
Glenn Greenwald is always delivering a well-thought and well-researched view on so many
important issues in this world. I may not share the same view on every issue with GG, but I
make a reasonable effort to find his insights at every opportunity. He is an absolute
pleasure to listen to, because he speaks with such clarity of thought and is clearly an
exceptional lawyer. It may well be too much to ask for...but journalism could use 100 more
Glenn Greenwald's.
Rising is really drinking the kool aid on this one. So many facts
about this case are being cherry picked to find a conspiracy. Mike Flynn was eyeballs deep in
conflicts of interest between his business and his national security role.
Let's also not
forget, he was fired by Trump because he lied to Mike Pence, not because the deep state
railroaded him in some way.
Completely agree that this was criminal and should be explored fully but be objective and
I heard about the story that part of the call was to ask Russia to veto a vote which should
also be drilled into as they had not taken office yet and actively undermined a sitting
government
The FBI asked about the call
because they wanted to leak it without revealing they had intercepted the communications of a
incoming National Security Advisor. The call might have been perfectly normal and legal but
given the Russia hysteria of the time it was perfectly usable as a smear.
So they went in and
ambushed Flynn without a lawyer to either get him on the record and leak it or better yet lie
about it. Flynn didn't know how depraved the Obama administration had become and didn't
imagine they had unmasked him and also couldn't believe they would dare entrap him like some
criminal by asking him about a call they already had intercepted. That was his mistake.
"... One could write a long history of FBI abuses and failures, from Latin America to Martin Luther King to Japanese internment. But just consider a handful of their more recent cases. ..."
"... But it was 9/11 that really sealed the FBI's ignominious track record. The lavishly funded agency charged with preventing terrorism somehow missed the attacks, despite their awareness of numerous Saudi nationals taking flying lessons around the country. Immediately after 9/11, the nation was gripped by the anthrax scare, and once again the FBI's inability to solve the case caused them to try to railroad an innocent man, Stephen Hatfill . ..."
"... With 9/11, the FBI also began targeting troubled Americans by handing them bomb materials, arresting them, and then holding a press conference to tell the country that they had prevented a major terrorist attack -- a fake attack that they themselves had planned. ..."
"... 9/11 also opened the floodgates to domestic surveillance and all the FISA abuses that most recently led to the prosecution of Michael Flynn. I am no fan of Flynn and his hawkish anti-Islamic views, but the way he was framed and then prosecuted really does shock the conscience. ..."
"... For the FBI, merely catching bad guys is too mundane. As one can tell from the sanctimonious James Comey, the culture at the Bureau holds grander aspirations. Comey's book is titled A Higher Loyalty , as if the FBI reports only to the Almighty. ..."
"... While the nation's elite colleges and tech companies are crawling with Chinese spies who are literally stealing our best ideas, the chief of the FBI's Counterintelligence Section, Peter Strzok, spent his days trying to frame junior aides in the Trump campaign. ..."
"... Some conservatives have called for FBI Director Christopher Wray to be fired. This would accomplish nothing, as the problem is not one man but an entire culture. ..."
"... One of the most amusing yet disturbing tends of the Trump era has been the increasingly strong embrace of the "intelligence community" (how I hate that term) by left liberals. ..."
"... It's tempting to wonder how many of them have even heard of COINTELPRO, but I suspect that most of them would be just fine if the FBI intervened to disrupt and destabilize the Marxist left in the unlikely event that it seemed to be gaining a significant political foothold. Can't have any nasty class politics disrupting their bourgeois identitarian parlor game! ..."
"... J. Edgar Hoover wrecked a lot of the good the FBI could have been right from the beginning, there needs to be a major cultural change over there and they need to be put back on track so that they serve us instead of themselves. ..."
"... Making sure crooks like Hoover and showboats like Comey never get put in charge would be a good start. ..."
"... Remember in "Three Days of the Condor," when Robert Redford reacts scornfully to Cliff Robertson's use of the term "community"? ..."
"... Collaboratus: Basically, working together. BULL, the individual IC Agencies can't work together internally, much less across agency boundaries. ..."
"... Virtus: a specific virtue in Ancient Rome. It carried connotations of valor, manliness, excellence, courage, character, and worth, perceived as masculine strengths. Again, BULL. The Feminazis and lgbtqxyz crowd have, pretty much snipped any balls and put them in a jar. Yes, gay pride is big in the IC. ..."
"... Fides: was the goddess of trust and bona fides in Roman paganism. She was one of the original virtues to be considered an actual religious divinity. Fides is everything that is required for "honour and credibility, from fidelity in marriage, to contractual arrangements, and the obligation soldiers owed to Rome". With respect to the IC, that last bears repeating" "Obligations Soldiers Owed To Rome." In the IC (Rome), Leadership and Management (LM) have no obligations to the 'soldiers'; so, of course, the soldiers respond in kind. ..."
"... Real underline issue is FBI has been politicized. Rather than be neutral and independent, top FBI leaders have aligned with politicians. While nominate FBI officials, presidents also select their own than someone is independent. ..."
"... Absolutely nothing new or rare was done to Flynn. The FBI used perfectly standard dirty tricks on him. ..."
"... It isn't just the FBI that uses dirty tactics. most police departments also use dirty tactics. ..."
"... As I see it the agency that needs to be broken up is the CIA. What they do is shameful and not American. They are and have always been heavily involved in other countries internal affairs. They are an evil organization. ..."
"... Absolutely phenomenal that an entire essay abusing the FBI could be written without once mentioning the man who actually made the Federal Bureau of Investigation into what it is (whatever that might be). But J Edgar Hoover is still sufficiently iconic a figure to many Conservatives that it would be counterproductive to assault him. Better someone like Comey. ..."
"... I did not know the FBI had the power to go back in time, otherwise how did they get Flynn to lie to VP Pence on Jan 14 when they didn't interview him until 1/24? Amazing how powerful they are! ..."
Its constant abuses, of which Michael Flynn is only the latest, show what a failed
Progressive Era institution it really is. Fittingly, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was founded by a grandnephew of
Napoleon Bonaparte, Attorney General Charles J. Bonaparte, during the Progressive Era.
Bonaparte was a Harvard-educated crusader. As the FBI's official history states, "Many
progressives, including (Teddy) Roosevelt, believed that the federal government's guiding hand
was necessary to foster justice in an industrial society."
Progressives viewed the Constitution as a malleable document, a take-it-or-leave-it kind of
thing. The FBI inherited that mindset of civil liberties being optional. In their early years,
with the passage of the Espionage and Sedition Acts during World War I, the FBI came into its
own by launching a massive domestic surveillance campaign and prosecuting war dissenters.
Thousands of Americans were arrested, prosecuted, and jailed simply for voicing opposition.
One could write a long history of FBI abuses and failures, from Latin America to Martin
Luther King to Japanese internment. But just consider a handful of their more recent cases. The
FBI needlessly killed women and children at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Anyone who has lived anywhere
near Boston knows of the Bureau's staggering corruption during gangster Whitey Bulger's reign
of terror. The abuses in Boston were so terrific that radio host Howie Carr declared that the
FBI initials really stood for "Famous But Incompetent." And then there's Richard Jewell, the
hero security guard who was almost railroaded by zealous FBI agents looking for a scalp after
they failed to solve the Atlanta terrorist bombing.
But it was 9/11 that really sealed the FBI's ignominious track record. The lavishly funded
agency charged with preventing terrorism somehow missed the attacks, despite their
awareness of numerous Saudi nationals taking flying lessons around the country. Immediately
after 9/11, the nation was gripped by the anthrax scare, and once again the FBI's inability to
solve the case caused them to try to railroad an innocent man, Stephen Hatfill .
With 9/11, the FBI also began targeting
troubled Americans by handing them bomb materials, arresting them, and then holding a press
conference to tell the country that they had prevented a major terrorist attack -- a fake
attack that they themselves had planned.
9/11 also opened the floodgates to domestic surveillance and all the FISA abuses that most
recently led to the prosecution of Michael Flynn. I am no fan of Flynn and his hawkish
anti-Islamic views, but the way he was framed and then prosecuted really does shock the
conscience. After Jewell, Hatfill, Flynn, and so many others, it's time to ask whether the
culture of the FBI has become similar to that of Stalin's secret police, i.e. "show me the man
and I'll show you the crime."
I am no anti-law enforcement libertarian. In a previous career, I had the privilege to work
with agents of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and they were some of the bravest
people I have ever met. And while the DEA can be overly aggressive (just ask anyone who has
been subjected to federal asset forfeiture), it is inconceivable that its agents would plot a
coup d'état against the president of the United States. The DEA sees their job as
catching drug criminals; they stay in their lane.
For the FBI, merely catching bad guys is too mundane. As one can tell from the sanctimonious
James Comey, the culture at the Bureau holds grander aspirations. Comey's book is titled A
Higher Loyalty , as if the FBI reports only to the Almighty.
They see themselves as
progressive guardians of the American Way, intervening whenever and wherever they see democracy
in danger. No healthy republic should have a national police force with this kind of culture.
There are no doubt many brave and patriotic FBI agents, but there is also no doubt they have
been very badly led.
This savior complex led them to aggressively pursue the Russiagate hoax. Their chasing of
ghosts should make it clear that the FBI does not stay in their lane. While the nation's elite
colleges and tech companies are crawling with Chinese spies who are literally stealing our best
ideas, the chief of the FBI's Counterintelligence Section, Peter Strzok, spent his days trying
to frame junior aides in the Trump campaign.
Some conservatives have
called for FBI Director Christopher Wray to be fired. This would accomplish nothing, as the
problem is not one man but an entire culture. One possible solution is to break up the FBI into
four or five agencies, with one responsible for counterintelligence, one for counterterrorism,
one for complex white-collar crime, one for cybercrimes, and so on. Smaller agencies with more
distinctive missions would not see themselves as national saviors and could be held accountable
for their effectiveness at very specific jobs. It would also allow federal agents to develop
genuine expertise rather than, as the FBI regularly does, shifting agents constantly from
terrorism cases to the war on drugs to cybercrime to whatever the political class's latest
crime du jour might be.
Such a reform would not end every abuse of federal law enforcement, and all these agencies
would need to be kept on a short leash for the sake of civil liberties. It would, however,
diminish the ostentatious pretension of the current FBI that they are the existential guardians
of the republic. In a republic, the people and their elected leaders are the protectors of
their liberties. No one else.
One of the most amusing yet disturbing tends of the Trump era has been the increasingly
strong embrace of the "intelligence community" (how I hate that term) by left liberals.
It's hard to believe it was only a decade ago when they were (correctly) deriding these
exact same people for their manifold failures relating to the War on Terror, but then again
left liberals at that time had not yet abandoned the pretense that they were something
other than a PMC social club.
It's tempting to wonder how many of them have even heard of COINTELPRO, but I suspect that most of them would be just fine if the FBI intervened to
disrupt and destabilize the Marxist left in the unlikely event that it seemed to be gaining
a significant political foothold. Can't have any nasty class politics disrupting their
bourgeois identitarian parlor game!
It's not the left liberals, it's the centrists and the neocons fleeing the Republican Party
like rats. The left never liked the FBI, never trusted them, with good reason.
J. Edgar
Hoover wrecked a lot of the good the FBI could have been right from the beginning, there
needs to be a major cultural change over there and they need to be put back on track so
that they serve us instead of themselves.
Making sure crooks like Hoover and showboats like
Comey never get put in charge would be a good start.
Or put another way... One of the most amusing yet disturbing tends of the Trump era has
been the increasingly strong disdain of the "intelligence community" (how I hate that term)
by far right conservatives.
Let's just be honest with ourselves - we really don't want intelligence, or science, or
oversight, unless it supports our team.
1. Collaboratus: Basically, working together. BULL, the individual IC Agencies can't
work together internally, much less across agency boundaries. This goes to guys like Mike
Flynn (former director of DIA), his predecessors and successors, and their peers across the
Intel(?) Community (that one kills me, too); the IC. Not to 'slight' anyone, but middle
management is no better, and probably, worse; everyone has to protect their own 'little
rice bowl' ya know.
2. Virtus: a specific virtue in Ancient Rome. It carried connotations of valor,
manliness, excellence, courage, character, and worth, perceived as masculine strengths.
Again, BULL. The Feminazis and lgbtqxyz crowd have, pretty much snipped any balls and put
them in a jar. Yes, gay pride is big in the IC.
3. Fides: was the goddess of trust and bona fides in Roman paganism. She was one of the
original virtues to be considered an actual religious divinity. Fides is everything that is
required for "honour and credibility, from fidelity in marriage, to contractual
arrangements, and the obligation soldiers owed to Rome". With respect to the IC, that last
bears repeating" "Obligations Soldiers Owed To Rome." In the IC (Rome), Leadership and
Management (LM) have no obligations to the 'soldiers'; so, of course, the soldiers respond
in kind.
The ICs are dog eat dog; LM are looking out for themselves...Period. Actually doing 'the
job' is pretty far down the TODO List. The vast majority of people in the 'trenches' are
just trying to get through the day; like LM, doing the 'right thing' is no longer the first
thought.
To make matters worse (if possible), MANY of those people in the trenches have
almost no clue WTF they are doing. This is because management involuntarily reassigns
people (SURPRISE!) to jobs for which they were not hired, have no qualifications, and,
often, no interest in becoming qualified. Of course, they hang on hoping that 'black swan'
will land and make everything right again.
We've had two major incidents (at least), in the last 20 years (9/11 and the Kung Flu)
that are specific failures of the IC (IMO). The IC failed (fails?) because Collaboratus,
Virtus, and Fides are just some words on a plaque; not goals for which to strive; lip
service is a poor substitute.
Yeah, these yahoos are overdue for a good house cleaning as well.
Real underline issue is FBI has been politicized.
Rather than be neutral and independent, top FBI leaders have aligned with politicians.
While nominate FBI officials, presidents also select their own than someone is
independent.
In order their men can do their "works", they also increased their authorities. Supposedly, FBI directors, once confirmed, will not change with president. In reality,
we saw presidents to replace old ones with their own.
It is not break up or whatever "reform". As long as presidents (regardless whom) can
choose their own, how can you expect FBI does its jobs stated by laws?
It is amazing how far people will let their political hatreds take them. The
FBI is actually more important for the services it provides police forces around America
than it is for solving federal crimes.
The FBI have been using dirty practices on people
for decades. Literally hundreds of people who are not criminals have written about this -
several of them are former agents who left in good standing.
They practice some of them
right out in the open, like leaking information about arrests to the press so that the
press get to film their arrests - sometimes timing arrests to hit local primetime new. It
even has a name - the prime time perp walk. Whether these people are convicted or not,
those images follow them for the rest of their lives. Or announcing that a person is "a
person of interest" to force cooperation, because they know that people hear "suspect" when
they hear such announcements. They will then offer to announce that the person is no longer
a person of interest in exchange for cooperation. It didn't deserve to be disbanded them.
Absolutely nothing new or rare was done to Flynn. The FBI used perfectly standard
dirty tricks on him. But since he was a minion of Donald Trump, the FBI should have
known that he was untouchable. That is their real wrongdoing here. But they didn't realize
it, so they should be disbanded. It is just like some progressives call for the disbandment
of ICE because it arrests illegal aliens.
This ignoramus reminds me of others of his kind who call for the disbandbandment of the
UN because they don't like the behavior of its General Council, its human rights or the
peace keeping agencies, completely oblivious of the critical services the dozens of
non-political UN agencies provide to all countries, especially to very small or under
developed ones. They call for the destruction of WHO because it kowtows to China no matter
that a number of countries in the world would have access to zero advanced health services
without it, and others who are less dependent, but find its services critical in
maintaining healthy populations. They find it politically objectionable so get rid of it! I
really hate how progressives throw around the words "entitled" and "privilege", but some
people do behave that way.
You can't go without the police though and a lot of what goes there can be reformed. Stop
treating them like an movie version of the military. Teach them to calm a situation instead
of shooting first, and realize you can treat them like an important part of society without
making them above the law.
As I see it the agency that needs to be broken up is the CIA. What they do is shameful and
not American. They are and have always been heavily involved in other countries internal
affairs. They are an evil organization.
If conservatives are coming around to the idea that police corruption is a real thing, that
would be great. Somehow, I tend to doubt that it extends much beyond a way to protect white
collar and political corruption. I hope this is a turning point. The investigations into
Clinton emails didn't seem to warrant a mention here. Oh well.
That whole email situation was worthless. Not to say whether there was or was not an issue
but the investigation was nothing worthwhile and only resulted in complicating an already
messy election. Whether you believe there was a crime or not there there was nothing good
handled by that investigation.
Personally I'm more content with the Mueller investigation. Not the way everyone
panicked over it on both sides but what Mueller actually did himself: came in, researched
the situation, found out that while a good few people acted messy Trump himself wasn't
doing more than Twitter talk (yes it's technically "not enough evidence to prosecute", but
that is how we phrase "not guilty" technically: you prove guilt not innocence), stated that
Trump keeps messing himself up (aka "why did you ask your staff to claim one reason for a
firing then tell a different story on national TV idiot")..
Then ran for the hills as everyone screamed "impeach/witchhunt".
Though don't get me wrong: I'm not going to get on the way of any attempt to dismantle
the FBI or any of those other systems. It's something I really wish "small government"
actually meant.
And lets not forget that Russia warned the FBI about the Tsarnaev brothers. The FBI did a
perfunctory investigation and dismissed the threat. They probably thought they were a
couple of poor Chechen boys persecuted by those evil Russians.
Absolutely phenomenal that an entire essay abusing the FBI could be written without once
mentioning the man who actually made the Federal Bureau of Investigation into what
it is (whatever that might be). But J Edgar Hoover is still sufficiently iconic a
figure to many Conservatives that it would be counterproductive to assault him. Better
someone like Comey.
But, this is part of a pattern of Trump and his loyal followers (no Conservatives they)
assault on the Institutions. The FBI is insufficiently tamed by Billy Barr, so it must go.
(Part of the deep state swamp. /s).
Actually, there are very sound reasons for keeping the FBI, and even more for reforming
it. But since it was engaged in checking out Trump's minion, Flynn, it is bad, very bad,
incredibly bad, and must go. OTOH, if Comey had bent the knee to Trump, the FBI would be
the most tremendous force for good the country has ever seen.
But this essay must be seen as part of the background of attempted legitimization for
whatever Trump tweetstormed today. Perhaps the critics are right, and "conservatism is
dead". If so, it would be the proper thing to give it a decent burial and go on.
Because there is nothing about Donald John Trump which is the least Conservative, and it
is sickening to see people I once presumed to be "principled" line up at the altar of
Trumpism. You know he will not be satisfied until the country is renamed The United States
of Trump.
Now, all you Trumpublicans and Trumpservatives go downvote because I decline to abandon
Conservatism for Trumpworship,
I did not know the FBI had the power to go back in time, otherwise how did they get Flynn
to lie to VP Pence on Jan 14 when they didn't interview him until 1/24? Amazing how
powerful they are!
This, as did the Greenwald
YouTube the other day, puts together a coherent Flynn narrative. Here is a snippet: "Compare
Flynn's treatment to McCabe's. Flynn was humiliated and bankrupted for allegedly lying to Pence
and FBI agents over a phone call that advanced U.S. interests.
Meanwhile, the Justice
Department inspector general found in 2018 that McCabe "knowingly provided false information"
in three separate interviews during an investigation into self-serving leaks published by the
Wall Street Journal about an aborted investigation into the Clinton Foundation in 2016.
That
report also found that McCabe admonished more junior FBI agents for the leaks that he himself
had authorized. Today, McCabe is a contributor at CNN. His opinions are still taken seriously
at places like the esteemed Lawfare website. He remains in the good graces of the Trump
resistance." \
This doesn't look good for the Obama Alumni Association (which, horridly,
is a real thing ).
In the weeks leading up to the 2016 election, the FBI offered to pay former British spy
Christopher Steele "significantly" for collecting intelligence on Michael Flynn, according to
the
Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross.
The FBI's proposal - made during an October 3, 2016 meeting in an unidentified European
city, and virtually ignored by the press - has taken on new significance in light of recent
documents exposing how the Obama administration targeted Flynn before and after president
Trump's upset victory over Hillary Clinton in 2016.
The inspector general's report, released on Dec. 9, 2019, said that FBI agents offered to
pay Steele "significantly" to collect intelligence from three separate "buckets" that the
bureau was pursuing as part of Crossfire Hurricane , its counterintelligence probe of four
Trump campaign associates.
One bucket was "Additional intelligence/reporting on specific, named individuals (such as
[Carter Page] or [Flynn]) involved in facilitating the Trump campaign-Russian relationship,"
the IG report stated.
FBI agents also sought contact with "any individuals or sub sources" who Steele could
provide to "serve as cooperating witnesses to assist in identifying persons involved in the
Trump campaign-Russian relationship."
Steele at the time had provided the FBI with reports he compiled alleging that members of
the Trump campaign had conspired with the Kremlin to influence the 2016 election. -
Daily Caller
Of note, Steele was promoting a discredited rumor that Flynn had an extramarital affair with
Svetlana Lokhova, a Russian-British academic who studied at the University of Cambridge. This
rumor was amplified by the Wall Street Journal and The Guardian in March, 2017.
According to the Inspector General's report, the FBI gave Steele a "general overview" of
their Crossfire Hurricane probe - including their efforts to surveil Trump campaign aides
George Papadopoulos and Carter Page, along with Paul Manafort and Flynn. In fact - some FBI
agents questioned whether the lead agent told Steel too much about the operation , according to
the IG report.
In recent weeks, the release of two documents raise questions about potential links between
the FBI's request of Steele and the Lokhova rumor .
One of the documents is a transcript of longtime John McCain associate David Kramer's
interview with the House Intelligence Committee. Kramer testified on Dec. 17, 2017,
that Steele
told him in December 2016 that he suspected that Flynn had an extramarital affair with a
Russian woman .
"There was one thing he mentioned to me that is not included here, and that is he believed
that Mr. Flynn had an extramarital affair with a Russian woman in the U.K .," Kramer told
lawmakers.
Kramer said that Steele conveyed that Flynn's alleged mistress was a "Russian woman" who
"may have been a dual citizen."
An FBI
memo dated Jan. 4, 2017, contained another allegation regarding Flynn and a mysterious
Russian woman.
The memo, which was provided to Flynn's lawyers on April 30, said that an FBI confidential
human source (CHS) told the bureau that they were present at an event that Flynn attended
while he was still working in the U.S. intelligence community . -
Daily Caller
Lokhova and Flynn have denied the rumors - with Lokhova's husband telling the Daily Caller
News Foundation that he picked his wife up after the Cambridge dinner where an FBI informant
said they 'left together in a cab.'
Meanwhile, a DIA official who was at the Cambridge event with Flynn also told the WSJ in
March 2017 that there was nothing inappropriate going on between Flynn and Lokhova.
Here is the bottomline in a nutshell--Susan Rice has been caught red handed trying to
construct a lie about what Barack Obama knew and did not know with respect to General Michael
Flynn. She claimed to be present when Barack Obama discussed the Michael Flynn intercept but,
according to Sally Yates, who was interviewed by the FBI, only Yates, Jim Comey and Barack
Obama were present. This new revelation--made possible by the declassification of the Susan
Rice email written in the last moments of the Obama Administration--actually bolsters Michael
Flynn's contention that he was the victim of a political hit job designed to take out Donald
Trump.
With every new revelation about what President Trump calls "Obamagate," you see the curtain
being torn down and revealing the corrupt players who were running America and attacking our
Republic.
Former CIA Officer and counter-terrorism expert Kevin Shipp, who wrote a book about the Deep
State called "From the Company of Shadows," says any hint that POTUS is a tool of the Deep
State is preposterous.
Shipp explains, "That is absolutely ridiculous..."
" Donald Trump has confronted the Shadow Government and Deep State more than any other
president in history, and that includes JFK. JFK did, of course, confront the Deep State and
we saw what happened there.
There has been no other president that has had the guts to expose the Shadow Government
and Deep State like Donald Trump has. What has the Deep State done? They have gone after him
with a vengeance. Why would the Deep State attack their own with attacks to try to destroy
him and his family if he wasn't threatening to expose the Deep State? No, he's not a Deep
State president. He's not perfect. We all know that. There are members of his cabinet that we
are concerned about with connections to some of the central banks. We all know that, but
Donald Trump is not Deep State. He is splitting the Deep State wide open.
Look what DNI Rick Grenell just presented to the President. He authorized for release of
names of all the unmaskers. Trump is exposing the Deep State, and, personally, I am proud of
him because I have been waiting for this for 20 years for a president to come out and expose
these things ."
On the virus crisis, Shipp says it's turned into a political weapon for the Left. Shipp
contends, "They (Democrats) want to delay any solution to the Coronavirus until the election so
they can keep the economy ruined and point the finger at Donald Trump..."
" That's one of the things they want to do. They also want mail-in ballots because that is
one of the easiest ways to engage in election fraud. There is a report that just came out
that people are getting mail-in ballots that already have the Democrat party checked on the
box when they open it up, and they are not Democrats.
You better believe they are going to try to engage in voter fraud using mail-in ballots.
There is no doubt about it because they are going to lose badly, and they know it. So, they
have to do that. You bet."
The Democrats in the House are going to try, once again, to impeach President Trump for
Russian collision. Recently released documents show it was a proven total hoax that they made
up, and, yet, the Dems are going to try this again before the 2020 election. What's going on?
Shipp says,
" This is the last gasp of Democrat Congressional tyrants trying one last time to remove
this elected President. It's laughable...
What this is, is desperation on the part of Pelosi and Schumer. This is desperation on
their part knowing that the whole thing was disproven and shot down by the evidence. If Trump
gets elected a second time, you will see investigations into Congress, Senate, Obamagate and
China. These people are desperate to keep that stuff from coming out.
You think President Trump is exposing them now? You wait until he gets elected a second
time. That's why they are so terrified, and they are trying everything they can to keep him
from being elected."
Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog.com as he goes One-on-One with CIA whistleblower Kevin
Shipp.
Obama & his band of corrupt, lying, manipulating, seditious, malevolent, lawless
criminals, who are still running loose, back in the WH ... Above the law_ Perkins Coie Law
Firm, Fusion GPS (Glenn Simpson) Christopher Steele, Stefan Harper, Josef Mifsud, Alexander
Downer, Alexandra Chalupa, Robert Mueller, Andrew Weismann, Andrew McCabe, James Baker, Peter
Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce & Nellie Ohr, Joe Pientka, ... Obama, Biden, Crooked Hillary,
Wingman Eric Holder, Tarmac Loretta Lynch, John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Valerie
Jarrett, Susan Rice, Samantha Power, Sally Yates, section data-role="main"
data-tracking-area="main"
It was all A LIE ( as in SLANDER) all made up by Obama...I hope Flynn sues that POS for
everything his owns section data-role="main" data-tracking-area="main"
Attack the guy who asks the questions. I understand. It's hard to believe they were this
dishonest to begin with. Covering it up after the fact with lame emails is so Nixonian. But
then again, Rice has a history of lying about history. Remember the Sunday propaganda parade
she ran regarding the Benghazi coverup. Squirrels do not give birth to eagles as they say.
You are what your history says you are.
You lying coward. They all spoke under oath at the Schiff clown show. So did Comey, Clapper
and Brennan. They all said no collusion under oath . Flynn a decorated general was destroyed
by career bureaucrats that only serve themselves. Obama encouraged it at the least. Directed
it at its worst. Shameful. section data-role="main" data-tracking-area="main"
Yes you are sorry. Defending a coup by a bunch of unelected burecrats over politics. Get a
better candidate and win an election. Maybe do a little party analysts on how you lost middle
America that's what I am talking about. Partisan hacks like yourself are as introspective as
a dung beatle. You do what you do in sh!t created by others and don't question why.
Was it Crowdstrike that had shown her the forensics data? This McCarthyist dog just keeps lying and keeps digging. The Obama administration
was as shameless as they were crooked.
"They all sound like kids that got caught raiding the cookie jar making up wild tales of innocence with cookie crumbs all over their
faces."
Notable quotes:
"... Opening your eyes wider while speaking doesn't make you look more intense, credible, and believable... ..."
"... (((They))) are taught from birth to "lie to, cheat, rob, enslave, and kill, with impunity" all Americans they call "Goyim, a mindless herd of cattle, sub-human animals." ..."
"... Ah Evelyn, Evelyn! You're just an exposed resistance tool HRC campaign hack doubling downer unemployed TDS afflicted congress woman wannabe who has no shame no principals and no alibi. Lots of love and kisses to Bezos/WaPo for letting them share your pain with us. Here at the disinfo clearinghouse you couldn't get elected dog catcher. ..."
...Meanwhile, Poor Evelyn's campaign staff has become " emotionally exhausted " after her Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts
have been "overwhelmed with a stream of vile, vulgar and sometimes violent messages" in response to the plethora of conservative
outlets which have called her out for Russia malarkey.
There is evidence that Russian actors are contributing to these attacks. The same day that right-wing pundits began pumping
accusations, newly created Russian Twitter accounts picked them up.
Within a day, Russian "
disinformation clearinghouses " posted versions of the story . Many of the Twitter accounts boosting attacks have posted in
unison, a sign of inauthentic social media behavior.
She closes by defiantly claiming "I wasn't silenced in 2017, and I won't be silenced now."
No Evelyn, nobody is silencing you. You're being called out for your role in the perhaps the largest, most divisive hoax in US
history - which was based on faulty intelligence that includes CrowdStrike admitting they had
no proof of that Russia exfiltrated DNC emails, and Christopher Steele's absurd dossier based on his 'Russian sources.'
MrAToZ, 1 minute ago
What's with the bug eyes on these crooks?
Kurpak, 27 seconds ago
Opening your eyes wider while speaking doesn't make you look more intense, credible, and believable...
It makes you look ******* insane.
iAmerican10, 8 minutes ago (Edited)
(((They))) are taught from birth to "lie to, cheat, rob, enslave, and kill, with impunity" all Americans they call "Goyim, a mindless
herd of cattle, sub-human animals."
... ... ...
otschelnik, 35 minutes ago
Ah Evelyn, Evelyn! You're just an exposed resistance tool HRC campaign hack doubling downer unemployed TDS afflicted congress woman wannabe who
has no shame no principals and no alibi. Lots of love and kisses to Bezos/WaPo for letting them share your pain with us.
Here at the disinfo clearinghouse you couldn't get elected dog catcher.
The crux of Russiagate is that it's a political scandal masquerading as a criminal one.
The interminable scandal has been back in the news this past week thanks to the Trump
Department of Justice's decision to drop charges against Michael Flynn. Flynn was once briefly
Trump's national security advisor before being fired and then charged with lying to the FBI
over a phone conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the presidential
transition. Last Thursday , the House Intelligence Committee finally released
fifty-seven transcripts of closed-door interviews it conducted with various key players in
the saga over 2017 and 2018, covering Flynn's call with Kislyak and other matters.
Since the news dropped, every effort has been made to turn Flynn's absolution into the
latest Trump outrage. Barack Obama himself weighed in, charging in a
leaked phone call with supporters that "there is no precedent that anybody can find for someone
who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free," and that the "rule of law is at
risk."
Four years into this chaotic and reactionary presidency, there are more than enough
legitimate Trump scandals to go around. But as with many things Russiagate, both the Flynn case
and the release of the transcripts reflect far more poorly on the Obama administration,
American's hallowed national security institutions, and the anti-Trump "Resistance."
Understanding why requires going all the way back to 2016 and the beginnings of the Flynn
case. Flynn was a former intelligence official pushed out of the Obama administration over,
among other things, his
management style . Years later, he became a
characteristically weird Trump guy: a heterodox foreign policy thinker who combined
occasional opposition to endless war with conspiratorial Islamophobia, and became nationally
known for flirting with the
"alt-right" and chanting "Lock her up!" at the 2016 RNC.
Flynn's loyalty to Trump was rewarded that year when he was announced as the
president-elect's national security advisor. At the same time, Flynn had, like many in Trump's
orbit, been investigated by the FBI over whether he was Kremlin agent, and only further raised
hackles after it was
leaked that he had spoken to Kislyak the same day that Obama ordered
sanctions and expelled thirty-five Russian embassy officials as retaliation for Russia's
interference in that year's election.
Flynn was, at first,
pushed out by Trump when it turned out he had caused Vice President Mike Pence to
unwittingly lie about the contact. He was then later charged by Robert Mueller and his team in
the course of the "collusion" probe with lying to the FBI (not, as Obama claimed, perjury),
which at the time was cause
for much speculation
: it was the umpteenth "beginning of the end" of Trump's presidency but ultimately produced no
new revelations about a Trump-Russia conspiracy. Now, he's been allowed to skip a maximum of
five years in jail and walk away "scot-free," as Obama put it.
But through it all and since, details have trickled out that have made the entire saga far
less clear-cut than those most invested in the "collusion" narrative would have the public
believe. For one, despite all the innuendo around Flynn's Russian contacts and his sitting next
to Putin at a dinner, investigators found nothing unseemly when looking into Flynn and had
all but closed their
investigation into him when the news about the Kislyak call broke.
Secondly, the charge Flynn was ultimately slapped with, lying to the FBI, now looks more
like a case of entrapment. Recently released
notes written by Bill Priestep
, former FBI counterintelligence director, prior to interviewing Flynn about the Kislyak call
suggest the Bureau was looking at the option to "get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get
him fired." In the notes, Priestep wrote that "I believe we should rethink this," that simply
showing Flynn evidence so he could admit wrongdoing wasn't "going easy on him" and was routine
FBI practice, and that "if we're seen as playing games, WH [White House] will be furious," so
they should "protect our institution by not playing games."
What's more,
contemporaneous notes show that the investigators themselves weren't sure Flynn had
intentionally lied to them, and that Comey himself had said so in a March 2017 briefing, before
claiming he had never said anything of the sort after being fired by Trump.
There were further improprieties in the investigation. Flynn has claimed, with some
evidence , that the FBI pressured him to sit down for the interview without a lawyer.
Additionally, two years ago, Comey himself
admitted that he had violated protocol by sending investigators to interview Flynn without
going through the White House counsel, calling it "something I probably wouldn't have done or
maybe gotten away with in a more organized administration."
Things get worse when one goes through the
Mueller team's interview notes for then-acting Attorney General Sally Yates and Mary
McCord, another DoJ official and both Obama appointees. To the surprise of Yates -- who
insisted the White House needed to be informed Flynn had misled them, given it put him in a
potentially compromising position -- Comey repeatedly refused to notify the White House, and
the FBI's reasons for not doing so "morphed" over the course of discussion. Yates and her team
were then "flabbergasted," "dumbfounded," and "hit the roof" when they learned Comey had sent
agents to interview Flynn without informing her, believing it should have been coordinated with
the DoJ.
After this, Mueller's prosecutors coerced Flynn into pleading guilty by
bankrupting him and
threatening to go after his son , not unlike the
treatment visited upon government whistleblowers under the Obama administration. Through it
all, there was the fact that Flynn had never actually committed any underlying crime by talking
to Kislyak -- not to mention the fact that Mueller himself debunked the entire Russiagate
conspiracy theory -- making his false statements to the FBI technically criminal, but
irrelevant.
The backdrop to all of this is the FBI's staggering misconduct in spying on the Trump
campaign in 2016. As last year's report from the DoJ inspector general
revealed , the Bureau repeatedly misrepresented or left out evidence, and even used
outright false claims to obtain a FISA warrant to spy on former Trump campaign aide Carter
Page, a businessman and sometime-CIA asset with ties to Russia who advocated for
business-minded co-operation between the two countries.
In light of all of this, Russiagate looks less like a righteous crusade for truth and
justice and more like the typical
shenanigans for which the FBI and US government have long been known: prosecutorial
overreach, entrapment, and the criminalization of foreign policy dissent. Trump's grotesqueries
have has made it impossible for many liberals to acknowledge this fact. But the fact that the
FBI's misconduct was aimed at a right-wing government this time should be no reason for
Democrats to dismiss the magnitude of the scandal.
In fact, the Intelligence Committee transcripts reveal the extent to which it was
ideological opposition to, or simply political disagreement with, the incoming administration
over foreign policy that drove suspicion of a Trump-Russia conspiracy.
"Maybe I'm
Biased"
Despite the insistence of anti-Trump media, "collusion" was never crime. Even former Obama
officials alarmed by Trump's apparent closeness to the Kremlin acknowledged as such behind
closed doors.
"Collusion is a word that's been used out in the public to refer to this investigation,"
McCord
told the intelligence committee. "It's, of course, not a crime itself."
But you didn't need the testimony of Democratic officials to know this. If "colluding" with
a foreign power to win an election was a crime, then it was one both Hillary Clinton and Mitt
Romney were guilty of in 2016 and 2012, respectively.
To defeat Trump in 2016, the Democratic Party teamed up with the Ukrainian government, which
viewed a Clinton presidency -- with its
controversial preference for sending
weapons to Ukraine to fight Russia -- as most favorable to its interests. Though widely reported
at the time , Ukraine's 2016 election meddling was retrospectively transformed into a
made-up conspiracy theory when it became inconvenient to the Russiagate narrative.
Meanwhile, the
open support for Romney from a sitting Israel prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, just
eight years ago, though controversial
at the time , has similarly disappeared down a memory hole. That's not even to get into
George W. Bush's closeness to a Saudi
official heavily
complicit in the September 11 terrorist attacks.
When all was said and done, Trump's run-in with the Kremlin hasn't come close to the level
of intimacy and co-ordination with a foreign government seen in any of these examples.
No, Trump and his team's real crime was that they crossed the Washington foreign policy
consensus and violated government norms, all in the service of attempting to improve relations
with the wrong foreign government -- in this case, one deemed an official adversary. See
this
exchange between Rep. Francis Rooney (R-FL) and former Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper, one of the former spy chiefs who has repeatedly claimed Trump was in the
Kremlin's thrall on cable news (emphasis mine):
ROONEY: I mean, I guess the point is on the question is, is at what time is collusion
collusion, and at what time is it just people that may have an affiliation with the campaign
meeting or talking with, whether it be the Russian ambassador on somebody that's of Russian
origin, and when should that be taken as something that rises to the level of an Intelligence
Community concern?
CLAPPER: That's a great question, and I asked -- I really can't answer it other than the
sort of visceral reaction to why all these meetings with the Russians . They are what I
consider are an existential threat to this country, a country that is not interested in
furthering our interests, certainly on cooperating with us. Maybe I'm biased. You know, I'm a
Cold War warrior and all that , but -- so that was of concern to me.
At another point, Clapper -- who had earlier said that election interference is "almost
genetic with" Russians, and that the 2016 interference had "viscerally affected me like nothing
I've even experienced since I got in the intel business in 1963" -- recalled briefing the
president-elect about the Kremlin's interference:
I would say it was a professional exchange. He got off on wouldn't it be great if we could
get along with the Russians? I said, yeah, sure, if we found some convergence of our
interests. But I'm in the 'trust but verify' camp when it comes to Russia. I mean, maybe I've
just been around too long.
Or as Clapper put it at another point: "I have a very jaundiced view of dealing with the
Russians."
Such thinking pervaded the mindset of other Obama officials. See Obama speechwriter and
foreign policy advisor Ben Rhodes'
reaction to the now-infamous Trump Tower meeting (emphasis mine):
l was absolutely shocked. I can tell you I worked on a presidential campaign in 2007-2008.
I was one of the principal foreign policy staffers on that campaign. I would have no reason
to ever meet with any Russians . The notion of, you know, David Plouffe, David Axelrod, and
Valerie Jarrett meeting with the Russian Government would have been literally unthinkable in
the context of our campaign. And the leadership of a campaign's time is their most precious
commodity, and the fact that they felt it a worthy investment of time to sit down with
representatives of the Russian government was absolutely astonishing to me , and went far
beyond, frankly, any degree of interaction that I would have even guessed at.
Of course, much of the outrage over the Trump Tower meeting arose from the fact that the
Trump campaign was trying to get dirt on their opponent from a foreign government (the same
thing, incidentally, the Democratic Party actually did in 2016
with the Ukrainian government ). But quite apart from that, Rhodes here is scandalized
specifically by the idea the campaign would simply sit down with representatives of the
Russian government.
As Rhodes would later admit, he and other Obama campaign officials did communicate with
foreign governments during the 2008 campaign and the transition, only they happened to be "a
very small number of friendly governments to the United States." Rhodes tacitly acknowledges
there's nothing inherently wrong with a campaign meeting with or communicating with a foreign
government -- the issue for him is which foreign government , a fundamentally political
question.
Here's Yates
responding to a question from Rep. Denny Heck (D-WA) about whether "incoming
administrations or people on their behalf never have contact with representatives of foreign
governments" (emphasis mine):
YATES: No. I don't think that that was anybody's sense there, that you would never have
any contact. I think what – as they described it to me, what seemed different about
this was that he was having conversations with the Russians attempting to influence their
conduct now during this administration, and that that would be unusual and troubling.
HECK: And –
YATES: And it also -- given that it was the Russians, there's sort of an extra concern
there as well.
Or
here's Obama's outgoing national security advisor recalling her conversations during the
transition period with Flynn, the man set to replace her:
We did talk about Russia as an adversary, as a threat to NATO. But, frankly, we spent a
lot more time talking about China in part because General Flynn's focus was on China as our
principal overarching adversary. He had many questions and concerns about China. And when I
elicited -- sought to elicit his perspective on Russia, he downplayed his assessment of
Russia as a threat to the United States. He called it overblown. He said they're a declining
power, they're demographically challenged, they're not really much of a threat, and then
reemphasized the importance of China.
Flynn's factual points about Russia, by the way, are all objectively true . But
as Rice went on to say, she "had seen enough at that point and heard enough to be a little bit
sensitive to the question of the nature of General Flynn's engagements with the Russians," and
so she declined to brief Flynn on Russia policy in the fullest detail, figuring he would be
fully briefed once he officially took office.
Like Rhodes, Rice conceded that "it was normal, customary to have contacts with the
governments of friendly countries" during a transition, as Obama's did with the "British,
French, Germans, NATO allies, Asian allies."
"It was not normal," she said, "to have contacts with adversarial governments during a
transition."
Rather than breaching any kind of legal standard, the common complaint among these officials
was that Trump and his team had violated the norm or precept of "one government at a time":
that even though the Trump administration was coming in, Obama and his team were still in the
driver's seat, and it was inappropriate to step on their toes. Flynn's decision to do the
opposite may have been unwise -- but was it really an acceptable basis for everything that
followed?
It's clear that the chaos, dysfunction, and sheer weirdness of Trump's campaign and budding
presidency contributed to deepening suspicion of him and his team. But it's also clear that
this suspicion was more than a little animated by what was essentially a political disagreement
over whether Russia is a US adversary, and if it should be treated as such via official
policy.
Such a question might sound absurd to some ears. But outside the Beltway there are vast
swaths of the US political spectrum where such foreign policy positions are contested: on
relations with Iran and China, for instance, or the efficacy of the "war on terror" -- issues
on which opposing views have often been deemed dangerous, suspect, or even treasonous by one
side or another.
Rice herself declared at the end of her testimony, as she complained about Trump's praise
for WikiLeaks, that "the rest of us, everybody in this room, knew that WikiLeaks was our
adversary." Yet in 2010, when the Obama administration was aggressively going after this
"adversary," the public was
evenly split on whether Wikileaks had "served" or "harmed" the "public interest" -- with 57
percent of young people holding the former view. Just because Rice and the rest of the national
security state viewed the organization as an adversary doesn't make it an objective fact.
And let's not forget the ongoing, total silence over the US government's decades-long
friendly relationship with "allies" like Saudi Arabia, whose government officials were involved
not in releasing embarrassing information about American policymakers, but a terrorist attack
that killed thousands.
"A Debating Weapon Against the Opposition"
Whatever one thinks of the wisdom of Trump's
ultimately aborted attempt to re-forge a friendly relationship with Russia, it's a foreign
policy decision that a duly elected government is entitled to make. It therefore lays squarely
in the political realm, not the legal one -- though national security officials and Democrats
have tried their best to make it fit in the latter.
This is perhaps best symbolized by Comey and Obama's apparent goal of prosecuting Flynn
under the Logan Act, a probably
unconstitutional 221-year-old law enacted by the same repressive Congress that brought you
the Alien and Sedition Acts, and which has never been used to successfully prosecute an
American. As liberal legal scholar Detlev F. Vagts put it in in 1966, throughout its history, the
Logan Act has been used as "a debating weapon against the opposition and as a threat against
those out of power," a charge that
remains just as true today , as attested by its invocation during the Bush and Obama
years.
That the administration ultimately resorted to this antiquated law, which prohibits citizens
from "correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government" over disagreements with the
US, is a sign of how desperate it was to charge Flynn with anything in its waning days. That
Flynn was no ordinary citizen but an official for an elected administration-in-waiting whose
direct remit was foreign policy makes the threat even more absurd.
Unfortunately, this isn't the end of it. As
others have
pointed out , long before the Mueller report made clear a Trump-Russia conspiracy didn't
actually exist, a number of Obama officials testified to the closed-door committee that they
saw no actual evidence for this -- only hints that made them suspicious.
Yet that didn't stop those involved from using their public platforms to fan the flames of
conspiracy against the Trump administration. Maybe most outrageous was former DNI Clapper, who
despite testifying he'd seen no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion has
repeatedly gone on CNN and
charged that Trump could be a Russian asset. (Amusingly, for all of Obama's complaints that
Flynn was allowed to get away with "perjury," it's Clapper who actually committed that
particular crime, lying
to Congress about the scope of government surveillance, which Obama's DoJ
refused to lift a finger about despite demands from members of Congress).
Also deserving of special mention is Rep. Adam Schiff, the Democrat who more than any other
pushed the "collusion" storyline, riding it to prominence and
political donations . Schiff, long a conduit for
military contractors , who entered Congress by
fundraising record amounts off the
Clinton-Lewinsky scandal , has spent years alleging a grand conspiracy between Trump and
the Kremlin despite being told under oath by Obama officials hostile to Trump that they had
seen no evidence of such a thing. Unsurprisingly, Schiff, the intelligence committee's
chairman, long
resisted the release of the transcripts.
Russiagate is therefore looking more and more like a familiar story: one of national
security officials, driven by an unflinching belief in the righteousness of their cause and a
suspicion of any foreign policy vision outside the narrow and militarist Washington consensus,
leading a crusade against those whose views they viewed ran contrary to their own. As always,
they turned fundamentally political disagreements into an issue of national security, resulting
in the FBI violating norms and laws of its
own, while running roughshod over the rights of American citizens.
It is too bad that, because the misconduct this time targeted the justifiably loathed figure
of Trump, many observers are incapable of seeing this. The FBI's misconduct in the Trump-Russia
investigation was "troubling, no question," writes
Vox . "But they may not be unique to the Russia investigation, but rather endemic to
the agency itself."
This is not a defense; it's a description of the very problem.
Why Should the Liberal
Left Care?
For many on the liberal left, the Flynn case and the entire Russiagate saga elicits anything
ranging from disinterest to outright cheer-leading. After all, why should anyone opposed to
Trump, a lifelong
criminal and dangerous reactionary, be bothered that the might of the United States' vast
security state was, for once, turned against him?
The answer is that, as with all anti-civil liberties
measures , these tactics are first legitimated by being turned on groups and individuals
that are wholly unsympathetic, so they can later be used against less objectionable targets.
Justifying prosecutorial misconduct and state overreach in one case where an outgoing
administration and its allies targeted their political opponents over matters of policy sets a
dangerous precedent for future victims, including a potential left-wing or even liberal
administration.
Imagine, for instance, if Trump (or any other Republican administration) had spent years
alarmingly tamping up tensions with an officially designated foreign adversary -- Iran or
China, for instance. Imagine one of those governments then leaked unflattering but true
information about Republican corruption and malfeasance in order to help their Democratic
opponents win, and Trump retaliated with sanctions and other measures.
Imagine, too, that Democrats had publicly pledged to restore friendly relations with these
powers during the campaign, and, upon winning the election, an official in the soon-to-be
Democratic administration privately urged them not to overreact to Trump's retaliatory actions.
Imagine, then, that the Trump administration unlawfully spied on members of the Democratic
campaign, attempted to railroad that official on flimsy grounds, all while his allies continued
hobbling the succeeding administration by alleging an unproven foreign conspiracy -- all
because they thought reorienting relations with countries viewed as dangerous enemies by the
Right was something inherently suspect and criminal.
Just as Democrats were right to demand Robert Mueller be allowed to carry out his inquiry,
Republicans are absolutely correct to want an investigation
of these abuses, even if they're driven by partisan motives -- partisan concerns, after
all, have always played some role in the accounting of malfeasance in Washington, from
Iran-Contra to the 9/11 Commission. And it's perfectly possible to be outraged at this entire
saga without supporting Trump or treating the GOP as principled defenders of civil liberties --
indeed, the party is right now pushing a radical
expansion of government surveillance powers that should worry us all.
It is particularly symbolic that in the midst of this imbroglio, the FBI just
accidentally revealed the name of another Saudi embassy official complicit in the September
11 attacks, whose identity was long kept hidden by the US government as a "state secret" whose
revelation could cause "significant harm to the national security." Collusion, foreign
adversary, national security: in Washington, it's all in the eye of the beholder.
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 05/20/2020 - 18:05 A 2017 Inauguration Day email that former national security adviser
Susan Rice sent to herself documenting a January 5 Oval Office meeting discussing the case
against her successor Michael Flynn was done so at the direction of White House counsel ,
according to
Fox News . The meeting documented in Rice's memo included Obama, former VP Joe Biden and
former FBI Director James Comey, who - according to Rice, "does have some concerns that
incoming NSA Flynn is speaking frequently with Russian Ambassador Kislyak."
"Given the importance and sensitivity of the subject matter, and upon the advice of the
White House Counsel's Office, Ambassador Rice created a permanent record of the discussion,"
Rice's attorney Kathryn Ruemmler wrote to senators in 2018. "Ambassador Rice memorialized the
discussion on January 20, because that was the first opportunity she had to do so, given the
particularly intense responsibilities of the National Security Advisor during the remaining
days of the administration and transition."
Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell declassified the previously
redacted section of Rice's email and Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., made it public on Tuesday.
That section says Comey suggested to Obama that the National Security Council [NSC] might
not want to pass "sensitive information related to Russia" to incoming national security
adviser Flynn.
The email pointed to what were apparently widespread concerns about Flynn's Russia
contacts. Multiple sources confirmed to Fox News that what initially put Flynn on the radar
was the number of interactions he had with senior Russian government officials in 2016, as
laid out in various intelligence reports viewed by Obama White House officials. -
Fox News
Damage control?
For those who aren't buying the given explanation for the email, 'Sundance' of The Conservative Treehouse has an
interesting theory that it was written to cover up the fact that Obama knew all about the Flynn
investigation .
2) The position of President Obama and Susan Rice is that the White House was unaware of
any FBI investigation of Flynn (or the Trump campaign); nor did they have any involvement in
directing it to take place.
4) When James Clapper walked directly into the White House with "intelligence cuts", from
the FBI to share with President Obama, it's likely the legal team around Obama -specifically
including Kathryn Reummler- went bananas.
6) Worse... if anyone should later question FBI Director Comey about it, Comey would say
(honestly) he knew Obama was briefed on it because he provided a paper trail.
WH counsel Ruemmler would have immediately identified the White House exposure.
Addendum: The framework and purpose of the Rice 'memo to file' was obvious in the 2018
Rice/Ruemmler response to the Senate. pic.twitter.com/2IQxIyFwuK
incoming
NSA Flynn is speaking frequently with Russian Ambassador Kislyak " in a meeting documented
in the January 2017 memo by National Security Advisor Susan Rice, the unredacted first page of
which was obtained by CBS on Tuesday.
The FBI director admits he " has no indication thus far that Flynn has passed classified
information to Kislyak ," and no real basis for his insistence that the probe must go
on.
-- Catherine Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) May
19, 2020
The only thing backing his hunch that the meetings between the general and the Russian
diplomat " could be an issue "?
" The level of communication is unusual ," Comey tells Obama, according to Rice,
hinting that the National Security Council should " potentially " avoid passing "
sensitive information related to Russia " to Flynn.
The FBI director did not elaborate on what is supposed to be " unusual " about an
incoming foreign policy official speaking with a Russian counterpart, especially in the midst
of what was then a rapidly-unraveling diplomatic relationship between the two countries with
Obama expelling 35 Russian diplomats and imposing sanctions over
alleged-but-never-substantiated " election interference. " Given the circumstances, an
absence of communication might have been more unusual. But the timing is certainly
auspicious.
Rice, Flynn's predecessor who authored the memo, relates that the January 5 meeting followed
" a briefing by [Intelligence Committee] leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016
Presidential election ."
The previous day, the FBI field office assigned with investigating Flynn attempted to close
the case against him, called CROSSFIRE RAZOR, after having found " no derogatory
information " to justify continued inclusion in the overarching CROSSFIRE HURRICANE probe
(the " Russian collusion " investigation). They were blocked from doing so by Agent
Peter Strzok, who added that the orders to keep the investigation going came from the " 7th
floor " - i.e. agency leadership. The Flynn investigation had been underway since August,
beginning the day after Strzok discussed an 'insurance policy' that was supposed to keep
then-candidate Donald Trump out of office with Comey's deputy, Andrew McCabe. While Comey
describes his probe of Flynn as " proceeding 'by the book' " after Obama repeatedly
stresses he wants only a " by the book " investigation - both parties presumably
hoping to avoid exactly the sequence of revelatory events that are currently unfolding -
recently-unsealed documents from the case against Flynn indicate the general was entrapped,
with the FBI's goal being to " prosecute him or get him fired " with an ambush-style
interview.
They got both their wishes - after agents tricked him into sitting for questioning without a
lawyer present, Flynn was accused of lying about his contacts with Kislyak, fired from his post
in the White House, and subsequently pled guilty to lying to a federal agent.
The Department of Justice has dropped its charges against Flynn, citing gross misconduct and
abuse of power at the FBI, which it claims had no basis for launching its investigation.
However, US District Judge Emmet Sullivan has attempted to block the dismissal, appointing a
retired judge as independent prosecutor to both argue against the Justice Department's move and
pursue perjury charges against Flynn - essentially charging him with lying about lying.
On Tuesday, Flynn's attorney filed a writ of mandamus with the US Court of Appeals for the
DC Circuit, urging them to force Sullivan to step aside and allow the dismissal of the
charges.
"... I guess Obama didn't think he could rely on Sally Yates to lie on his behalf but knew he could count on "Old Faithful" Susan Rice to do the job. If the MSM were fair they'd be mocking (at the very least) her overuse of the figure of speech "by the book". I hope someone throws that book at her and the rest of the cabal. ..."
"... BTW, I seem to recall reading a long time ago that Rice made a mess wherever she served. I could be mistaken though. ..."
"... Well if we can't get a "perfumed prince" in the docket, this deplorable will settle for a "perfumed princess. ..."
...This is nothing more than a lame, stupid attempt on the part of Susan Rice to create some plausible deniability for Barack
Obama. She placed herself in a meeting that, according to Sally Yates, was limited to Obama, Comey and Yates. Rice puts the blame
on Comey for talking about the Russians. The Sally Yates account told to FBI under the penalty of lying to the FBI, was quite clear
that Obama initiated the discussion of Russia, Flynn and the sanctions.
Someone is lying. Susan Rice is a demonstrated liar and was not under oath when she wrote up her fabricated version of the 5 January
meeting. Sally Yates, however, would face legal peril if she lied to the FBI agents who interviewed her. I believer Sally Yates provided
the truthful account of what actually happened after Barack Obama asked everyone but Yates and Comey to leave the room.
Did Barry ever wing anything on his own without his sidekicks Rce or Jarrett immediately by his side, ready to run cover for
him later when necessary?
Rice's presence was probably so ubiquitous, it was not worthy of mention in later present party recollections. I would assume
Barry could not speak in public without a teleprompter and not speak in private without his "wingman".
Why do we assume Valerie Jarrett is still living in the same house as the former POTUS? So when the phone rings and someone
wants to know something about what Barry did while he was in office, ValJar the NightStalker can be ready with the answer.
My guess is Rice was attached at the hip whenever there was a chance Barry would open his mouth. Make the failure to mention
Rice more an oversight rather than something ominous.
More troubling was Yates getting cut off by Lindsey Graham every time she tried to explain that Flynn had not been "unmasked"
during her Senate testimony, per the video clip. What that just dismissive on Graham's part or inadvertent. Wild speculation,
had McCain "leaked" the Flynn phone call to Wapo?
I guess Obama didn't think he could rely on Sally Yates to lie on his behalf but knew he could count on "Old Faithful" Susan
Rice to do the job. If the MSM were fair they'd be mocking (at the very least) her overuse of the figure of speech "by the book".
I hope someone throws that book at her and the rest of the cabal.
BTW, I seem to recall reading a long time ago that Rice made a mess wherever she served. I could be mistaken though.
Has anyone else noticed that James Comey's been very quiet lately?
"... The US Treasury Department was regularly spying on Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn , Paul Manafort Jr., senior staffers on the 2016 Trump campaign, members of the Trump family, and congressional lawmakers , according to The Tennessee Star 's Neil W. McCabe. ..."
"... The scheme allowed the perpetrators to circumvent classified avenues to surveil Americans. Once enough information had been gathered against a target, they would use a different type of search. ..."
"... In March 2017, the whistleblower filed a complaint with Acting Treasury Inspector General Richard K. Delmar, who never followed up on the matter despite acknowledging receipt of the complaint. Prior to that, she filed an August 2016 notification which was rejected as it didn't meet the requirements of a formal complaint. ..."
"... This surveillance program was run out of Treasury's Office of Intelligence Analysis , which was then under the leadership of S. Leslie Ireland ..."
"... The whistleblower said Treasury should never have been part of the unmasking of Flynn, because its surveillance operation was off-the-books. That is to say, the Justice Department never gave the required approval to the Treasury program, and so there were no guidelines, approvals nor reports that would be associated with a DOJ-sanctioned domestic surveillance operation. - The Tennessee Star ..."
The US Treasury Department was regularly spying on Lt. Gen.
Michael T. Flynn , Paul Manafort Jr., senior staffers on the 2016 Trump campaign, members of
the Trump family, and congressional lawmakers , according to
The Tennessee Star 's Neil W. McCabe.
"I started seeing things that were not correct, so I did my own little investigation,
because I wanted to make sure what I was seeing was correct," a former senior Treasury
Department official and veteran of the intelligence community told McCabe. "You never want to
draw attention to something if there is not anything there," she added.
The whistleblower said she only saw metadata, that is names and dates when the general's
financial records were accessed. "I never saw what they saw."
By March 2016, the whistleblower said she and a colleague, who was detailed to Treasury
from the intelligence community, became convinced that the surveillance of Flynn was not tied
to legitimate criminal or national security concerns, but was straight-up political
surveillance among other illegal activity occurring at Treasury.
"When I showed it to her, what she said, 'Oh, sh%t!' and I knew right then and there that
I was right – this was some shady stuff," the whistleblower said.
"It wasn't just him," the whistleblower said. "They were targeting other U.S. citizens, as
well." -
The Tennessee Star
"Another thing they would do is take targeted names from a certain database – I cannot
name, but you can guess – and they were going over to an unclassified database and they
were running those names in the unclassified database," she added.
The scheme allowed the perpetrators to circumvent classified avenues to surveil Americans.
Once enough information had been gathered against a target, they would use a different type of
search.
In March 2017, the whistleblower filed a complaint with Acting Treasury Inspector General
Richard K. Delmar, who never followed up on the matter despite acknowledging receipt of the
complaint. Prior to that, she filed an August 2016 notification which was rejected as it didn't
meet the requirements of a formal complaint.
In May 2017, she filed another complaint with the Office of Special Counsel.
The whistleblower said Treasury should never have been part of the unmasking of Flynn,
because its surveillance operation was off-the-books. That is to say, the Justice Department
never gave the required approval to the Treasury program, and so there were no guidelines,
approvals nor reports that would be associated with a DOJ-sanctioned domestic surveillance
operation. -
The Tennessee Star
"Accessing this information without approved and signed attorney general guidelines would
violate U.S. persons constitutional rights and civil liberties," said the whistleblower, adding
"IC agencies have to adhere to Executive Order 12333, or as it is known in the community: E.O.
12-Triple-Three. Just because OIA does not have signed guidelines does not give them the power
or right to operate as they want, if you want information on a U.S. person then work with the
FBI on a Title III, if it is a U.S. person involved with a foreign entity then follow the
correct process for a FISA, but without signed AG guidelines you cannot even get started ."
From comments to the podcast: "Attempting to damage and/or remove a sitting US President
with a political and legal hoax, from within, is a seditious attack against the United States
of America."
Starting at minute 20 interview of Svetlana and Chuck makes the point that leak of the
call to the press was to sabotage Flynn and the Trump administration. The PTB knew very early
on that Flynn was not a Russian asset.
"... The contradictions revealed in recent disclosures, including the list of officials seeking to "unmask" the identity of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, are shocking. There seems a virtual news blackout on these disclosures, including the fact that both former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden followed the investigation. Indeed, Biden's name is on the unmasking list. ..."
"... The declassification of material from the Michael Flynn case has exposed more chilling details of an effort by prosecutors to come up with a crime to use against the former national security adviser. ..."
"... That included the testimony of Evelyn Farkas, a former White House adviser who was widely quoted by the media with her public plea for Congress to gather all of the evidence that she learned of as part of the Obama administration. ..."
"... That story would have been encompassing if it was learned that there was no direct evidence to justify the investigation and that the underlying allegation of Russian collusion was ultimately found to lack a credible basis. ..."
"... But the motives of Obama administration officials are apparently not to be questioned. Indeed, back when candidate Donald Trump said the Obama administration placed his campaign officials under surveillance, the media universally mocked him. That statement was later proven to be true. The Obama administration used the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act court to conduct surveillance of Trump campaign officials. ..."
"... While unmasking is more routinely requested by intelligence officials, with a reported 10,000 such requests by the National Security Agency last year alone, it is presumably less common for figures like Biden or White House chief of staff Denis McDonough ..."
"... The media portrayed both Obama and Biden as uninvolved. But now we know they both actively followed the investigation. ..."
The contradictions revealed in recent disclosures, including the list of officials seeking
to "unmask" the identity of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, are shocking. There
seems a virtual news blackout on these disclosures, including the fact that both former
President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden followed the investigation. Indeed,
Biden's name is on the unmasking list.
The declassification of material from the Michael Flynn case has exposed more chilling
details of an effort by prosecutors to come up with a crime to use against the former national
security adviser. This week, however, a letter revealed another unsettling detail. Among over
three dozen Obama administration officials seeking to "unmask" Flynn in the investigation was
former Vice President Joe
Biden . This revelation came less than a day after Biden denied any involvement in the
investigation of Flynn. It also follows a disclosure that President Obama was aware of that
investigation.
For three years, many in the media have expressed horror at the notion of the Trump campaign
colluding with Russia to influence the 2016 election. We know there was never credible evidence
of such collusion. In recently released transcripts, a long list of Obama administration
officials admitted they never saw any evidence of such Russian collusion. That included the
testimony of Evelyn Farkas, a former White House adviser who was widely quoted by the media
with her public plea for Congress to gather all of the evidence that she learned of as part of
the Obama administration.
The media covered her concern that this evidence would be lost "if they found out how we
knew what we knew" about Trump campaign officials "dealing with Russians." Yet in her
classified testimony under oath, she said she did not know anything. Farkas is now running for
Congress in New York and highlighting her role in raising "alarm" over collusion. As much of
the media blindly pushed this story, a worrying story unfolded over the use of federal power to
investigate political opponents.
There is very little question that the response by the media to such a story would have been
overwhelming if George Bush and his administration had targeted the Obama campaign figures with
secret surveillance .
That story would have been encompassing if it was learned that there was no direct evidence
to justify the investigation and that the underlying allegation of Russian collusion was
ultimately found to lack a credible basis.
But the motives of Obama administration officials are apparently not to be questioned.
Indeed, back when candidate Donald Trump said the Obama administration placed
his campaign officials under surveillance, the media universally mocked him. That statement was
later proven to be true. The Obama administration used the secret Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act court to conduct surveillance of Trump campaign officials.
Yet none of this matters as the media remains fully invested in the original false
allegations of collusion. If Obama administration officials were to be questioned now, the
coverage and judgment of the media may be placed into question, as even this latest disclosure
from the investigation of the unmasking request of Biden will not alter the media
narrative.
Unmasking occurs when an official asks an intelligence agency to remove anonymous
designations hiding the identity of an individual. This masking is a very important protection
of the privacy of American citizens who are caught up in national security surveillance. The
importance of this privacy protection is being dismissed by media figures, like Andrea
Mitchell, who declared the Biden story to be nothing more than gaslighting.
While unmasking is more routinely requested by intelligence officials, with a reported
10,000 such requests by the National Security Agency last year alone, it is presumably less
common for figures like Biden or White House chief of staff Denis McDonough. Seeking unmasking
information that was likely to reveal the name of a political opponent and possibly damage the
Trump administration raises a concern. More importantly, it adds a detail of the scope of
interest and involvement in an investigation that targeted Flynn without any compelling
evidence of a crime or collusion.
The media portrayed both Obama and Biden as uninvolved. But now we know they both actively
followed the investigation.
Atlantic Council senior fellow, Congressional candidate, and Russia conspiracy theorist
Evelyn Farkas is desperately trying to salvage her reputation after recently released
transcripts from her closed-door 2017 testimony to the House Intelligence Committee revealed
she totally lied on national TV .
In March of 2017, Farkas confidently told MSNBC 's Mika Brzezinski: " The Trump folks, if
they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians , that they
would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would not longer have access to
that intelligence ."
Except, during testimony to the House, Farkas admitted she lied . When pressed by former
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC) on why she said 'we' - referring to the US government, Farkas said she
"didn't know anything."
In short, she was either illegally discussing US intelligence matters with her "former
colleagues," or she made the whole thing up.
Now, Farkas is in damage control mode - writing in the
Washington Post that her testimony demonstrated "that I had not leaked intelligence and
that my early intuition about Trump-Kremlin cooperation was valid.' She also claims that her
comments to MSNBC were based on "media reports and statements by Obama administration officials
and the intelligence community," which had "began unearthing connections between Trump's
campaign and Russia."
Farkas is now blaming a 'disconcerting nexus between Russia and the reactionary right,' for
making her look bad (apparently Trey Gowdy is part of the "reactionary right" for asking her
who she meant by "we").
Attacks against me came first on Twitter and other social media platforms, from far-right
sources. Forensics data I was shown suggested at least one entity had Russian ties . The
attacks increased in quantity and ferocity until Fox News and Trump-allied Republicans --
higher-profile, and more mainstream, sources -- also criticized me .
...
Trump surrogates, including former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski ,
Donald Trump Jr. and Fox
News hosts such as Tucker Carlson have essentially accused me
of treason for being one of the "fraudulent originators" of the "Russia hoax." -Evelyn
Farkas
She then parrots the Democratic talking point that the attacks she's received are part of
Trump's larger "Obamagate" allegations - " a narrative that distracts attention from his
administration's disastrous pandemic response and attempts to defect blame for Russian
interference onto the Obama administration" (Obama told Putin to ' cut it out ' after all).
Meanwhile, Poor Evelyn's campaign staff has become " emotionally exhausted " after her
Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts have been "overwhelmed with a stream of vile, vulgar
and sometimes violent messages" in response to the plethora of conservative outlets which have
called her out for Russia malarkey.
There is evidence that Russian actors are contributing to these attacks. The same day that
right-wing pundits began pumping accusations, newly created Russian Twitter accounts picked them up. Within a day,
Russian "
disinformation clearinghouses " posted versions of the story . Many of the Twitter
accounts boosting attacks have posted in unison, a sign of inauthentic social media
behavior.
She closes by defiantly claiming "I wasn't silenced in 2017, and I won't be silenced
now."
No Evelyn, nobody is silencing you. You're being called out for your role in the perhaps the
largest, most divisive hoax in US history - which was based on faulty intelligence that
includes crowdstrike admitting they had
no proof of that Russia exfiltrated DNC emails, and Christopher Steele's absurd dossier
based on his 'Russian sources.'
MrBoompi, 18 minutes ago
Lying is a common occurrence on MSNBC. Farkas was just showing her party she is qualified
for a more senior position.
chubbar, 23 minutes ago
My opinion, based on zero facts, is that the lie she told was to Gowdy. She had to say she
lied about having intelligence data or she'd be looking at a felony along with whomever she
was talking to in the US gov't. You just know these cocksuckers in the resistance don't give
a **** about laws or fairness, it's all about getting Trump. So they set up an informal
network to get classified intelligence from the Obama holdovers out into the wild where these
assholes could use it against Trump and the gov't operations. Treason. She needs to be
executed for her efforts!
LetThemEatRand, 59 minutes ago
This whole thing reminds me of a fan watching their team play a championship game. If the
ref makes a bad call and their team wins, they don't care. And if the ref makes a good call
and their team loses, they blame the ref. No one cares about the truth or the facts. That in
a nutshell is politics in the US. If you believe that anyone will "switch sides" or admit the
ref made a bad call or a good call, you're smoking the funny stuff.
mtumba, 50 minutes ago
It's a natural response to a corrupt system.
When the system is wholly corrupt so that truth doesn't matter, what else is there to care
about other than your side winning?
Hussein isn't sweating. He believes he's untouchable. He's that arrogant. He was a
Trojan horse and has done irrefutable damage to our Constitution and our country.
I have to echo Greg Gutfeld's sentiments on Adam Schiff: When the HELL is someone going to
hold him accountable for the Three-Year-Schiff-Show the United States has had to go
through??!?!?
He needs to be charged AT LEAST with leaking classified damnit!
And then all the other legal lies he held firm to! My last intelligence nerve was pressed
hard with that.....and yet, there he continues lying his ass off protected (for now) by
Congress! Elections CANNOT come quick enough! Can't wait to vote this year!
"... "Did [ FBI Director James B. Comey] seek permission from you to do the formal opening of the counterintelligence investigation?" Rep. Adam B. Schiff, California Democrat, asked the former attorney general. ..."
"... "No, and he ordinarily would not have had to do that," Ms. Lynch answered. "lt would not have come to the attorney general for that." ..."
"... Mr. Schiff, a fierce defender of the FBI in the Russia probe, seemed taken aback. "Even in the case where you're talking about a campaign for president?" he asked. ..."
"... "I can't recall if it was discussed or not," Ms. Lynch said. "I just don't have a recollection of that in the meetings that I had with him." ..."
"... "Yates was very frustrated in the call with Comey," said the FBI interview report, known as a 302. "She felt a decision to conduct an interview of Flynn should have been coordinated with [the Department of Justice ]." ..."
"... Ms. Yates told the FBI that the interview was "problematic" because the White House counsel should have been notified. ..."
"... During his book tour, Mr. Comey bragged that he sent the two agents without such notification by taking advantage of the White House's formative stage. He said he "wouldn't have gotten away with it" in a more seasoned White House. ..."
"... Other evidence of an FBI on autopilot: The Justice Department inspector general's report on how the bureau probed the Trump campaign revealed more than a dozen instances of FBI personnel submitting false information in wiretap applications and withholding exculpatory evidence. For example, agents evaded Justice Department scrutiny by not telling their warrant overseer that witnesses had cast doubt on the reliability of the Steele dossier. ..."
Newly released documents show FBI agents
operated on autopilot in 2016 and 2017 while targeting President Trump and his campaign with
little or no Justice Department guidance
for such a momentous investigation.
Loretta E. Lynch, President Obama's attorney general, said she never knew the FBI
was placing wiretaps on a Trump campaign volunteer or using the dossier claims of former
British intelligence officer Christopher Steele to put the
entire Trump world under suspicion. Mr. Steele was handled by Fusion
GPS and paid with funds from the Democratic Party and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
"I don't have a recollection of briefings on Fusion GPS or Mr. Steele ," Ms. Lynch told the
House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence in October 2017. "I don't have any information on that,
and I don't have a recollection being briefed on that."
Under pressure from acting Director of National Intelligence
Richard A. Grenell, the committee last week released transcripts of her testimony and that of
more than 50 other witnesses in 2017 and 2018, when Republicans controlled the Trump-
Russia
investigation.
Ms. Lynch also testified that she had no knowledge the FBI had taken the
profound step of opening an investigation, led by agent Peter Strzok, into the Trump campaign
on July 31, 2016.
"Did [ FBI Director
James B. Comey] seek permission from you to do the formal opening of the counterintelligence
investigation?" Rep. Adam B. Schiff, California Democrat, asked the former attorney
general.
"No, and he ordinarily would not have had to do that," Ms. Lynch answered. "lt would not
have come to the attorney general for that."
Mr. Schiff, a fierce defender of the FBI in the
Russia probe,
seemed taken aback. "Even in the case where you're talking about a campaign for president?" he
asked.
"I can't recall if it was discussed or not," Ms. Lynch said. "I just don't have a
recollection of that in the meetings that I had with him."
Attorney General William P. Barr has changed the rules. He announced that the attorney
general now must approve any FBI decision to
investigate a presidential campaign.
Ms. Lynch's testimony adds to the picture of an insular, and sometimes misbehaving,
FBI as its agents
searched for evidence that the Trump campaign conspired with the Kremlin to interfere in the
2016 election to damage Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton .
In documents filed by the Justice Department last
week, then-Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates expressed dismay that Mr. Comey would
dispatch two agents, including Mr. Strzok, on Jan. 24, 2017, to interview incoming National
Security Adviser Michael Flynn at the White House.
Ms. Yates, interviewed by FBI agents
assigned to the Robert Mueller special counsel probe, said Mr. Comey notified her only after
the fact.
"Yates was very frustrated in the call with Comey," said the FBI interview
report, known as a 302. "She felt a decision to conduct an interview of Flynn should have been
coordinated with [the Department of Justice
]."
Ms. Yates told the FBI that the
interview was "problematic" because the White House counsel should have been notified.
During his book tour, Mr. Comey bragged that he sent the two agents without such
notification by taking advantage of the White House's formative stage. He said he "wouldn't
have gotten away with it" in a more seasoned White House.
Mr. Barr filed court papers asking U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan to dismiss the
Flynn case and his guilty plea to lying to Mr. Strzok about phone calls with Russian Ambassador
Sergey Kislyak. Mr. Strzok and other FBI personnel
planned the Flynn interview as a near ambush with a goal of prompting him to lie and getting
fired, according to new court filings.
Other evidence of an FBI on autopilot:
The Justice Department
inspector general's report on how the bureau probed the Trump campaign revealed more than a
dozen instances of FBI personnel
submitting false information in wiretap applications and withholding exculpatory evidence. For
example, agents evaded Justice Department scrutiny
by not telling their warrant overseer that witnesses had cast doubt on the reliability of the
Steele
dossier.
The far-fetched dossier was the one essential piece of evidence required to obtain four
surveillance warrants on campaign volunteer Carter Page, according to Justice Department
Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz. The Mueller and Horowitz reports have discredited the
dossier's dozen conspiracy claims against the president and his allies.
Mr. Schiff, now chairman of the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence , had held on
to the declassified transcripts for more than a year. Under pressure from Republicans and Mr.
Grenell, he released the 6,000 pages on the hectic day Mr. Barr moved to end the Flynn
prosecution.
The closed-door testimony included witnesses such as Mr. Obama's national security adviser,
a United Nations ambassador, the nation's top spy and the FBI deputy
director. There were also Clinton campaign chieftains and
lawyers.
The transcripts' most often-produced headline: Obama investigators never saw evidence of
Trump conspiracy between the time the probe was opened until they left office in mid-January
2017.
"I never saw any direct empirical evidence that the Trump campaign or someone in it was
plotting/conspiring with the Russians to meddle with the election," former Director of
National Intelligence James
R. Clapper told the committee .
Mr. Clapper is a paid CNN analyst who has implied repeatedly and without evidence that Mr.
Trump is a Russian spy and a traitor. The Mueller report contained no evidence that Mr. Trump
is a Russian agent or election conspirator.
Mr. Schiff told the country repeatedly that he had seen evidence of Trump collusion that
went beyond circumstantial. Mr. Mueller did not.
Mr. Schiff was a big public supporter of Mr. Steele 's dossier, which
relied on a Moscow main source and was fed by deliberate Kremlin disinformation against Mr.
Trump, according to the Horowitz report.
Trump Tower
One of Mr. Schiff's pieces of evidence of a conspiracy "in plain sight" is the meeting
Donald Trump
Jr. took with Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya on June 9, 2016.
The connections are complicated but, simply put, a Russian friend of the Trumps' said she
might have dirt on Mrs. Clinton . At the time, Ms.
Veselnitskaya was in New York representing a rich Russian accused by the Justice Department of
money laundering. To investigate, she hired Fusion GPS -- the same firm that retained Mr.
Steele
to damage the Trump campaign.
The meeting was brief and seemed to be a ruse to enable Ms. Veselnitskaya to pitch an end to
Obama-era economic sanctions that hurt her client. Attending were campaign adviser Paul
Manafort, Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and Anatoli Samochornov. Mr. Samochornov is a dual
citizen of Russia
and the U.S. who serves as an interpreter to several clients, including Ms. Veselnitskaya and
the State Department.
Mr. Samochornov was the Russian lawyer's interpreter that day. His recitation of events
basically backs the versions given by the Trump associates, according to a transcript of his
November 2017 committee testimony.
The meeting lasted about 20 minutes. Ms. Veselnitskaya briefly talked about possible illegal
campaign contributions to Mrs. Clinton . Manafort, busy on his
cellphone, remarked that the contributions would not be illegal. Mr. Kushner left after a few
minutes.
Then, Rinat Akhmetshin, a lobbyist, made the case for ditching sanctions. He linked that to
a move by Russian President Vladimir Putin to end a ban on Americans adopting Russian
children.
Mr. Trump Jr. said that issue would be addressed if his father was elected. In the end, the
Trump administration put more sanctions on Moscow's political and business operators.
"I've never heard anything about the elections being mentioned at that meeting at all or in
any subsequent discussions with Ms. Veselnitskaya," Mr. Samochornov testified.
No mask
One of the first things Rep. Devin Nunes, California Republican, did to earn the animus of
Democrats and the liberal media was to visit the Trump White House to learn about "unmaskings"
by Obama appointees.
The National Security Agency, by practice, obscures the names of any Americans caught up in
the intercept of foreign communications. Flynn was unmasked in the top-secret transcript of his
Kislyak call so officials reading it would know who was on the line.
In reading intelligence reports, if government officials want the identity of an "American
person," they make a request to the intelligence community. The fear is that repeated requests
could indicate political purposes.
That suspicion is how Samantha Power ended up at the House intelligence committee witness
table. The former U.N. ambassador seemed to have broken records by requesting hundreds of
unmaskings, though the transcript did not contain the identities of the people she exposed.
She explained to the committee why
she needed to know.
"I am reading that intelligence with an eye to doing my job, right?" Ms. Power said.
"Whatever my job is, whatever I am focused on on a given day, I'm taking in the intelligence
to inform my judgment, to be able to advise the president on ISIL or on whatever, or to inform
how I'm going to try to optimize my ability to advance U.S. interests in New York."
She continued: "I can't understand the intelligence . Can you go
and ascertain who this is so I can figure out what it is I'm reading. You've made the
judgement, intelligence professionals, that I need to read this piece of intelligence, I'm
reading it, and it's just got this gap in it, and I didn't understand that. But I never
discussed any name that I received when I did make a request and something came back or when it
was annotated and came to me. I never discussed one of those names with any other
individual."
Rep. Trey Gowdy, South Carolina Republican, listened and then mentioned other officeholders,
such as the White House national security adviser and the secretary of state.
"There are lots of people who need to understand intelligence products, but the number of
requests they made, ambassador, don't approach yours," Mr. Gowdy said.
Ms. Power implied that members of her staff were requesting American identities and invoking
her name without her knowledge.
The dossier
By mid- to late 2017, the full story on the Democrats' dossier -- that it was riddled with
false claims of criminality that served, as Mr. Barr said, to sabotage the Trump White House --
was not known.
Mr. Steele claimed that there was
a far-reaching Trump- Russia conspiracy, that Mr. Trump was a
Russian spy, that Mr. Trump financed Kremlin computer hacking, that his attorney went to Prague
to pay hush money to Putin operatives, and that Manafort and Carter Page worked as a conspiracy
team.
Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn R. Simpson, a Clinton operative, spread the inaccuracies all
over Washington: to the FBI , the
Justice
Department , Congress and the news media.
None of it proved true.
But to Clinton loyalists in 2017, the
dossier was golden.
"I was mostly focused in that meeting on, you know, the guy standing behind this material is
Christopher Steele ," campaign
foreign policy adviser Jake Sullivan said about a Fusion meeting. "He is the one who's judging
its credibility and veracity. You know him. What do you think, based on your conversations with
him? That's what I was really there to try and figure out. And Glenn was incredibly positive
about Steele and felt he was really
on to something and also felt that there was more out there to go find."
Clinton campaign attorney Marc
Elias vouched for the dossier, and its information spread to reporters. He met briefly with Mr.
Steele
during the election campaign.
"I thought that the information that he or they wished to convey was accurate and
important," Mr. Elias testified.
"So the information that Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele wished to
portray to the media in the fall of 2016 at that time, you thought, was accurate and
important?" he was asked.
"As I understand it," he replied.
Mr. Elias rejected allegations that the Clinton campaign conspired with
Russia by having
its operatives spread the Moscow-sourced dirt.
"I don't have enough knowledge about when you say that Russians were involved in the
dossier," he said to a questioner. "I mean that genuinely. I'm not privy to what information
you all have.
"It sounds like the suggestion is that Russia somehow gave information to the
Clinton
campaign vis-a-vis one person to one person, to another person, to another person, to me, to
the campaign. That strikes me as fanciful and unlikely, but perhaps as I said, I don't have a
security clearance. You all have facts and information that is not available to me. But I
certainly never had any hint or whiff."
Trump say that Brennan was one of the architect. Obama knew everything and probably directed
the color revolution against Trump
Notable quotes:
"... Self-described, "scandal-free" administration Obama is a lie nonetheless, Obama will eventually have to testify in front of Congress there is no hiding from it. ..."
Self-described, "scandal-free" administration Obama is a lie nonetheless, Obama will
eventually have to testify in front of Congress there is no hiding from it.
> He will go down as The most corrupt president in history! Spied on an opponents
campaign Authorised the intelligence agencies to spy Leaker Collided with Russia
Our Fakenews networks conspired with Obama, Obama's previous Cabinet, Hillary, the CIA,
FBI, NSA, DNC, and Democrats in Congress. They were all in on it together. #Sedition #Treason
ex-president Obummer biggest legacy to the democratic world is allowing China to claim all
of the South China Sea by turning a blind eye whilst China was dredging the sea beds and
creating artificial islands all over the South China sea!!
Obama was an America hater from day one, and committed many treasons public and private.
His "legacy" is and was a fabrication of the MSM, who tolerated no end of abuses, including
Obama suing a number of journalists.
But let's just look at one item, underplayed by the MSM: Obama did everything he could to
stop the 9/11 victims bill, including a presidential veto, which was then overridden by a
gigantic (97-1) senate vote.
McCain and Graham continued to fight the LAW, undoubtedly with Obama help, using Arab
funded lawyers to the tune of 1.2 million dollars per month.
Oh, he didn't like hearing what his "job" is. She's right. Journalists used to do
something called "investigative reporting." Now, it's all about that, "GOTCHA!" Pathetic.
🥱
"... Could Samantha Powers husband, Bloomberg media and book writer Cass Sunstein, have been looking over Samantha's shoulder when she was unmasking hundreds of names critically necessary for her job as UN Ambassador, even though she does not remember requesting any of them? ..."
"... why would Obama proceed with the dramatic expulsions of all those Russian diplomats and properties (when we now all know that Russia didn't hack the DNC and exfiltrate any e-mails) in that particular point in time and just a few weeks before the inauguration? ..."
Mr. Johnson, Thank you both for your lucid explanations of Russiagate and your tenacity. I
pray that with your help, the forces of good will triumph.
A question, are the plotters trying to hold out till the elections? It would seem that if
they succeeded in doing that they and Trump loses the election, then they will have gotten
away with this crime and established the IC as the equivalent of the Praetorian Guard.
Could Samantha Powers husband, Bloomberg media and book writer Cass Sunstein, have been
looking over Samantha's shoulder when she was unmasking hundreds of names critically
necessary for her job as UN Ambassador, even though she does not remember requesting any of
them?
Dan Bongino claims he had an epiphany and solved the non-unmasking of Flynn during that
crucial period. (Remember, he had Trump for an interview a few weeks ago, his connection to
him and his people might have helped his powers of intuition a bit).
It is a scenario that explains a lot, like for example, why would Obama proceed with the
dramatic expulsions of all those Russian diplomats and properties (when we now all know that
Russia didn't hack the DNC and exfiltrate any e-mails) in that particular point in time and
just a few weeks before the inauguration?
What does the committee think of his take (if you can ignore his theatrics)?
The attempted prosecution of Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn's business partners on alleged FARA crimes,
in which prosecutors are still saying the general is a foreign agent. [Foreign Agents
Registration Act, US law since 1938.] [Even though he is not a defendant in that case.]
His business partner was convicted by a jury, on this, last year.
Judge shortly thereafter said the court [that judge] failed to properly instruct the jury
– as the DOJ did not have evidence anyone was under the control of a foreign government
-- the key criteria.
The conviction was vacated by the judge; this criteria was not met, nor was evidence
produced by DOJ to show this.
This judge [Anthony Trenga] also allowed the DOJ to: appeal ruling.
That is, Trenga's ruling that vacated the conviction.
That is, let DOJ try and get a new trial -- a do-over.
Which, the DOJ, now under AG Bill Barr is currently attempting to do.
In the appeal for a new trial, Flynn is not a defendant.
His former business partners are.
The DOJ, in a motion and memorandum to the federal appeals court, ---pleading for right for
another trial --- in this motion, the DOJ also accused Flynn, in writing, of being an agent of
Turkey -- all along – "from the beginning," the DOJ motion, from January 2020 states.
Below is from 1/24/2020 DOJ filing against Messrs. Rafiekian and Alptekin, [Flynn's
then-business partners prior to 2017], docketed in federal court in January:
>>>>>[[The evidence discussed above equally shows concerted action between
Rafiekian, Flynn, and Alptekin to act subject to Turkey's direction or control. . . . From the
beginning, the co-conspirators agreed that. . . .]]<<<<<
[Note: Rafiekian, in 2006, was nominated by President Bush to Board of Directors of the
'Export–Import Bank of the United States'; this nomination was confirmed/approved by USA
Senate. He served on the bank's board from 2006 to 2011.
Attorney representing defendants, their reply, opposing DOJ appeal request -- rejecting the
January 2020 DOJ motion and claims about the men -- from April 2020, motion and memorandum
includes this:
[[Although the government's appellate brief now alleges that Flynn was a Turkish agent
"[f]rom the beginning" (Br. 2), it sang a different tune just a month before trial [last year],
when it told the district court that Flynn was not part of any conspiracy. It was only after
Flynn made it clear that he would not offer the testimony the government expected to hear that
it reversed course, announced that its erstwhile star witness was really a co-conspirator all
along. . . .]]
That is: "from the beginning," as the DOJ asserts in their January 2020 filing.
This case was dismissed last year because there was no evidence that any of them were under
the control of a foreign government, i.e., "foreign agents" -- yet the DOJ persists.
Nor was Flynn ever charged with any FARA alleged crimes, not by Mueller, not by anyone.
Flynn's case, prosecuted by Mueller/SCO -- the DOJ recently moved to end it all – yet
Judge Sullivan persists.
One case, presided by Judge Contreras, then Sullivan: should never have ever been
prosecuted. We now know this for a fact. Flynn was framed by his own government.
In the other case, that Trenga dismissed: Flynn, who is not a defendant, is accused of being
a foreign agent by the DOJ, in January 2020.
Of note: Sullivan, apparently believing that he is, threatened Flynn with 15 years in jail,
during a hearing in Dec. 2018, when the judge removed all pretense of being impartial, with his
rant about the general selling out his country, possible treason, blah blah blah. In other
words, the ghost of the long dead, still-born Logan Act, apparently.
To what issue will this come?
HAMLET My fate cries out, And makes each petty artery in this body As hardy as the Nemean lion's nerve. Still am I call'd. Unhand me, gentlemen. By heaven, I'll make a ghost of him that lets me! I say, away! Go on; I'll follow thee.
[HAMLET begins following the ghost, exits]
HORATIO He waxes desperate with imagination.
MARCELLUS Let's follow; 'tis not fit thus to obey him.
HORATIO Have after. To what issue will this come?
MARCELLUS Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
HORATIO Heaven will direct it.
MARCELLUS Nay, let's follow him.
Obama's recent signaling of Flynn as Mr. Perjury, followed up soon thereafter by Sullivan's
latching onto that exact same theme is curious. I don't know if this is just one more curve
ball in this, or a fast ball right down the middle.
Recall: There is no public record of Obama, or then AG Lynch or then DAG Sally Yates doing anything to
remove Comey as FBI director or discipline him when he announced there would be no prosecution
of Clinton in 2016 – keeping in mind Comey's role was not prosecutor, [as the country's
general attorney; rather, his role was as police chief of the nation].
McCabe leaking to Wall Street Journal, late October 2016, that there was a criminal
investigation involving Clinton Foundation. There is no record Obama, Lynch, Yates, Comey did
anything to remove McCabe from duty as the FBI deputy director, or discipline him.
There are numerous examples of this lack of action in 2016 right up until Jan. 20, 2017 when
Trump was inaugurated.
This exact pattern includes, of course the Flynn/Kislyak issue.
What is factual at this point is: Washington Post had knowledge as early as [and perhaps
sooner than] Jan. 5, 2017 of Flynn phone conversation with Russian ambassador to US, Sergey
Ivanovich Kislyak, that occurred late December.
And, this stuff was actually published, in WAP, on Jan. 12, 2017.
Obama left office noontime Jan. 20, 2017.
Among other things, might a purpose of the Flynn persecution also involve, rather, just be
another curve ball -- to keep eyes away from the failure by Obama team to prosecute this
criminal leak and outing of Flynn? I don't know.
I also don't know why Trump stated the following on Dec. 2, 2017, [the day after Flynn
plead:
[[I had to fire General Flynn because he lied to the Vice President and the FBI. He has pled
guilty to those lies. It is a shame because his actions during the transition were lawful.
There was nothing to hide!]]
On May 13, 2020 Trump stated: [[And when I see what is happening to him, it's disgraceful. And it was all a ruse. And, by the
way, the FBI said he didn't lie. The FBI said he did not lie. So with all the stuff I'm hearing
about lying, the FBI said he didn't lie. But the sleazebag said, "Well, we don't care what he
-- what they say. We're saying he lied." Okay? But the FBI, you remember, when they left, they
said, "He didn't lie." What they've done to that man and that family is a disgrace. But I just
tell you that because I just left General Milley, and he said, "A great man and a great
soldier." Isn't that a shame.]]
Even as I sit down to type these words I know I am wasting my time. The people who need to
read this book will not read it, and even if they did, they would refuse to believe it. They
are so blinded by their sycophantic adoration of Secretary Clinton that they cannot accept as
real any fact which serves to contradict their assumption of her divinity. I do not
understand this depth of willful ignorance. All my life I have been a truth seeker and a fact
checker. I know exactly how screwed up my own internal landscape is, and I even know how it
got that way. Therefore, when I form an opinion on the real world I force myself to go and
seek alternatives, to verify every fact, and to always seek the greater context those facts
live within. Context is everything.
"Crisis of Character" by Gary J. Byrne is an exceptional book. It is one man's version of
reality and it never pretends to be anything else. The constant search of the writer is in
his seeking to define the moral context of everything he experiences. He does not expect
perfection. He does expect accountability.
The "Introduction" opens with some background describing how and why he decided to write
this book. In the first chapter he immediately jumps to a telling event that happened on a
typical day of his tenure as a Secret Service Uniformed Division (SSUD) officer trusted with
the last line of defense of the First Family and the White House itself. The chapter goes
deeper into his background, chronicling how his father's influence and his childhood travels
formed his internalized value system. There are multiple anecdotes from his time as an
enlisted member of the Air Force Security Police (AFSP). These stories are both personally
revealing and very solid examples of the many diverse situations the AFSP finds itself in.
This is a real-life account of one man's service as an elite member of an elite fighting
group.
Chapter 3 begins the main portion of the book. This is the story of his career with the
SSUD which opens with his powerful memories of beginning his career protecting President G.
H. W. Bush and the Bush family during the tenure of our 41st President. Life under the
Clintons begins in Chapter 5 and carries on for about the next third of the book. One of the
most interesting aspects of this story for me was how hard he worked to protect both the
reputation of the Clintons and the security of the White House. As the story unfolds it
becomes clear that during this period of time his attitude was much different than it is now.
Events surrounding Monica Lewinsky, the ill-fated relief mission to Somalia, and the dramatic
shift in priorities between the Bush administration and the Clinton administration challenged
his assumptions about American life, American politics, and the values he learned from his
father. It was only after he grew trapped between his own internalized moral code, the
requirements of his job, and the complete lack of a moral code displayed by the Clintons that
he finally sought to be transferred out of the White House. A good man driven to despair by
the morally bankrupt couple chosen to lead the free world.
Chapter 14 begins his retelling of the fallout from the Ken Starr investigation into the
activities of Bill and Hillary Clinton. This portion of the book struggles very hard to come
to grips with how the Clintons managed to manipulate the media, the legal system, their inner
cadre of loyalists, and the American people, into believing they were something other than
criminals who failed in their responsibility to live up to the expectations of the American
people. There is a great deal of information here about how the Clintons managed time and
time again to avoid the consequences of their own corrupt and perverse behaviors. I found
this portion of his story both genuinely heartbreaking and deeply infuriating. For the past
three years my faith in our political process has been fighting to stay alive. Sadly, Gary
Byrne's retelling of the Clinton impeachment proceedings has destroyed any small spark of
faith I had remaining in our system. Clearly we have become a failed state. All that is left
is for the right crisis to push us into a brutal, bloody, implosive collapse.
Chapter 16 begins the next phase in his life. Now he is working as an instructor, teaching
advanced tactical training to federal agents from multiple law enforcement agencies as well
as state and county agencies who contract with James J. Rowley Training Center (JJRTC). There
are a couple of small anecdotes about his life as both an instructor and an in-rotation SSUD
officer who still must from time to time serve protection details. Then 9/11 happens and his
world turns upside down once again. As the SSUD is reorganized from top to bottom and
political will surpasses policing as their core structure, he moves into the Federal Air
Marshal Service (FAMS) hoping that here he will have the tools and opportunities to genuinely
help people and make a real difference in the world. Unfortunately, just before he makes the
jump, the FAMS also falls victim to post 9/11 reorganization and even here, politics
surpasses mission as the core foundation for policy creation and implementation. Nonetheless,
the greater salary and the occasional victory are enough to keep him going until he
retires.
The book closes with one last dire warning about the consequences of putting the Clintons
back into the White House. His firsthand experience with the Clintons multiple and massive
failures both within federal administrations and under Hillary Clinton's service as Senator
and Secretary of State have given Gary J. Byrne a unique and deeply moving perspective on how
political power functions in the United States of America. Honestly, there is a great deal to
be learned by reading, "Crisis of Character". There are lessons here that are relevant to
Hillary Clinton's unsuitability for the role of President, and there are lessons here for
each of us individually in understanding the consequences that result from making decisions
based on pure emotion, on poor comprehension of the situation we find ourselves in, and on
trusting others to do our thinking for us.
A powerful book that needs to be read by everyone who supports Hillary Clinton, but won't
be, because none of them want to see beyond the false front she has convinced them is real.
It's not just that Hillary Clinton is a con artist and a criminal. The greater context of
this book is the horrifying results that occur when we ourselves refuse to face the real
world consequences of our own ignorance.
Texas
Sweetheart , Reviewed in the United States on August 1, 2016
Great book. She really is a nasty person. They are both severely lacking in the morals,
ethics, character and truth departments. Always interesting to get the perspective of a
secret service agent. The Clintons were lucky to be surrounded by dedicated agents willing to
give up their lives, despite the way they were treated and what they were subjected to
covering up. Gary Byrne earned every penny this book brings him. Shame on the Clintons. They
are a disgrace.
K.
Olgren , Reviewed in the United States on July 1, 2016
While it is true that the book covers his whole life, and the Clintons were just a small
part of it, I found the entire book riveting. I couldn't put it down and read it in a matter
of days. I also disagree with the reviewers who said there was nothing new in it. I never
would have imagined Hillary Clinton was as hateful as she was, and the things people on her
detail had to do to deal with her temper -- I felt sorry for them, and knowing that they are
still following her and always will, I will always feel sorry for the people working beneath
her.
This book is a worthwhile read. If you want a Clinton scoop from cover to cover, you'll be
disappointed, but if you are open to read a man's fascinating life-story, you will enjoy it.
I agree with another reviewer who said the low ratings were people who want to vote for
Clinton. Honestly, I don't think either candidate we have to choose from has the right
temperament for the Presidency, but we got stuck with the choice that we got.
In terms of the book itself, it was well done, a riveting page-turner throughout his
entire life story. It is worth what it cost to read it.
"... According to these transcripts of congressional testimony by some of the participants, the FBI decided all by itself after Comey was fired to consider acting against Trump by pursuing him for suspicion of conspiracy with Russia to give the Russians the president of the US that they supposedly wanted. ..."
"... Following these seditious and IMO illegal discussions the FBI and Sessions/Rosenstein's Justice Department sought FISA Court warrants for surveillance against associates of Trump and members of his campaign for president. ..."
"... IMO this collection of actions when added to whatever Clapper, Brennan and "the lads" of the Deep State were doing with the British intelligence services amount to an attempted "soft coup" against the constitution and from the continued stonewalling of the FBI and DoJ the coup is ongoing ..."
The president of the US was made head of the Executive Branch (EC) of the federal government by Article 2 of the present constitution
of the US. He is also Commander in Chief of the armed forces of the federal government. As head of the EC, he is head of all the
parts of the government excepting the Congress and the Federal courts which are co-equal branches of the federal government. The
Department of Justice is just another Executive Branch Department subordinate in all things to the president. The FBI is a federal
police force and counter-intelligence agency subordinate to the Department of Justice and DNI and therefore to the president in
all things. The FBI actually IMO has no legal right whatever to investigate the president. He is the constitutionally elected
commander of the FBI. Does one investigate one's commander? No. The procedures for legally and constitutionally removing a president
from office for malfeasance are clear. He must be impeached by the House of Representatives for "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"
and then tried by the US Senate on the charges. Conviction results in removal from office.
According to these transcripts of congressional testimony by some of the participants, the FBI decided all by itself after
Comey was fired to consider acting against Trump by pursuing him for suspicion of conspiracy with Russia to give the Russians
the president of the US that they supposedly wanted. Part of the discussions among senior FBI people had to do with whether
or not the president had the legal authority to remove from office an FBI Director. Say what? Where have these dummies been all
their careers? Do they not teach anything about this at the FBI Academy? The US Army lectures its officers at every level of schooling
on the subject of the constitutional and legal basis and limits of their authority.
Following these seditious and IMO illegal discussions the FBI and Sessions/Rosenstein's Justice Department sought FISA
Court warrants for surveillance against associates of Trump and members of his campaign for president. Their application
for warrants were largely based on unsubstantiated "opposition research" funded by the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign.
The judge who approved the warrants was not informed of the nature of the evidence. These warrants provided an authority for surveillance
of the Trump campaign.
IMO this collection of actions when added to whatever Clapper, Brennan and "the lads" of the Deep State were doing with
the British intelligence services amount to an attempted "soft coup" against the constitution and from the continued stonewalling
of the FBI and DoJ the coup is ongoing. pl
"... It is not conspiracy-mongering to note that the investigation into Trump was predicated on an opposition-research document filled with fabulism and, most likely, Russian disinformation. We know the DOJ withheld contradictory evidence when it began spying on those in Trump's orbit. We have proof that many of the relevant FISA-warrant applications -- almost every one of them, actually -- were based on "fabricated" evidence or riddled with errors. We know that members of the Obama administration, who had no genuine role in counterintelligence operations, repeatedly unmasked Trump's allies. And we now know that, despite a dearth of evidence, the FBI railroaded Michael Flynn into a guilty plea so it could keep the investigation going. ..."
"... By 2016, the Obama administration's intelligence community had normalized domestic spying. Obama's director of national intelligence, James Clapper, famously lied about snooping on American citizens to Congress. His CIA director, John Brennan, oversaw an agency that felt comfortable spying on the Senate , with at least five of his underlings breaking into congressional computer files. His attorney general, Eric Holder, invoked the Espionage Act to spy on a Fox News journalist , shopping his case to three judges until he found one who let him name the reporter as a co-conspirator. The Obama administration also spied on Associated Press reporters , which the news organization called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion." And though it's been long forgotten, Obama officials were caught monitoring the conversations of members of Congress who opposed the Iran nuclear deal. ..."
"... In her very last hour in office, national-security adviser Susan Rice wrote a self-preserving email to herself , noting that she'd attended a meeting with the president, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, FBI director James Comey, and Vice President Joe Biden in which Obama stressed that everything in the investigation should proceed "by the book." ..."
"... Biden is the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential nominee, he's running as the heir to Obama's legacy, and he was at that meeting with Rice. He had denied even knowing anything about the FBI investigation into Flynn before being forced to correct himself after ABC's George Stephanopoulos pointed out that he was mentioned in Rice's email. It's completely legitimate to wonder what he knew about the investigation. ..."
"... s the FBI agents involved in the case noted, they wanted to have an " insurance policy " if the unthinkable happened. ..."
"... In 2016, the unthinkable did happen, and we're still dealing with the fallout four years later. We don't know where this scandal will end up, but one doesn't have to be a conspiracy theorist to wonder. ..."
Those sharing #Obamagate hashtags on Twitter would do best to avoid the hysterics we saw
from Russian-collusion believers, but they have no reason to ignore the mounting evidence that
suggests the Obama administration engaged in serious corruption.
Democrats and their allies, who like to pretend that President Obama's only scandalous act
was wearing a tan suit, are going spend the next few months gaslighting the public by focusing on
the most feverish accusations against Obama. But the fact is that we already have more
compelling evidence that the Obama administration engaged in misconduct than we ever did for
opening the Russian-collusion investigation.
It is not conspiracy-mongering to note that the investigation into Trump was predicated on
an opposition-research document filled with fabulism and, most likely, Russian disinformation.
We know the DOJ withheld contradictory evidence when it began spying on those in Trump's orbit.
We have proof that many of the relevant FISA-warrant applications -- almost every one of them,
actually -- were based on "fabricated" evidence or riddled with errors. We know that members of
the Obama administration, who had no genuine role in counterintelligence operations, repeatedly
unmasked Trump's allies. And we now know that, despite a dearth of evidence, the FBI
railroaded Michael Flynn into a guilty plea so it could keep the investigation going.
What's more, the larger context only makes all of these facts more damning . By 2016, the
Obama administration's intelligence community had normalized domestic spying. Obama's director
of national intelligence, James Clapper, famously
lied about snooping on American citizens to Congress. His CIA director, John Brennan,
oversaw an agency that felt comfortable spying on
the Senate , with at least five of his underlings breaking into congressional computer
files. His attorney general, Eric Holder, invoked the Espionage Act to spy
on a Fox News journalist , shopping his case to three judges until he found one who let him
name the reporter as a co-conspirator. The Obama administration also
spied on Associated Press reporters , which the news organization
called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion." And though it's been long forgotten, Obama
officials were caught monitoring
the conversations of members of Congress who opposed the Iran nuclear deal.
What makes anyone believe these people wouldn't create a pretext to spy on the opposition
party?
If anyone does, they shouldn't, because on top of everything else, we know that Barack Obama
was keenly interested in the Russian-collusion investigation's progress.
In her very last hour in office, national-security adviser Susan Rice
wrote a self-preserving email to herself , noting that she'd attended a meeting with the
president, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, FBI director James Comey, and Vice President
Joe Biden in which Obama stressed that everything in the investigation should proceed "by the
book."
Did high-ranking Obama-administration officials not always conduct such investigations "by
the book"? It is curious that they would need to be specifically instructed to do so. It is
also curious that the outgoing national-security adviser, 15 minutes after Trump had been sworn
in as president, would need to mention this meeting.
None of this means that Obama committed some specific crime; he almost assuredly did not. In
a healthy media environment, though, the mounting evidence of wrongdoing would spark an
outpouring of journalistic curiosity.
"But," you might ask, "why does it matter, anymore?"
Well, for one thing, many of the same characters central to all this apparent malfeasance
now want to retake power in Washington . Biden is the Democratic Party's presumptive
presidential nominee, he's running as the heir to Obama's legacy, and he was at that meeting
with Rice. He had denied even knowing anything about the FBI investigation into Flynn before
being forced to
correct himself after ABC's George Stephanopoulos pointed out that he was mentioned in
Rice's email. It's completely legitimate to wonder what he knew about the investigation.
Skeptics like to point out that the Obama administration had no motive to engage in abuse, because Democrats were sure they
were going to win. Richard Nixon won 49 states in 1972. His cronies had no need to break into the DNC's offices and touch off
Watergate. But as the FBI agents involved in the case noted, they wanted to have an "
insurance policy " if the unthinkable happened.
In 2016, the unthinkable did happen, and we're still dealing with the fallout four years
later. We don't know where this scandal will end up, but one doesn't have to be a conspiracy
theorist to wonder.
Schiff probably practice his lies in his mirror every morning so he can convince himself
of Russian interference. Biggest liar in America Adam Schifty schiff. Needs to be arrested
immediately for treason and lying under oath. But as usual nothing will happen. These people
are above the law. And are untouchable. Its enough to frustrate the hell out of normal sain
Americans. 4 more years of Donald Trump
Folks need to take a much closer look at your own state legislature, district attorney,
prosecutors, public defenders, social workers... especially your own town councils and school
boards. They're stealing your lives and children at the Grassroots local level.
Adam Schiff is not resigning. He's doubling down yet again! If you "want" him to resign,
you need to understand he's staying in office until voted out. There's no willpower in the
house to take action against him.
Did Barry want to drop a load of doo doo on Trump at the 11th hour, when he kicked out the
Russians and dropped the sanctions on them for their "proven election interference"?
That was my immediate feeling at the time - kind of a wag the dog in reverse - go ahead
Trump, get out of this one. Bye. I'm outta here. You take the Russian phone calls now.
According to the Conservative TreeHouse link, sounds like Barry was in a snit because the
Russians did not "over-react" the way Barry planned, so Trump's day one job would not be
putting out fires with the Russians that Barry had just started.
Barry was sorely perplexed. Jst why weren't the Russians doing what he had planned for
them to do - dump doo doo on the incoming President. Why weren't they sabre rattling and
putting incoming President Trump in his very first international incident, as Barry had
intended.
Nope, the Russians went all chill instead. Who cared what a lame duck POTUS does anyway.
Then Putin, invited all the Moscow foreign embassy kids over for a holiday party. No bombs,
no threats, not even any pouts. What was up with that? Good will and good cheer towards all
men, regardless of outgoing Boy President's little sand box snit.
What could have gone wrong, the Russians are supposed to be mad and escalating Barry's
"decisive" actions. Let's go snooping. And there begins one more chapter in Obamagate -
Waaaaaa, the Russians didn't do what I wanted them to do. I wanted them to rub schmutz in
Trump's face on Day One. Instead they offered us cookies and holiday crackers.
And in the process Team Obama left a nefarious paper trail. Thank you Susan - aka Lady
McBeth- Rice - your CYA memo for this final Obama Russian caper simply did not pass the smell
test. Barry was beaked the Russians did not start WWIII.
On the other side, evidence has emerged that makes it clear there were organized efforts to
collude against candidate Donald Trump - and then President Trump. For example:
Anti-Russian Ukrainians allegedly helped coordinate and execute a campaign against Trump
in partnership with the Democratic National Committee and news reporters.
A Yemen-born ex-British spy reportedly delivered political opposition research against
Trump to reporters, Sen. John McCain, and the FBI; the latter of which used the material--in
part--to obtain wiretaps against one or more Trump-related associates.
There were orchestrated leaks of anti-Trump information and allegations to the press,
including by ex-FBI Director James Comey.
The U.S. intel community allegedly engaged in questionable surveillance practices and
politially-motivated "unmaskings" of U.S. citizens, including Trump officials.
Alleged conflicts of interests have surfaced regarding FBI officials who cleared Hillary
Clinton for mishandling classified information and who investigated Trump's alleged Russia
ties.
But it's not so easy to find a timeline pertinent to the investigations into these
events.
(Please note that nobody cited has been charged with wrongdoing or crimes, unless the charge
is specifically referenced. Temporal relationships are not necessarily evidence of a
correlation.)
"Collusion against Trump" Timeline2011
U.S. intel community vastly expands its surveillance authority, giving itself permission to
spy on Americans who do nothing more than "mention a foreign target in a single, discrete
communication." Intel officials also begin storing and entering into a searchable database
sensitive intelligence on U.S. citizens whose communications are accidentally or "incidentally"
captured during surveillance of foreign targets. Prior to this point, such intelligence was
supposed to be destroyed to protect the constitutional privacy rights the U.S. citizens.
However, it's required that names U.S. citizens be hidden or "masked" --even inside U.S. intel
agencies --to prevent abuse.
July 1, 2012: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton improperly uses unsecured, personal email
domain to email President Obama from Russia.
2013
June 2013: FBI interviews U.S. businessman Carter Page, who's lived and worked in Russia,
regarding his ongoing contacts with Russians. Page reportedly tells FBI agents their time would
be better spent investigating Boston Marathon bombing (which the FBI's Andrew McCabe helped
lead). Page later claims his remark prompts FBI retaliatory campaign against him. The FBI,
under McCabe, will later wiretap Page after Page becomes a Donald Trump campaign adviser.
FBI secretly records suspected Russian industrial spy Evgeny Buryakov . It's later
reported that Page helped FBI build the case.
Sept. 4, 2013: James Comey becomes FBI Director, succeeding Robert Mueller.
2014
Russia invades Ukraine. Ukraine steps up hiring of U.S. lobbyists to make its case against
Russia and obtain U.S. aid. Russia also continues its practice of using U.S. lobbyists.
Ukraine forms National Anti-Corruption Bureau as a condition to receive U.S. aid. The
National Anti-Corruption Bureau later signs evidence-sharing agreement with FBI related to
Trump-Russia probe.
Ukrainian-American Alexandra Chalupa, a paid consultant for the Democratic National
Committee (DNC), begins researching lobbyist Paul
Manafort's Russia ties.
FBI investigates, and then wiretaps, Paul Manafort for allegedly not properly disclosing
Russia-related work. FBI fails to make a case, according to CNN, and discontinues wiretap.
August 2014: State Dept. turns over 15,000 pages of documents to Congressional Benghazi
committee, revealing former secretary of state Hillary Clinton used private server for
government email. Her mishandling of classified info on this private system becomes subject of
FBI probe.
2015
FBI opens
investigation into Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe, including for donations from a
Chinese businessman and Clinton Foundation donor.
FBI official Andrew McCabe meets with Gov. McAuliffe, a close Clinton ally. Afterwards,
"McAuliffe-aligned political groups donated about $700,000 to Mr. McCabe's wife for her
campaign to become a Democrat state Senator in Virginia." The fact of the McAuliffe-related
donations to wife of FBI's McCabe, while FBI was investigating McAuliffe and Clinton later
becomes the subject of
conflict of interest inquiry by Inspector General.
Feb. 9, 2015: U.S. Senate forms Ukrainian caucus to further Ukrainian interests. Sen. John
McCain (R-Ariz.) is a member.
March 4, 2015: New York Times breaks news about Clinton's improper handling of classified
email as secretary of state.
In internal emails , Clinton campaign chairman (and
former Obama adviser) John Podesta suggests Obama withhold Clinton's emails from Congressional
Benghazi committee under executive privilege.
March 2015: Attorney General Loretta Lynch privately directs FBI Director James Comey to
call FBI Clinton probe a "matter" rather than an "investigation." Comey follows the
instruction, though he later testifies that it made him
"queasy."
March 7, 2015: President Obama says he first learned of Clinton's improper email practices
"through news reports." Clinton campaign staffers privately
contradict that claim emailing: "it looks like [President Obama] just said he found out
[Hillary Clinton] was using her personal email when he saw it on the news." Clinton aide Cheryl
Mills responds, "We need to clean this up, [President Obama] has emails from" Clinton's
personal account.
May 19, 2015: Justice Dept. Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Peter Kadzik
emails
Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta from a private Gmail account to give him a "heads ups"
involving Congressional questions about Clinton email.
Summer 2015: Democratic National Committee computers are hacked.
Sept. 2015: Glenn Simpson, co-founder of political opposition research firm Fusion GPS, is
hired by conservative website Washington Free Beacon to compile negative research on
presidential candidate Donald Trump and other Republicans.
Oct. 2015: President Obama uses a "confidentiality tradition" to keep his Benghazi emails
with Hillary Clinton secret.
Oct. 12, 2015: FBI Director Comey
replaces head of FBI Counterintelligence Division at New York Field Office with Louis
Bladel.
Oct. 22, 2015: Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)
publicly states that Clinton is "not under criminal investigation."
Clinton testifies to House Benghazi committee.
Oct. 23, 2015: Clinton campaign chair John Podesta meets for dinner with small group of
friends including a top Justice Dept. official Peter Kadzik.
Late 2015: Democratic operative Chalupa expands her
political opposition research about Paul Manafort to include Trump's ties to Russia. She
"occasionally shares her findings with officials from the Democratic National Committee and the
Clinton campaign."
Dec. 4, 2015: Donald Trump is beating his nearest Republican presidential competitor by 20
points in latest CNN poll .
Dec. 9, 2015: FBI Director Comey
replaces head of FBI Counterintelligence Division at Washington Field Office with Charles
Kable.
Dec. 23, 2015: FBI Director Comey
names Bill Priestap as assistant director of Counterintelligence Division.
2016
Obama officials vastly expand their searches through NSA database for Americans and the
content of their communications. In 2013, there were 9,600 searches involving 195 Americans.
But in 2016, there are 30,355 searches of 5,288 Americans.
Justice Dept. associate deputy attorney general Bruce Ohr
meets with Fusion GPS' Christopher Steele, the Yemen-born ex-British spy leading anti-Trump
political opposition research project.
January 2016: Democratic operative Ukrainian-American Chalupa tells a
senior Democratic National Committee official that she feels there's a Russia connection with
Trump.
Jan. 29, 2016: FBI Director Comey promotes
Andrew McCabe to FBI Deputy Director.
McCabe takes lead on Clinton probe even though his wife received nearly $700,000 in campaign
donations through Clinton ally Terry McAuliffe, who's also under FBI investigation.
March 2016: Clinton campaign chair John Podesta's email gets hacked.
Carter Page is named
as one of the Trump campaign's foreign policy advisers.
March 2, 2016: FBI Director Comey
replaces head of Intelligence Division of Washington Field Office with Gerald Roberts,
Jr.
March 11, 2016: Russian Evgeny Buryakovwhich pleads guilty to spying in FBI case that Carter
Page reportedly assisted with.
March 25, 2016: Ukrainian-American operative for Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chalupa
meets with top Ukrainian officials at Ukrainian Embassy in Washington D.C. to "expose ties
between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia," according to Politico. Chalupa
previously worked for the Clinton administration.
Ukrainian embassy proceeds to work "directly with reporters researching Trump, Manafort and
Russia to point them in the right directions," according
to an embassy official (though other officials later deny engaging in election-related
activities.)
March 29, 2016: Trump campaign hires Paul Manafort as manager of July Republican
convention.
March 30, 2016: Ukrainian-American Democratic operative Alexandra Chalupa briefs
Democratic National Committee (DNC) staff on Russia ties to Paul Manafort and Trump.
With "DNC's encouragement," Chalupa asks Ukrainian embassy to arrange meeting with Ukrainian
President Petro Poroshenko to discuss Manafort's lobbying for Ukraine's former president Viktor
Yanukovych. The embassy declines to arrange meeting but becomes "helpful" in trading info and
leads.
Ukrainian embassy officials and Democratic operative Chalupa "coordinat[e] an investigation
with the Hillary team" into Paul Manafort, according to a source in Politico. This effort
reportedly includes working with U.S. media.
April 2016: There's a second breach of Democratic National Committee computers.
Washington Free Beacon
breaks off deal with Glenn Simpson's Fusion GPS for political opposition research against
Trump.
Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee lawyer Mark Elias and his law firm,
Perkins Coie, hire Fusion GPS for anti-Trump political research project.
Ukrainian member of parliament Olga Bielkova reportedly seeks meetings with
five dozen members of U.S. Congress and reporters including former New York Times reporter Judy
Miller, David Sanger of New York Times, David Ignatius of Washington Post, and Washington Post
editorial page editor Fred Hiatt.
April 5, 2016: Convicted spy Buryakov is turned over to Russia.
Week of April 6, 2016: Ukrainian-American Democratic operative Chalupa and office of Rep.
Mary Kaptur (D-Ohio), co-chair of Congressional Ukrainian Caucus, discuss possible
congressional investigation or hearing on Paul Manafort-Russia "by September."
Chalupa begins working with investigative reporter Michael Isikoff, according to her later
account.
April 10, 2016: In national TV interview, President Obama states that Clinton did not intend
to harm national security when she mishandled classified emails. FBI Director James Comey later
concludes that Clinton should not face charges because she did not intend to harm national
security.
Around this time, the FBI begins drafting Comey's remarks closing Clinton email
investigation, though Clinton had not yet been interviewed.
April 12, 2016:" Ukrainian parliament member Olga Bielkova and a colleague meet"
with Sen. John McCain associate David Kramer with the McCain Institute. Bielkova also meets
with Liz Zentos of Obama's National Security Council, and State Department official Michael
Kimmage.
April 26, 2016: Investigative reporter Michael Isikoff publishes
story on Yahoo News about Paul Manafort's business dealings with a Russian oligarch.
April 27, 2016 : The BBC publishes
an article titled, "Why Russians Love Donald Trump."
April 28, 2016: Ukrainian-American Democratic operative Chalupa is invited to discuss her
research about Paul Manafort with 68 investigative journalists from Ukraine at Library of
Congress for Open World Leadership Center, a U.S. congressional agency. Chalupa invites
investigative reporter Michael Isikoff to "connect(s) him to the Ukrainians."
After the event, reporter Isikoff accompanies Chalupa to Ukrainian embassy reception.
May 3, 2016: Ukrainian-American Democratic operative Chalupa emails Democratic National Committee (DNC)
that she'll share
sensitive info about Paul Manafort "offline" including "a big Trump component that will hit in
next few weeks."
May 4, 2016: Trump locks up Republican nomination.
May 19, 2016: Paul Manafort is named Trump campaign chair.
May 23, 2016: FBI probe into Virginia governor and Clinton ally Terry McAuliffe
becomes public. (McAuliffe is ultimately not charged with a crime.)
Justice Department Inspector General confirms it's looking into FBI's Andrew McCabe for
alleged conflicts of interest in handling of Clinton and Gov. McAuliffe probes in light of
McAuliffe directing campaign donations to McCabe's wife.
FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok, who are reportedly having an illicit affair, text
each other that Trump's ascension in the campaign will bring "pressure to finish" Clinton
probe.
Nellie Ohr, wife of Justice Dept. associate deputy attorney general Bruce Ohr and former CIA
worker, goes on the payroll of Fusion GPS and assists with anti-Trump political opposition
research. Her husband, Bruce, reportedly fails to disclose her specific employer and work in
his Justice Dept. conflict of interest disclosures.
June 2016: Fusion GPS' Glenn Simpson "
hires Yemen-born ex-British spy Christopher
Steele for anti-Trump political opposition research project."Steele uses info from Russian
sources "close to Putin" to compile unverified "dossier" later provided to reporters and FBI,
which the FBI uses to obtain secret wiretap.
The
Guardian and Heat Street report that the FBI applied for a FISA warrant in June 2016 to
"monitor four members of the Trump team suspected of irregular contacts with Russian officials"
but that the "initial request was denied."
June 7, 2016: Hillary Clinton locks up the Democrat nomination.
June 9, 2016: Meeting in Trump Tower includes Donald Trump Jr., Trump campaign chair Paul
Manafort and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner with Russian lawyer who said he has political
opposition research on Clinton. (No research was ultimately provided.) According to
CNN , the FBI has not yet restarted a wiretap against Manafort but will soon do so.
June 10, 2016: Democratic National Committee (DNC) tells employees that its computer system
has been hacked. DNC blames Russia but refuses to let FBI examine its systems.
June 15, 2016: "Guccifer 2.0" publishes first hacked document from Clinton campaign chair
John Podesta.
June 17, 2016: Washington Post publishes front page story linking Trump to Russia: "Inside
Trump's Financial Ties to Russia and His Unusual Flattery of Vladimir Putin."
June 20, 2016: Christopher Steele
proposes taking some of Fusion GPS' research about Trump to FBI.
June 22, 2016: WikiLeaks begins publishing embarrassing, hacked emails from Clinton campaign
and Democratic National Committee.
June 27, 2016: Attorney General Loretta Lynch meets
privately with former President Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac in Phoenix, Arizona.
Late June 2016: DCLeaks website begins publishing Democratic National Committee emails.
The National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine signs evidence-sharing agreement with FBI and
will later publicly release a "ledger" implicating Paul Manafort in allegedly improper
payments.
June 30, 2016: FBI circulates internal draft of public remarks for FBI Director Comey to
announce closing of Clinton investigation. It refers to Mrs. Clinton's "extensive" use of her
personal email, including "from the territory of sophisticated adversaries," and a July 1, 2012
email to President Obama from Russia. The draft concludes it's possible that hostile actors
gained access to Clinton's email account.
Comey's remarks are revised to replace reference to "the President" with the phrase:
"another senior government official." (That reference, too, is removed from the final
draft.)
Attorney General Lynch tells FBI she plans to publicly announce that
she'll accept whatever recommendation FBI Director Comey makes regarding charges against
Clinton.
July 2016: Ukraine minister of internal affairs Arsen Avakov attacks Trump and Trump
campaign adviser Paul Manafort on Twitter and Facebook, calling Trump "an even bigger danger to
the US than terrorism."
Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatseniuk writes on Facebook that Trump has
"challenged the very values of the free world."
Carter Page travels to Russia to give
a university commencement address. (Fusion GPS political opposition research would later quote
Russian sources as saying Page met with Russian officials, which Page denies under oath and is
not proven.)
One-time CIA operative Stefan Halper reportedly begins meetings with Trump advisers Carter
Page and George Papadopoulos, secretly gathering information for the FBI. These contacts begin
"prior to the date FBI Director Comey later claimed the Russian investigation began."
July 1, 2016: Under fire for meeting with former President Clinton amid the probe into his
wife, Attorney General Lynch publicly states she'll " accept
whatever FBI Director Comey recommends" without interfering.
FBI official Lisa Page texts her boyfriend, FBI official Peter Strzok, sarcastically
commenting that Lynch's proclamation is "a real profile in courage, since she knows no charges
will be brought."
Ex-British spy Christopher Steele writes Justice Department official Bruce Ohr that he wants
to discuss "our favourite business tycoon!" (apparently referencing Trump.)
July 2, 2016: FBI official Peter Strzok and other agents interview Clinton. They don't
record the interview. Two potential subjects of the investigation, Cheryl Mills and Heather
Samuelson, are allowed to attend as Clinton's lawyers.
July 5, 2016: FBI Director Comey recommends no charges against Clinton, though he concludes
she's been extremely careless in mishandling of classified information. Comey claims he hasn't
coordinated or reviewed his statement in any way with Attorney General Lynch's Justice
Department or other government branches. "They do not know what I am about to say," says
Comey.
Fusion GPS' Steele, an ex-British spy,
approaches FBI at an office in Rome with allegations against Trump, according to
Congressional investigators. Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr schedules a Skype conference call
with Steele.
Days after closing Clinton case, FBI official Peter Strzok signs document opening FBI probe
into Trump-Russia collusion.
July 10, 2016: Democratic National Committee (DNC) aide Seth Rich, reportedly a Bernie
Sanders supporter, is shot twice in the back and killed. Police suspect a bungled robbery
attempt, though nothing was apparently stolen. Conspiracy theorists speculate that Rich "not
the Russians" had stolen DNC emails after he learned the DNC was unfairly favoring Clinton. The
murder remains unsolved.
July 2016: Trump adviser Carter Page makes a business trip to Russia.
Obama national security adviser Susan Rice begins to show increased interest in National
Security Agency (NSA) intelligence material including "unmasked Americans" identities,
according to news reports referring to White House logs.
July 18-21, 2016: Republican National Convention
Late July 2016 : FBI agent Peter Strzok opens counterintelligence investigation based on
Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos.
Democratic operative and Ukrainian-American Chalupa leaves the Democratic National Committee
(DNC) to work full-time on her research into Manafort, Trump and Russia; and provides
off-the-record guidance to "a lot of journalists."
July 22, 2016: WikiLeaks begins publishing hacked Democratic National Committee emails.
WikiLeaks' Julian Assange denies the email source is Russian.
July 25-28, 2016 : Democratic National Convention
July 30, 2016 : Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr meets with ex-British spy Christopher
Steele at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington. Ohr brings his wife, Nellie, who -- like Steele --
works at Fusion GPS on the Trump-Russia oppo research project. Ohr
calls FBI Deputy Director McCabe.
July 31, 2016 : FBI's Peter Strzok formally begins
counterintelligence investigation regarding Russia and Trump. It's dubbed "Crossfire
Hurricane."
Aug. 3, 2016: Ohr reportedly meets with
McCabe and FBI lawyer Lisa Page to discuss Russia-Trump collusion allegations relayed by
ex-British spy Steele. Ohr will later testify to Congress that he considered Steele's
information uncorroborated hearsay and that he told FBI agents Steele appeared motivated by a
"desperate" desire to keep Trump from becoming president.
Aug. 4, 2016: Ukrainian ambassador to U.S.
writes op-ed against Trump.
Aug. 8, 2016: FBI attorney Lisa Page texts her lover, FBI's head of Counterespionage Peter
Strzok,"[Trump is] not ever going to become president, right? Right?!" Strzok replies,"No. No
he won't. We'll stop it."
Aug. 14, 2016: New York Times breaks story about cash payments made a decade ago to Paul
Manafort by pro-Russia interests in Ukraine. The ledger was released and publicized by the
National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine.
Aug. 15, 2016: CNN reports the FBI is conducting an inquiry into Trump campaign chair Paul
Manafort's payments from pro-Russia interests in Ukraine in 2007 and 2009.
After a meeting discussing the election in FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe's office, FBI's
Counterespionage Chief Peter Strzok texts FBI attorney Lisa Page referring to the possibility
of Trump getting elected. "We can't take that risk," he writes. And they speak of needing an
"insurance policy."
Aug. 19, 2016: Paul Manafort resigns as Trump campaign chairman.
Ukrainian parliament member Sergii Leshchenko
holds news conference to draw attention to Paul Manafort and Trump's "pro-Russia" ties.
Aug. 22, 2016 : Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr meets with Fusion GPS' Glenn Simpson who
identifies several "possible intermediaries" between the Trump campaign and Russia.
Late August 2016:
Reportedly working for the FBI, one-time CIA operative Professor Halper meets with Trump
campaign co-chair Sam Clovis offering his services as a foreign-policy adviser, according to
The Washington Post. Halper would later offer to hire Carter Page.
Approx. Aug. 2016: FBI initiates a new
wiretap against ex-Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort, according to CNN, which extends at
least through early 2017.
Sept. 2016: Fusion GPS's Steele becomes FBI source and uses associate deputy attorney
general Bruce Ohr as point of contact. Steele tells Ohr that he's "desperate that Donald Trump
not get elected."
President Obama
warns Russia not to interfere in the U.S. election
Sept. 2, 2016: FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok text that "[President Obama] wants
to know everything we're doing."
Sept. 13, 2016 : The nonprofit First Draft, funded by Google, whose parent company is run by
major Hillary Clinton supporter and donor Eric Schmidt, announces initiative to tackle "fake
news." It appears to be the first use of the phrase in its modern context.
Sept. 15, 2016: Clinton computer manager Paul Combetta appears before House Oversight
Committee but refuses to answer questions, invoking his Fifth Amendment rights.
Sept. 19, 2016: At UN General Assembly meeting, Ukrainian President Poroshenko meets with
Hillary Clinton.
Mid-to-late Sept. 2016: Fusion GPS's Christopher Steele's FBI contact tells him the agency
wants to see his opposition research "right away" and offers
to pay him $50,000, according to the New York Times, for solid corroboration of his salacious,
unverified claims. Steele
flies to Rome , Italy to meet with FBI and provide a "full briefing."
Sept. 22, 2016: Clinton computer aide Brian Pagliano is held in contempt of Congress for
refusing to comply with subpoena.
Sept. 23, 2016: It's revealed that Justice Department has granted five Clinton officials
immunity from prosecution: former chief of staff Cheryl Mills, State Department staffers John
Bentel and Heather Samuelson, and Clinton computer workers Paul Combetta and Brian
Pagliano.
Yahoo News publishes
report by Michael Isikoff about Carter Page's July 2016 trip to Moscow. (The article is
apparently based on leaked info from Fusion GPS Steele anti-Trump "dossier" political
opposition research.)
Sept. 25, 2016 : Trump associate Carter Page writes letter
to FBI Comey objecting to the so-called "witch hunt" involving him.
Sept. 26, 2016 : Obama administration asks secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court
(FISC) court to allow National Counter Terrorism Center to access sensitive, "unmasked" intel
on Americans acquired by FBI and NSA. (The Court later approves the request.)
FBI head of counterespionage Peter Strzok
emails his mistress FBI attorney Lisa Page that Carter Page's letter (dated the day before)
"...provides us a pretext to interview."
Sept. 27, 2016: Justice Department Assistant Attorney General of National Security Division
John Carlin announces he's stepping down. He was former chief of staff and senior counsel to
former FBI director Robert Mueller.
End of Sept. 2016: Fusion GPS' Glenn Simpson and Christopher Steele
meet with reporters, including New York Times, Washington Post, Yahoo News, the New Yorker
and CNN or ABC. One meeting is at office of Democratic National Committee general counsel.
Early October 2016: Fusion GPS' Christopher Steele, the Yemen-born author of anti-Trump
"dossier," meets in New
York with David Corn, Washington-bureau chief of Mother Jones.
According to
The Guardian, the FBI submits a more narrowly focused FISA wiretap request to replace one
turned down in June to monitor four Trump associates.
Oct. 3, 2016: FBI seizes computers belonging to Anthony Weiner, who is accused of sexually
texting an underage girl. Weiner is married to top Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin. FBI learns
there are Clinton emails on Weiner's laptop but waits several weeks before
notifying Congress and reopening investigation.
Oct. 4, 2016: FBI Director Comey
replaces head of Counterintelligence Division, New York Field Office with Charles
McGonigal.
Oct. 7, 2016: Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Department of Homeland
Security issue statement saying Russian government is responsible for hacking Democrat emails
to disrupt 2016 election.
Oct. 13, 2016: President Obama gives a speech in support of the crackdown on "fake news" by
stating that somebody needs to step in and "curate" information in the "wild, wild West media
environment."
Oct. 14, 2016: FBI head of counterespionage Peter Strzok
emails his mistress FBI attorney Lisa Page discussing talking points to convince FBI Deputy
Director Andrew McCabe to persuade a high-ranking Dept. of Justice official to sign a warrant
to wiretap Trump associate Carter Page. The email subject line is "Crossfire FISA." "Crossfire
Hurricane" was one of the code names for four separate investigations the FBI conducted related
to Russia matters in the 2016 election.
"At a minimum, that keeps the hurry the F up pressure on him," Strzok emailed Lisa Page less
than four weeks before Election Day.
Mid-Oct. 2016: Fusion GPS' Steele again
briefs reporters about Trump political opposition research. The reporters are from the New
York Times, the Washington Post, and Yahoo News.
Oct. 16, 2016: Mary McCord is named Assistant Attorney General for Justice Department
National Security Division.
Oct. 18, 2016: President Obama
advises Trump to "stop whining" after Trump tweeted the election could be rigged. "There is
no serious person out there who would suggest somehow that you could even you could even rig
America's elections," said Obama. He also calls Trump's "flattery" of Russian president Putin
"unprecedented."
In FBI emails, head of counterespionage Peter Strzok and his mistress FBI lawyer Lisa Page
discuss rushing approval for a FISA warrant for a Russia-related investigation code-named
"Dragon."
Oct. 19, 2016: Ex-British spy Christopher Steele writes his last memo for anti-Trump
"dossier" political opposition research provided to FBI. The FBI reportedly authorizes payment
to Steele. Fusion GPS has reportedly paid him $160,000.
Approx. Oct. 21, 2016: For the second time in several months, Justice Department and FBI
apply to wiretap former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. FBI Director James Comey and Deputy
Attorney General Sally Yates sign the application. This time, the request is approved based on
new FBI "evidence" including parts of Fusion GPS' "Steele dossier" and Michael Isikoff Yahoo
article. The FBI
doesn't tell the court that Trump's political opponent, the Clinton campaign and the
Democratic National Committee, funded the "evidence."
Oct. 24, 2016: Benjamin Wittes, confidant of FBI Director James Comey and editor-in-chief of
the blog Lawfare, writes
of the need for an "insurance policy" in case Trump wins. It's the same phrase FBI officials
Lisa Page and Peter Strzok had used when discussing the possibility of a Trump win.
Obama intel officials orally inform Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of an earlier
Inspector General review uncovering their "significant noncompliance" in following proper "702"
procedures safeguarding the National Security Agency (NSA) intelligence database with sensitive
info on US citizens.
Late Oct. 2016: Fusion GPS' Steele again
briefs reporter from Mother Jones by Skype about Trump political opposition research.
Oct. 26, 2016: Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court holds hearing with Obama intel
officials over their "702" surveillance violations. The judge criticizes
NSA for "institutional lack of candor" and states "this is a very serious Fourth Amendment
issue."
Oct. 28, 2016: FBI Director Comey notifies Congress that he's reopening Clinton probe due to
Clinton emails found on Anthony Wiener laptop several weeks earlier.
Oct. 30, 2016: Mother Jones writer David Corn is first to report on the anti-Trump
"dossier," quoting unidentified former spy, presumed to be Christopher Steele. FBI general
counsel James Baker had reportedly been in touch with Corn but Corn later denies Baker was the
leaker.
FBI terminates its relationship with Steele because Steele had
leaked his FBI involvement in Mother Jones article.
Steele reportedly maintains backchannel contact with Justice Dept. through Deputy Associate
Attorney General Bruce Ohr.
Oct. 31, 2016: New York Times
reports FBI is investigating Trump and found no illicit connections to Russia.
Nov. 1, 2016: FBI concludes ex-British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled anti-Trump
"dossier" using Russian sources, leaked to press and is not suitable for use as a confidential
source. However, Steele continues to "help," according to Jan. 31, 2017 texts to Justice Dept.
official Bruce Ohr.
Nov. 3, 2016: FBI Attorney Lisa Page texts FBI's Peter Strzok about her concerns that
Clinton might lose and Trump would become president: "The [New York Times] probability numbers
are dropping every day. I'm scared for our organization."
Nov. 6, 2016: FBI Director Comey tells Congress that Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner
computer do not change earlier conclusion: she should not be charged.
Nov. 8, 2016: Trump is elected president.
Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice's interest in NSA materials accelerates,
according to later news reports.
Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr
meets with Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson shortly after election.
The FBI interviews Ohr about his ongoing contacts with Fusion GPS.
Nov. 9, 2016: An unnamed FBI attorney (later quoted in Dept. of Justice Inspector General
probe) texts another FBI employee, "I'm just devastated...I just can't imagine the systematic
disassembly of the progress we made over the last 8 years. ACA is gone. Who knows if the
rhetoric about deporting people, walls, and crap is true. I honestly feel like there is going
to be a lot more gun issues, too, the crazies won finally. This is the tea party on steroids.
And the GOP is going to be lost, they have to deal with an incumbent in 4 years. We have to
fight this again. Also Pence is stupid....Plus, my god damned name is all over the legal
documents investigating [Trump's] staff."
Nov. 10, 2016 : Emails
imply top FBI officials, including Peter Strzok, Andrew McCabe and Bill Priestap engaged in
a new mission to "scrub" or research lists of associates of President-elect Trump, looking for
potential "derogatory" information.
President Obama
meets with President-elect Trump in the White House and reportedly advises Trump not to
hire Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
Nov. 2016: National Security Agency Mike Rogers
meets with president-elect Trump and is criticized for "not telling the Obama
administration."
Nov. 17, 2016: Trump
moves his Friday presidential team meetings out of Trump Tower.
Nov. 18, 2016: Trump names Flynn his national security adviser. Over the next few weeks,
Flynn communicates with numerous international leaders.
Nov. 18-20, 2016: Sen. John McCain and his longtime adviser, David Kramer--an ex-U.S. State
Dept. official--attend a security conference in Halifax, Nova Scotia where former UK ambassador
to Russia Sir Andrew Wood
tells them about the Fusion GPS anti-Trump dossier. (Kramer is affiliated with the anti-Russia "Ukraine
Today" media organization). They discuss confirming the info has reached top levels of FBI for
action.
Nov. 21, 2016 : Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr, works for Deputy Attorney General Sally
Yates, meets with FBI officials including Peter Strzok, Strzok's girlfriend--FBI attorney Lisa
Page, and another agent. Ohr's notes indicate the FBI "may go back to [ex-British spy] Chris
Steele" of Fusion GPS just 20 days after dismissing him.
Nov. 28, 2016: Sen. McCain associate David Kramer flies to London to meet Christopher Steele
for a briefing on the anti-Trump research. Afterward, Fusion GPS' Glenn Simpson gives Sen.
McCain a copy of the "dossier." Steele also
passes anti-Trump info to top UK government official in charge of national security. Sen.
McCain soon arranges a meeting with FBI Director Comey.
Late Nov. 2016: Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr officially tells
FBI about his contacts with Fusion GPS' Christopher Steele and about Ohr's wife's contract work
for Fusion GPS.
Nov. 30, 2016 : UN Ambassador Samantha Power makes request to unmask the name of Trump
National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, who was "incidentally" captured by intel
surveillance.
Dec. 2016: Text messages between FBI officials Strzok and Page are later said to be "lost"
due to a technical glitch beginning at this point.
Dec. 2, 2016: UN Ambassador Samantha Power and Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper request to unmask the name of Trump National Security Adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn,
who was "incidentally" captured by intel surveillance.
Dec. 6, 2016: Two more Obama administration officials request to unmask the name of
Flynn.
Dec. 7, 2016 : Power makes another Flynn unmasking request.
Dec. 8 or 9, 2016: Sen. John McCain
meets with FBI Director Comey at FBI headquarters and
hands over Fusion GPS anti-Trump research, elevating the FBI's investigation into the
matter. The FBI compiles a classified two-page summary and attaches it to intel briefing note
on Russian cyber-interference in election for
President Obama .
Hillary Clinton makes a public appearance denouncing "fake news."
Hillary Clinton and Democratic operative David Brock of Media Matters announces he's leaving
board of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), one of his many
propaganda and liberal advocacy groups, to focus on "fake news" effort.
Brock later claims credit, privately to donors, for convincing Facebook to crack down on
conservative fake news.
Dec. 14, 2017 : There are
10 more requests to unmask Flynn's name in intelligence, including two by Power, CIA
Director Brennan, and six officials from the Treasury Dept.
Dec. 15, 2016: Obama intel officials "incidentally" spy on Trump officials meeting with the
United Arab Emirates crown prince in Trump Tower. This is taken to mean the government was
wiretapping the prince and "happened to capture" Trump officials communicating with him at
Trump Tower. Identities of Americans accidentally captured in such surveillance are strictly
protected or "masked" inside intel agencies for constitutional privacy reasons.
Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice
secretly "unmasks" names of the Trump officials, officially revealing their identities.
They reportedly include: Steve Bannon, Jared Kushner and Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
Director of National Intelligence Clapper expands rules to allow the National Security
Agency (NSA) to widely disseminate classified surveillance material within the government. The
same day,
17 Obama officials request the unmasking of Lt. Gen. Flynn in intelligence.
Dec. 16, 2016 : Five more Obama officials request unmasking of intelligence materials
regarding Lt. Gen. Flynn.
Dec. 23, 2016 : Power request another Flynn unmasking.
Dec. 28, 2016 :
Lt. Gen. Flynn speaks with Russia ambassador.
Clapper and the U.S. Ambassador to Turkey request Flynn unmasking.
Dec. 29, 2016: President Obama imposes sanctions against Russia for its alleged election
interference.
President-elect Trump national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn
speaks with Russian Ambassador to U.S. Sergey Kislyak. The calls are wiretapped by U.S.
intelligence and later leaked to the
press.
State Department
releases 2,800 work-related emails from Huma Abedin, a top aide to Hillary Clinton, found
by FBI on laptop computer of Abedin's husband, former Rep. Anthony Weiner.
2017
Jan. 2017: According to CNN: a
wiretap reportedly continues against former Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort, including
times he speaks to Trump, meaning U.S. intel officials could have "accidentally" captured
Trump's communications.
Justice Dept. Inspector General confirms it's investigating several aspects of FBI and
Justice Department actions during Clinton probe.
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testifies to Congress that Russia interfered
in U.S. elections by spreading fake news on social media.
Justice Dept. official Peter Kadzik, who "tipped off" Hillary Clinton campaign regarding
Congressional questions about Clinton's email, leaves government work for private practice.
The FBI interviews a main source of Christopher Steele's "dossier" and learns the
information was merely bar room gossip and rumor never meant to be taken as fact or submitted
to the FBI and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to wiretap Carter Page. (The FBI
does not notify the court and applies for, and receives, another wiretap against Page).
Early Jan. 2017: FBI renews
wiretap against Carter Page. FBI Director James Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates
again sign the application.
Jan. 3, 2017: Obama Attorney General Lynch signs rules Director of National Intelligence
Clapper expanded Dec. 15 allowing the National Security Agency (NSA) to widely disseminate
surveillance within the government.
Jan. 5, 2017: Intelligence Community leadership including FBI Director Comey, Yates, CIA
Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, provides classified
briefing to President Obama, Vice President Biden and National Security Adviser Susan Rice on
alleged Russia hacking during 2016 campaign, according to notes later written by national
security adviser Susan Rice.
After briefing, according notes made later by Rice, President Obama convenes Oval Office
meeting with her, FBI Director Comey, Vice President Biden and Deputy Attorney General Sally
Yates. The "Steele dossier" is reportedly discussed. Also reportedly discussed: Trump National
Security Adviser Flynn's talks with Russia's ambassador.
Jan. 6, 2017: FBI Director Comey and other Intel leaders meet with President-Elect Trump and
his national security team at Trump Tower in New York to brief them on alleged Russian efforts
to interfere in the election.
Later, Obama national security adviser Susan Rice would write herself an email stating that
President Obama suggested they hold back on providing Trump officials with certain info for
national security reasons.
After Trump team briefing, FBI Director Comey meets alone with Trump to "brief him" on
Fusion GPS Steele allegations "to alert the incoming President to the existence of this
material," even though it was salacious and unverified. Comey later says Director of National
Intelligence Clapper asked him (Comey) to do the briefing personally.
Jan. 7, 2017 : Clapper and two other Obama administration officials request Flynn
unmasking.
Jan. 10, 2017: The 35-page Fusion GPS anti-Trump "dossier" is leaked to the media and
published. It reveals that sources of the unverified info are Russians close to President
Putin.
Email written by FBI head of counterespionage Peter Strzok
indicates the FBI has been given the anti-Trump "dossier" by at least 3 different
anti-Trump sources.
A CIA official makes a Flynn unmasking request.
Jan. 11, 2017 : Power makes another Flynn unmasking request.
Jan. 12, 2017: Obama administration finalizes new rules allowing NSA to spread "certain
intel to" other U.S. intel agencies without normal privacy protections.
Justice Dept. inspector general announces review of alleged misconduct by FBI Director Comey
and other matters related to FBI's Clinton probe as well as FBI leaks.
Vice President Joe Biden and the Treasury Secretary request the unmasking of Flynn in
intelligence communications.
Someone leaks to to David Ignatius of the Washington Post that Trump National Security
Adviser Flynn had called Russia's ambassador. "What did Flynn say, and did it undercut the US
sanctions?" asked Ignatius in the article.
Jan. 13, 2017: Senate Intelligence Committee
opens investigation into Russia and U.S. political campaign officials.
Jan. 15, 2017: After leaks about Flynn's call with Russia's ambassador, Vice President-elect
Mike Pence tells the press that Flynn did not discuss U.S. sanctions on the call.
Jan. 20, 2017: Trump becomes president.
Fifteen minutes after Trump becomes president, former National Security Adviser Susan Rice
emails memo to herself purporting to summarize the Jan. 5 Oval Office meeting with President
Obama and other top officials. She states that Obama instructed the group to investigate "by
the book" and asked them to be mindful whether there were certain things that "could not be
fully shared with the incoming administration."
Jan. 22, 2017: Intel info leaks to Wall Street Journal which reports
"US counterintelligence agents have investigated communications" between Trump aide Gen.
Michael Flynn and Russia ambassador to the U.S. Kislyak to determine if any laws were
violated.
Jan. 23, 2017: Leak to Washington Post falsely claims Trump National Security Adviser Flynn
is not the subject of an investigation.
Jan. 24, 2017: Acting Attorney General Sally Yates sends two FBI agents, including Peter
Strzok, to the White House to question Gen. Flynn. FBI Director Comey later takes credit for
"sending a couple of guys" to interview Flynn, circumventing normal processes.
Notes kept
hidden until May 2020 show FBI officials discussing whether the goal of the meeting with Flynn
was to "get him to lie" so that he would be fired or prosecuted.
Jan. 26, 2017: Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and a high-ranking colleague go to White
House to tell counsel Don McGahn that Flynn had lied to Pence about the content of his talks
with Russian ambassador and "the underlying conduct that Gen. Flynn had engaged in was
problematic in and of itself."
Jan. 27, 2017: Acting Attorney General Sally Yates again visits the White House.
Jan. 31, 2017: President Trump fires Acting Attorney General Sally Yates after she refuses
to enforce his temporary travel ban on Muslims coming into U.S. from certain countries.
Ex-British spy Christopher Steele texts Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr who worked for
Yates: "B, doubtless a sad and crazy day for you re- SY."
Dana Boente becomes Acting Attorney General. (It's later revealed that Boente signed at
least one wiretap application against former Trump adviser Carter Page.)
Feb. 2, 2017: It's reported
that five men employed by House of Representatives Democrats, including leader Debbie Wasserman
Schultz (D-Florida), are under criminal investigation for allegedly "accessing House IT systems
without lawmakers' knowledge." Suspects include three Awan brothers "who managed office
information technology for members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and
other lawmakers."
Feb. 3, 2017: A Russian tech mogul named in the Steele "dossier" files defamation lawsuits
against BuzzFeed in the U.S. and Christopher Steele in the U.K. over the dossier's claims he
interfered in U.S. elections.
Feb. 8, 2017: Jeff Sessions becomes Attorney General and Dana Boente moves to Deputy
Attorney General.
Feb. 9, 2017: News of FBI wiretaps capturing Trump national security adviser Lt. Gen.
Michael Flynn speaking with Russia's ambassador is leaked to the press. New York Times and
Washington Post report Flynn discussed U.S. sanctions, despite his earlier denials. The Post
also reports the FBI "found nothing illicit" in the talks. The Post headline in an article by
Greg Miller, Adam Entous and Ellen Nakashima reads, "National Security Adviser Flynn Discussed
Sanctions with Russian Ambassador, Despite Denials, Officials Say."
Feb. 13, 2017 : Washington Post
reports Justice Dept. has opened a "Logan Act" violation investigation against Trump
national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn.
Feb. 14, 2017: New York Times reports
that FBI had told Obama officials there was no "quid pro quo" (promise of a deal in exchange
for some action) discussed between Gen. Flynn and Russian ambassador Kislyak.
Gen. Flynn resigns, allegedly acknowledging he misled vice president Mike Pence about the
content of his discussions with Russia.
Comey says that, in a meeting, Trump states, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting
this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." Comey says he
replies "he is a good guy." Trump later takes issue with Comey's characterization of the
meeting.
Feb. 15, 2017 : NPR
reports on "official transcripts of Flynn's calls" (saying they show no wrongdoing but that
doesn't rule out illegal activity).
Feb. 17, 2017: Washington Post reports that "Flynn told FBI he did not discuss sanctions"
with Russia ambassador and that "Lying to the FBI is a felony offense."
Feb. 24, 2017 : FBI interviews Flynn, according to later testimony from Deputy Attorney
General Sally Yates.
March 1, 2017: Washington Post reports Attorney General Jeff Sessions has met with Russian
ambassador twice in the recent past (as did many Democrat and Republican officials). His
critics say that contradicts his earlier testimony to Congress. The article by Adam Entous,
Ellen Nakashima and Greg Miller raises the idea of a special counsel to investigate.
March 2017: FBI Director James Comey
gives private briefings to members of Congress and reportedly says he does not believe Gen.
Flynn lied to FBI.
House Intelligence Committee requests list of unmasking requests Obama officials made. The
intel agencies do not provide the information, prompting a June 1 subpoena.
March 2, 2017: Attorney General Jeff Sessions recuses himself from Russia-linked
investigations.
Rod Rosenstein, the Deputy Attorney General, becomes Acting Attorney General for Russia
Probe. It's later revealed that Rosenstein singed at least one wiretap application against
former Trump adviser Carter Page.
March 4, 2017: President Trump tweets: "Is it legal for a sitting President to be 'wire
tapping' a race for president prior to an election? Turned down by court earlier. A NEW LOW!"
and "How low has President Obama gone to tapp my phones during the very sacred election
process. This is Nixon/Watergate. Bad (or sick) guy!"
March 10, 2017: Former Congressman Dennis Kucinich, a Democrat, steps forward to support
Trump's wiretapping claim, revealing that the Obama administration intel officials recorded his
own communications with a Libyan official in Spring 2011.
March 14, 2017 : FBI Attorney Lisa Page texts FBI official Peter Strzok: "Finally two pages
away from finishing [All the President's Men]. Did you know the president resigns in the end?!"
Strzok replies, "What?!?! God, that we should be so lucky. [smiley face emoji]"
March 20, 2017 : FBI Director Comey tells House Intelligence Committee he has "no
information that supports" the President's tweets about alleged wiretapping directed at him by
the prior administration. "We have looked carefully inside the FBI," Comey says. "(T)he answer
is the same for the Department of Justice and all its components."
FBI Director Comey tells Congress there is "salacious and unverified" material in the Fusion
GPS dossier used by FBI, in part, to obtain Carter Page wiretap. (Under FBI "Woods Procedures,"
only facts carefully verified by the FBI are allowed to be presented to court to obtain
wiretaps.)
March 22, 2017: Chairman of House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) publicly
announces he's seen evidence of Trump associates being "incidentally" surveilled by Obama intel
officials; and their names being "unmasked" and illegally leaked. Nunes briefs President Trump
and holds a news conference. He's criticized for doing so. An ethics investigation is opened
into his actions but later clears him of wrongdoing.
In an interview on PBS, former Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice responds to Nunes
allegations by stating: "I know nothing about this, I really don't know to what Chairman Nunes
was referring." (She later acknowledges unmasking names of Trump associates.)
March 2017: Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) writes Justice Dept. accusing Fusion GPS of
acting as an agent for Russia "without properly registering" due to its pro-Russia effort to
kill a law allowing sanctions against foreign human rights violators. Fusion GPS denies the
allegations.
March 24, 2017: Fusion GPS declines to answer Sen. Grassley's questions or document
requests.
March 27, 2017: Former Deputy Asst. Secretary of Defense Evelyn Farkas admits she encouraged
Obama and Congressional officials to "get as much information as they can" about Russia and
Trump officials before inauguration. "That's why you have the leaking," she told MSNBC.
Early April, 2017: A third FBI wiretap on former Trump campaign aide Carter Page is
approved.
Again, FBI Director James Comey, and acting attorney general Dana Boente sign the application.
Trump officials including Mike Pompeo at the CIA are now leading the intel agencies during the
wiretap.
April 3, 2017: Multiple news reports state that Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice
had requested and reviewed "unmasked" intelligence on Trump associates whose information was
"incidentally" collected by intel agencies.
April 4, 2017: Obama former National Security Adviser Rice admits, in an interview, that she
asked to reveal names of U.S. citizens previously masked in intel reports. She says her
motivations were not political. When asked if she leaked names, Rice states, "I leaked nothing
to nobody."
April 6, 2017: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes recuses himself from Russia
part of his committee's investigation.
April 11, 2017: FBI Director Comey
appoints Stephen Laycock as special agent in charge of Counterintelligence Division for
Washington Field Office.
Washington Post reports FBI secretly obtained wiretap against Trump campaign associate
Carter Page last summer. (Later, it's revealed the summer wiretap had been turned down, but a
subsequent application was approved in October.)
April 20, 2017: Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary McCord resigns as acting head of
Justice Dept. National Security Division. She'd led probes of Russia interference in election
and Trump-Russia ties.
April 28, 2017: Dana Boente is appointed acting assistant attorney general for national
security division to replace Mary McCord. (Boente has signed one of the questioned wiretap
applications for Carter Page.)
National Security Agency (NSA) submits remedies for its egregious surveillance violations
(revealed last October) to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court promising to "no longer
collect certain internet communications that merely mention a foreign intelligence target." The
NSA also begins deleting collected data on U.S. citizens it had been storing.
May 3, 2017: FBI Director Comey
testifies he's "mildly nauseous" at the idea he might have affected election with the 11th
hour Clinton email notifications to Congress.
Comey also testifies
he's "never" been an anonymous news source on "matters relating to" investigating the Trump
campaign.
Obama's former national security adviser Susan Rice declines Republican Congressional
request to testify at a hearing about unmaskings and surveillance.
May 8, 2017: Former acting Attorney General Sally Yates and former Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper testify to Congress. They
admit having reviewed "classified documents in which Mr. Trump, his associates or members
of Congress had been unmasked," and possibly discussing it with others under the Obama
administration.
May 9, 2017: President Trump fires FBI Director James Comey. Andrew McCabe becomes acting
FBI Director.
May 12, 2017: Benjamin Wittes, confidant of ex-FBI Director James Comey and editor in chief
of Lawfare, contacts New York Times reporter Mike Schmidt to
leak conversations he'd had with Comey as FBI Director that are critical of President
Trump.
May 16, 2017: New York Times
publishes leaked account of FBI memoranda recorded by former FBI Director James Comey.
Comey later acknowledges engineering the leak of the FBI material through his friend, Columbia
Law School professor Daniel Richman, to spur appointment of special counsel to investigate
President Trump.
Trump reportedly
interviews , but passes over, former FBI Director Robert Mueller for position of FBI
Director.
May 17, 2017: Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein appoints Robert Mueller as Special
Counsel, Russia-Trump probe. Mueller and former FBI Director Comey are friends and worked
closely together in previous Justice Dept. and FBI positions.
The gap of missing text messages between FBI officials Peter Strzok and Lisa Page ends. The
couple is soon assigned to the Mueller team investigating Trump.
May 19, 2017: Anthony Wiener, former Congressman and husband of Hillary Clinton confidant
Huma Abedin, turns himself in to FBI in case of underage sexting ; his third major
kerfuffle over sexting in six years.
May 22, 2017 : FBI Counterespionage Chief Peter Strzok texts FBI Attorney Lisa Page about
whether Strzok should join Special Counsel Mueller's investigation of Trump-Russia collusion.
Strzok spoke of "unfinished business" that he "unleashed" with the Clinton classified email
probe and stated: "Now I need to fix it and finish it." He also referred to the Special Counsel
probe, which hadn't yet begun in earnest, as an "investigation leading to impeachment." But he
also stated he had a "gut sense and concern there's no big there there."
June 1, 2017: House Intelligence Committee issues 7 subpoenas, including for information
related to unmaskings requested by ex-Obama officials national security adviser Susan Rice,
former CIA Director John Brennan, and former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power.
June 8, 2017: Former FBI Director James Comey admits having engineered
leak of his own memo to New York Times to spur appointment of a special counsel to
investigate President Trump.
June 20, 2017: Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe names Philip Celestini as Special Agent in
Charge of the Intelligence Division, Washington Field Office.
Late June, 2017: FBI renews
wiretap against Carter Page for the fourth and final time that we know of. It lasts through
late Sept. 2017. (Page is never ultimately charged with a crime.) FBI Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein sign the renewal application.
Late July, 2017: FBI reportedly searches Paul Manafort's Alexandria, Virginia home.
Summer 2017: FBI lawyer Lisa Page is reassigned from Mueller investigation. Her boyfriend,
FBI official Peter Strzok is removed from Mueller investigation after the Inspector General
discovers compromising texts between Strzok and Page. Congress is not notified of the
developments.
Aug. 2, 2017: Christopher Wray is named FBI Director.
August 2017: Ex-FBI Director Comey signs a book deal for a reported $2 million.
Sept. 13, 2017: Under questioning from Congress, Obama's former National Security Adviser
Susan Rice reportedly admits having requested to see the protected identities of Trump
transition officials "incidentally" captured by government surveillance.
Approx. Oct. 10, 2017: Former Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos
pleads guilty to lying to FBI about his unsuccessful efforts during the campaign to
facilitate meetings between Trump officials and Russian officials.
Oct. 17, 2017: Obama's former U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power reportedly tells Congressional
investigators that many of the hundreds of "unmasking" requests in her name during the election
year were not made by her.
Oct. 24, 2017: Congressional Republicans announce new investigations into a 2010
acquisition that gave Russia control of 20% of U.S. uranium supply while Clinton was secretary
of state; and FBI decision not to charge Clinton in classified info probe.
Oct. 30, 2017: Special Counsel Mueller
charges ex-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and business associate Rick Gates with tax
and money laundering crimes related to their foreign work. The charges do not appear related to
Trump.
Nov. 2, 2017: Carter Page
testifies to House Intelligence committee under oath without an attorney and asks to have
the testimony published. He denies ever meeting the Russian official that Fusion GPS claimed
he'd met with in July 2016.
Nov. 5, 2017: Special Counsel Robert Mueller
files charges against ex-Trump national security adviser Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn for
allegedly lying to FBI official Peter Strzok about contacts with Russian ambassador during
presidential transition.
Dec. 1, 2017: Former national security adviser Gen. Flynn pleads guilty of
lying to the FBI. Prosecutors recommend no prison time (but later reverse their
recommendation).
James Rybicki steps down as chief of staff to FBI Director.
Dec. 6, 2017: Associate Deputy Attorney General Bruce Ohr is reportedly stripped of one of
his positions at Justice Dept. amid controversy over his and his wife's role in anti-Trump
political opposition research.
Dec. 7, 2017: FBI Director Wray incorrectly testifies that there have been no "702"
surveillance abuses by the government.
Dec. 19, 2017: FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe repeatedly testifies that the wiretap
against Trump campaign official Carter Page would not have been approved without the Fusion GPS
info. FBI general counsel James Baker, who is himself subject of an Inspector General probe
over his alleged leaks to the press, attends as McCabe's attorney. McCabe acknowledges that if
Baker had met with Mother Jones reporter David Corn, it would have been inappropriate.
FBI general counsel James Baker is
reassigned amid investigation into his alleged anti-Trump related contacts with
media.
2018
Jan. 4, 2018: Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.)
refer criminal
charges against Christopher Steele to the FBI for investigation. There's an apparent
conflict of interest with the FBI being asked to investigate Steele since the FBI has used
Steele's controversial political opposition research to obtain wiretaps.
Jan. 8, 2018: Justice Dept. official Bruce Ohr loses his second title at the agency.
Jan. 10, 2018: Donald Trump lawyer Michael Cohen files defamation
suits against Fusion GPS and BuzzFeed News for publishing the "Steele dossier," which he says
falsely
claimed he met Russian government officials in Prague, Czech Republic, in August of
2016.
Jan. 11, 2018: House of Representatives approves government's
controversial "702" wireless surveillance authority. The Senate follows suit.
Jan. 19, 2018: Justice Dept. produces to Congress some text messages between FBI officials
Lisa Page and Peter Strzok but states that FBI lost texts between December 14, 2016 and May 17,
2017 due to a technical glitch.
President Trump signs six-year extension of "702" wireless surveillance authority.
Jan. 23, 2018: Former FBI Director Comey friend who leaked on behalf of Comey to New York
Times to spur appointment of special counsel is now Comey's attorney.
Jan. 25, 2018: Justice Dept. Inspector General notifies Congress it has recovered missing
text messages between FBI officials Lisa Page and Peter Strzok.
Jan. 27, 2018: Edward O'Callaghan is
named Acting Assistant Attorney General, National Security Division.
Jan. 29, 2018: Andrew McCabe steps down as Deputy
FBI Director
ahead of his March retirement.
Jan. 30, 2018: News reports
allege that Justice Department Inspector General is looking into why FBI Deputy Director
Andrew McCabe appeared to wait three weeks before acting on new Clinton emails found right
before the election.
Feb. 2, 2018: House Intelligence Committee (Nunes) Republican memo is released. It
summarizes classified documents revealing for the first time that Fusion GPS political
opposition research was used, in part, to justify Carter Page wiretap; along with Michael
Isikoff Yahoo News article based on the same opposition research.
Memo also states that Fusion GPS set up back channel to FBI through Nellie Ohr, who
conducted opposition research on Trump and passed it to her husband, associate deputy attorney
general Bruce Ohr.
Feb. 7, 2018: Justice Department official David Laufman, who helped oversee the Clinton and
Russia probes, steps down as chief of National Security Division's Counterintelligence and
Export Control Section.
Feb. 9, 2018: Former FBI Director Comey assistant Josh Campbell leaves FBI for job at
CNN.
Justice Department Associate Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, Rachel Brand,
resigns.
Feb. 16, 2018: Special counsel Mueller obtains guilty plea from a Dutch attorney for
lying to federal investigators about the last time he spoke to Rick Gates regarding a 2012
project related to Ukraine. The
plea does not appear to relate to 2016 campaign or Trump. The Dutch attorney is married to
the daughter of a Russian oligarch who's suing Buzzfeed and Christopher Steele for alleged
defamation in the "dossier."
Feb. 22, 2018: Former State Dept. official and Sen. John McCain associate David Kramer
invokes his Fifth Amendment right not to testify before House Intelligence Committee. Kramer
reportedly picked up the anti-Trump political opposition research in London and delivered it to
Sen. McCain who delivered it to the FBI.
Special counsel Mueller
files new charges against former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort and former campaign
aide Rick Gates, accusing them of additional tax and bank fraud crimes. The allegations appear
to be unrelated to Trump.
Fri. Feb. 23, 2018: Former Trump campaign aide Rick Gates,
pleads guilty to conspiracy and lying to investigators (though he issues a statement saying
he's innocent of the indictment charges). The allegations and plea have no apparent link to
Trump-Russia campaign collusion.
Sat. Feb. 24, 2018: Democrats on House Intel Committee release
their rebuttal memo to the Republican version that summarized alleged FBI misconduct re: using
the GPS Fusion opposition research to get wiretap against Carter Page.
March 12, 2018 : House Intelligence Committee
closes Russia-Trump investigation with no evidence of collusion.
Fri. March 16, 2018 : Attorney General Jeff Sessions fires Deputy FBI
Director Andrew McCabe, based on recommendation from FBI ethics investigators.
Thurs. March 22, 2018 : President Trump announces plans to replace
National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster with former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John
Bolton.
House Judiciary Committee issues
subpoenas to Department of Justice after Department failed to produce documents.
May 4, 2018 : Amid allegations that he was responsible for improper leaks, FBI attorney
James Baker resigns and joins the Brookings Institution, writing for the anti-Trump blog
"Lawfare" that first discussed the need for an "insurance policy" in case Trump got
elected.
2019
March 2019 : Special Counsel Robert Mueller signs off on his final report stating
that there was no collusion or coordination between Trump -- or any American -- and Russia. He
leaves as an open question the issue of whether Trump took any actions that could be considered
obstruction. No new charges are recommended or filed with the issuance of the report.
June 2019 : Former Trump National Security Adviser Flynn fire his defense attorneys and
hires Sidney Powell.
Oct. 25, 2019 : Flynn files a motion to dismiss the case against him due to prosecutorial
misconduct. Among other claims, Flynn says prosecutors failed to turn over exculpatory material
tending to show his innocence. Prosecutors claim they were not required to turn over the
information.
Dec. 19, 2019 : An investigation by Inspector General
Michael Horowitz finds egregious abuses by FBI and Justice Department officials in obtaining
wiretaps of former Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page. The report also says an FBI attorney
doctored a document, providing false information to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court, to get the wiretaps.
2020
Jan. 7, 2020 : Prosecutors reverse their earlier recommendation for no prison time, and ask
for up to six months in prison for Flynn.
Jan. 16, 2020 : Flynn files a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
Jan. 23, 2020 : The Dept. of Justice
finds that two of its wiretaps against former Trump campaign volunteer Carter Page were
improperly obtained and are therefore invalid.
Feb. 10, 2020: The Dept. of Justice asks a judge to sentence Trump associate Roger Stone to
7 to 9 years in prison for lying about his communications with WikiLeaks.
Feb. 11, 2020 : The Dept. of Justice reduces its recommendation for prison time for Stone
after President Trump and others criticized the initial representation as excessive. Stone
receives three years and four months in prison.
Feb. 20, 2020: President Trump
appoints Richard Grenell as acting Director of National Intelligence. Grenell begins
facilitating the release of long withheld documents regarding FBI actions against Trump
campaign associates.
March 31, 2020 : A Justice Dept. Inspector General's
analysis of more than two dozen wiretap applications from eight FBI field offices over two
months finds "we do not have confidence" that the bureau followed standards to ensure the
accuracy of the wiretap requests.
April 3, 2020 : Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court asks FBI to review whether it
wiretaps are valid in light of information about problems and abuses.
April 29, 2020 : Newly-released documents show FBI officials, prior to
their original interview with Flynn, discussing whether the goal was to try to get him to lie
to get him fired or so that he could be prosecuted.
May 7, 2020 : The Department of Justice announces a decision to drop the case against
Flynn.
CrowdStrike, the private cyber-security firm that first accused Russia of hacking Democratic
Party emails and served as a critical source for U.S. intelligence officials in the years-long
Trump-Russia probe, acknowledged to Congress more than two years ago that it had no concrete
evidence that Russian hackers stole emails from the Democratic National Committee's server.
Crowdstrike President Shawn Henry: "We just don't have the evidence..."
CrowdStrike President Shawn Henry's admission under oath, in a recently declassified
December 2017 interview before the House Intelligence Committee, raises new questions about
whether Special Counsel Robert Mueller, intelligence officials and Democrats misled the public.
The allegation that Russia stole Democratic Party emails from Hillary Clinton, John Podesta and
others and then passed them to WikiLeaks helped trigger the FBI's probe into now debunked
claims of a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to steal the 2016 election. The
CrowdStrike admissions were released just two months after the Justice Department retreated
from its its other central claim that Russia meddled in the 2016 election when it dropped
charges against Russian troll farms it said had been trying to get Trump elected.
Henry personally led the remediation and forensics analysis of the DNC server after being
warned of a breach in late April 2016; his work was paid for by the DNC, which refused to turn
over its server to the FBI. Asked for the date when alleged Russian hackers stole data from the
DNC server, Henry testified that CrowdStrike did not in fact know if such a theft occurred at
all: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated [moved electronically]
from the DNC, but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated," Henry said.
Henry reiterated his claim on multiple occasions:
"There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say conclusively. But in
this case it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence
that says it actually left."
"There's not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's circumstantial
evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated."
" There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the network... We
didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data left based on the
circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made."
"Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but
we believe it left, based on what we saw."
Asked directly if he could "unequivocally say" whether "it was or was not exfiltrated out
of DNC," Henry told the committee: "I can't say based on that."
Rep. Adam Schiff: Democrat held up interview transcripts, but finally relented after acting
intel director Richard Grenell suggested he would release them himself. (Senate Television via
AP)
In a later exchange with Republican Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah, Henry offered an explanation
of how Russian agents could have obtained the emails without any digital trace of them leaving
the server. The CrowdStrike president speculated that Russian agents might have taken
"screenshots" in real time. "[If] somebody was monitoring an email server, they could read all
the email," Henry said. "And there might not be evidence of it being exfiltrated, but they
would have knowledge of what was in the email. There would be ways to copy it. You could take
screenshots."
Henry's 2017 testimony that there was no "concrete evidence" that the emails were stolen
electronically suggests that Mueller was at best misleading in his 2019 final report, in which
he stated that Russian intelligence "appears to have compressed and exfiltrated over 70
gigabytes of data from the file server."
It is unlikely that Mueller had another source to make his more confident claim about
Russian hacking.
The stolen emails, which were published by Wikileaks – whose founder, Julian Assange
has long denied they came from Russia – were embarrassing to the party because, among
other things, they showed the DNC had favored Clinton during her 2016 primary battles against
Sen. Bernie Sanders for the presidential nomination. The DNC eventually issued an apology to
Sanders and his supporters "for the inexcusable remarks made over email." The DNC hack was
separate from the FBI's investigation of Clinton's use of a private server while serving as
President Obama's Secretary of State.
The disclosure that CrowdStrike found no evidence that alleged Russian hackers exfiltrated
any data from the DNC server raises a critical question: On what basis, then, did it accuse
them of stealing the emails? Further, on what basis did Obama administration officials make far
more forceful claims about Russian hacking?
Michael Sussmann: This lawyer at Perkins Coie hired CrowdStrike to investigate the DNC
breach. He was also involved with Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele in producing the
discredited Steele dossier.
The January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA), which formally accused Russia of a
sweeping influence campaign involving the theft of Democratic emails, claimed the Russian
intelligence service GRU "exfiltrated large volumes of data from the DNC." A July 2018
indictment claimed that GRU officers "stole thousands of emails from the work accounts of DNC
employees."
According to everyone concerned, the cyber-firm played a critical role in the FBI's
investigation of the DNC data theft. Henry told the panel that CrowdStrike "shared intelligence
with the FBI" on a regular basis, making "contact with them over a hundred times in the course
of many months." In congressional testimony that same year, former FBI Director James Comey
acknowledged that the FBI "never got direct access to the machines themselves," and instead
relied on CrowdStrike, which "shared with us their forensics from their review of the system."
According to Comey, the FBI would have preferred direct access to the server, and made
"multiple requests at different levels," to obtain it. But after being rebuffed, "ultimately it
was agreed to [CrowdStrike] would share with us what they saw."
Henry's testimony seems at variance with Comey's suggestion of complete information sharing.
He told Congress that CrowdStrike provided "a couple of actual digital images" of DNC hard
drives, out of a total number of "in excess of 10, I think." In other cases, Henry said,
CrowdStrike provided its own assessment of them. The firm, he said, provided "the results of
our analysis based on what our technology went out and collected." This disclosure follows
revelations from the case of Trump operative Roger Stone that CrowdStrike provided three
reports to the FBI in redacted and draft form. According to federal prosecutors, the government
never obtained CrowdStrike's unredacted reports.
CrowdStrike's newy disclosed admissions raise new questions about whether Special Counsel
Robert Mueller (above), intelligence officials and Democrats misled the public.
There are no indications that the Mueller team accessed any additional information beyond
what CrowdStrike provided. According to the Mueller report, "the FBI later received images of
DNC servers and copies of relevant traffic logs." But if the FBI obtained only "copies" of data
traffic – and not any new evidence -- those copies would have shown the same absence of
"concrete evidence" that Henry admitted to.
Adding to the tenuous evidence is CrowdStrike's own lack of certainty that the hackers it
identified inside the DNC server were indeed Russian government actors. Henry's explanation for
his firm's attribution of the DNC hack to Russia is replete with inferences and assumptions
that lead to "beliefs," not unequivocal conclusions. "There are other nation-states that
collect this type of intelligence for sure," Henry said, "but what we would call the tactics
and techniques were consistent with what we'd seen associated with the Russian state." In its
investigation, Henry said, CrowdStrike "saw activity that we believed was consistent with
activity we'd seen previously and had associated with the Russian Government. We said that we
had a high degree of confidence it was the Russian Government."
But CrowdStrike was forced to retract a similar accusation months after it accused Russia in
December 2016 of hacking the Ukrainian military, with the same software that the firm had
claimed to identify inside the DNC server.
The firm's work with the DNC and FBI is also colored by partisan affiliations. Before
joining CrowdStrike, Henry served as executive assistant director at the FBI under Mueller.
Co-founder Dmitri Alperovitch is a vocal critic of Vladimir Putin and a senior fellow at the
Atlantic Council, the pro-NATO think tank that has consistently promoted an aggressive policy
toward Russia. And the newly released testimony confirms that CrowdStrike was hired to
investigate the DNC breach by Michael Sussmann of Perkins Coie – the same Democratic-tied
law firm that hired Fusion GPS to produce the discredited Steele dossier, which was also
treated as central evidence in the investigation. Sussmann played a critical role in generating
the Trump-Russia collusion allegation. Ex-British spy and dossier compiler Christopher Steele
has
testified in British court that Sussmann shared with him the now-debunked Alfa Bank server
theory, alleging a clandestine communication channel between the bank and the Trump
Organization.
Henry's recently released testimony does not mean that Russia did not hack the DNC. What it
does make clear is that Obama administration officials, the DNC and others have misled the
public by presenting as fact information that they knew was uncertain. The fact that the
Democratic Party employed the two private firms that generated the core allegations at the
heart of Russiagate -- Russian email hacking and Trump-Russia collusion – suggests that
the federal investigation was compromised from the start.
The 2017 Henry transcript was one of dozens just released after a lengthy dispute. In
September 2018, the Republican-controlled House Intelligence Committee unanimously voted to
release witness interview transcripts and sent them to the U.S. intelligence community for
declassification review. In March 2019, months after Democrats won House control, Rep. Adam
Schiff ordered the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) to withhold the
transcripts from White House lawyers seeking to review them for executive privilege. Schiff
also refused to release vetted transcripts, but finally relented after acting ODNI Director
Richard Grenell suggested this month that he would release them himself.
Several transcripts, including the interviews of former CIA Director John Brennan and Comey,
remain unreleased. And in light of the newly disclosed Crowdstrike testimony, another secret
document from the House proceedings takes on urgency for public viewing. According to Henry,
Crowdstrike also provided the House Intelligence Committee with a copy of its report on the DNC
email theft.
by Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/15/2020 - 11:54 The camera feed to former Obama Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper suddenly cut out while CNN 's John Berman was pressing him to answer questions about
leaks of classified information to the media, one day after a declassified memo revealed a list
of Obama administration officials who made 'unmasking' requests regarding President Trump's
first national security adviser, Michael Flynn. Included in the list are Clapper, former Vice
President Joe Biden, President Obama's Chief of Staff, and former CIA Director John Brennan.
Notably, the requests began before Flynn's call with former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak -
the classified details of which were leaked to the Washington Post in early 2017 as noted by
the
Washington Examiner .
"Asking for names, nothing wrong with that, unmasking in of itself, nothing wrong with
that," Berman said to Clapper. "Leaking classified information, and by definition, these phone
calls were classified, that's a problem, correct?"
Clapper, a CNN security analyst, responded "absolutely," before the image froze and his
screen went dark.
Watch: Clapper just conceded on CNN that "No, I did not" find evidence of Trump-Russia
collusion. Then, after being asked about leaking to the press, his video connection went
dead... pic.twitter.com/Ab13DVFVQa
Once his feed was restored, Clapper insisted that he wasn't the leaker.
"David Ignatius put out this famous column on Jan. 12 where he mentioned the phone call
between Michael Flynn -- the Dec. 29 phone call. Did you leak that information?" Berman asked.
"I did not," responded Clapper."
Once Clapper was back, he was asked whether he leaked the Flynn call to David Ignatius. He
says: "No, I did not." pic.twitter.com/mAww8wsp9U
Clapper insisted during Thursday's interview that unmasking a US citizen is a "routine
thing" when "you have a valid foreign intelligence target engaging with a U.S. person."
That said, he c ouldn't remember what prompted the request "that was made on my behalf for
unmasking" regarding Flynn, but that the "general concern" was over his engagement with
Russians during the Trump team's transition to the White House. Of course, as even Slate wrote
back in 2017, "Meetings between the president-elect's team and foreign officials are Normal,"
but that "Negotiations that undermine a sitting president's foreign policy are not
unprecedented, but remain highly controversial and Not Normal.'
John Durham, the U.S. attorney picked by Attorney General William Barr to investigate the
origins of the Trump-Russia inquiry, is scrutinizing the Flynn unmaskings and subsequent
leaks as part of his inquiry.
The Connecticut federal prosecutor is reportedly looking into a Jan. 12, 2017, article in
the Washington Post by Ignatius, which said Flynn "cultivates close Russian contacts" and
cited a "senior U.S. government official" who revealed Flynn had talked to former Russian
ambassador Sergey Kislyak on Dec. 29, 2016, which was the same day former President Barack
Obama expelled 35 Russian officials . It is likely that this revelation, and subsequent leaks
about the alleged contents of Flynn's discussions with Kislyak, were based on classified
information. -
Washington Examiner
And now, after destroying Flynn's life in a perjury trap, the Obama all-stars are
scrambling.
Absolutely remarkable; in fact, 'stunning', as he uses it, is not too much of a stretch. The
'liberal elites' just go right on lying even though the sworn testimony of FBI interviewers
is available for anyone to read, as well as the chilling manipulations of Strozk and Page,
both of whom should be in prison and perhaps will be. And that fucker Schiff should swing. I
can't believe the transformation of Carlson from Bush shill to the reincarnation of Edward R.
Murrow. He makes this case so compellingly that nobody could watch that clip and not believe
that Flynn was railroaded from the outset. And what were they allegedly going to jail Flynn's
son for? Does anyone know? Were they just going to make something up? That is terrifying, and
almost argues for the disbanding of the FBI, although it demonstrably still contains honest
agents – as Carlson asks rhetorically, how many times have they done this already, and
gotten away with it?
It's hard to imagine anyone would vote Democrat now.
Couldn't have been too much of a crime, if they offered to let him go in exchange for Flynn
pleading guilty to lying. Actually, you'd kind of think their business was prosecuting crimes
whoever committed them, and that offering to excuse a crime in exchange for a guilty plea is
.kind of a crime.
Man, they have to clean house at the FBI. And there probably are several other
organizations that need it, too. Not the political culling based on ideology that was a
feature of the Bush White House, but the crowd that's in now just cannot be allowed to get
off with nothing.
Greetings Mark and all, I am a new arrival as Jen suggested the company is fine here for
barflies to ponder the world. Can I surmise that if Flynn and son were the FBI targets for
nefarious business dealings then surely Biden and son fall in to that same category. After
all Biden and son filched millions after arranging a USA loan of $1Billion to Ukraine and
then did it again after the IMF loaned a few million more. Carpetbagging and its modern day
practice is a crime in the USA last I looked.
If that conspicuous bias isn't enough cause to dismember the FBI then consider the Uranium
One deal that Hillary Clinton and family set up or perhaps the Debbie Wasserman Shultz
fostering the Awan family spy and blackmail ring.
Good day, Uncle, and welcome! For some reason I can't fathom, the Democrats seem to own or
control all the 'respectable' media in the USA. FOX News is an exception, and has been a
mouthpiece for the Republicans since its inception. But the Democrats control the New York
Times and the Washington Post, which together represent the bulk of American public feeling
to foreigners, and probably to the domestic audience as well. They are extremely active on
conflicts between the two parties, ensuring the Democratic perspective gets put forward in
calm, reasonable why-wouldn't-a-sensible-person-think-this-way manner. At the same time they
cast horrific aspersions at the Republicans. Not that either are much good; but the news
coverage is very one-sided – the position of the Democrats on the sexual-assault furor
over the Kavanaugh appointment compared with their wait-and-see attitude to very similar
accusations against Biden is a classic example.
I don't think its the Democrats that control the NYT &WP, so much as plutocrats.
They're also the ones who fund both the Democrats & the Republicans. The only significant
difference between the parties is largely in the arena of the social "culture war" issues.
But on the issues plutocrats care about, like economic policy & foreign policy, the
differences are shades of grey, rather than actual distinctions.
Just remember the coverage of both papers in the run up to George W Shrub's catastrophic
Iraq war. They're stenographers, not journalists.
That may well be true, but the NYT and WP historically champion the Democrats, endorse the
Democratic candidate for president, and pander to Democratic issues and projects. The Wall
Street Journal is the traditional Republican print outlet, and there might be others but I
don't know them. CNN is overwhelmingly and weepily Democratic in its content – Wolf
Blitzer's eyes nearly roll back in his head with ecstasy whenever he mentions Saint Hillary
– while FOX News is Repubican to the bone and openly contemptuous of liberals. It could
certainly be, on reflection probably is, that the same cabal of corporatists control them
all, and a fine joke they must think it. And I certainly and emphatically agree there is
almost no difference between the parties in execution of external policy.
"... Ideally, they should each be prosecuted with an attempt to discern their connections to the political establishment, and specifically to the Clintons. What does that woman have to do to get jailed – blow somebody away on the 6 o'clock news? ..."
After a prescient 2017 tip from inside the FBI, a slow drip of revelations exposed the
deep problems with the Flynn prosecution.
####
All at the link.
I should add that the author, seasoned investigative reporter John Soloman, wrote much of
this over at TheHill.com and was targeted for review over his clearly labelled 'opinion'
pieces reporting on the Bidens in the Ukraine. The Hill's conclusion is piss weak and accuses
him of what just about every other journalist in the US does and reads in particular of
holding him up to a much higher standard than others. As you will see from his twatter bio,
he's worked for AP, Washington Post, The Washington Times and The Hill. Some things you are
just not supposed to investigate, let alone report.
At an absolute minimum, the FBI officials involved – except those who did their jobs
properly and stated their judgments at the outset that there was no evidence Flynn was not
telling the truth, or believed he was – should be fired and their pensions, if
applicable, rescinded.
Ideally, they should each be prosecuted with an attempt to discern their connections
to the political establishment, and specifically to the Clintons. What does that woman have
to do to get jailed – blow somebody away on the 6 o'clock news?
Ex-F.B.I.
Official Is Said to Undercut Justice Dept. Effort to Drop Flynn Case
Prosecutors questioned a former F.B.I. official whose
notes were used to buttress their motion to dismiss the charge against the president's first national security
adviser.
Bill Priestap, a former top F.B.I. official,
played a central role in the agency's 2016 investigation into Russia's efforts to interfere in the
presidential election.
Credit...
Alex
Wong/Getty Images
Published May 13,
2020
Updated May
14, 2020,
7:48 a.m. ET
WASHINGTON -- A key former F.B.I. official cast doubt on the Justice
Department's case for dropping a criminal charge against President Trump's former national security adviser
Michael
T. Flynn
during an interview with investigators last week, according to people familiar with the
investigation.
Department officials reviewing the Flynn case interviewed Bill Priestap, the
former head of F.B.I. counterintelligence, two days before making their extraordinary request to drop the
case to Judge Emmet G. Sullivan. They did not tell Judge Sullivan about Mr. Priestap's interview. A Justice
Department official said that they were in the process of writing up a report on the interview and that it
would soon be filed with the court.
The department's motion referred to notes that Mr. Priestap wrote around the
bureau's 2017 questioning of Mr. Flynn, who later pleaded guilty to lying to investigators during that
interview. His lawyers said Mr. Priestap's notes -- recently uncovered during a review of the case --
suggested that the F.B.I. was trying to entrap Mr. Flynn, and Attorney General William P. Barr
said investigators were trying
to "lay a perjury trap."
That interpretation was wrong, Mr. Priestap told the prosecutors reviewing
the case. He said that F.B.I. officials were trying to do the right thing in questioning Mr. Flynn and that
he knew of no effort to set him up. Media reports about his notes misconstrued them, he said, according to
the people familiar with the investigation.
The department's decision to exclude mention of Mr. Priestap's interview in
the motion could trouble Judge Sullivan, who
signaled late on Tuesday
that he was skeptical of the department's arguments.
Mr. Priestap and the Justice Department declined to comment. Mr. Priestap
told investigators that he did not remember the circumstances surrounding the notes that he took, and that
he was giving them his interpretation of the notes as he read them now, according to a person familiar with
his interview.
Listen to 'The Daily': The Saga of Michael Flynn
The U.S. dropped its criminal case against President Trump's first national security
adviser. It was the latest reversal in a case full of them.
Former prosecutors and defense lawyers called the department's position
hypocritical and troubling.
"If it is accurate that the F.B.I. official provided context around those
notes, which is materially different from what they suggest, this could be a game changer in terms of how
the court views the motivations behind the request to dismiss the case," said Edward Y. Kim, a former
federal prosecutor in Manhattan.
The department's decision to drop the Flynn case was a stunning reversal,
widely regarded as part of an effort by Mr. Barr to
undermine the Russia investigation
. The prosecutor who led the case, Brandon L. Van Grack, withdrew from
it, and only the interim U.S. attorney in Washington, Timothy Shea, a longtime adviser to Mr. Barr, signed
the motion.
Both Mr. Van Grack and Jocelyn Ballantine, another prosecutor on the case,
were upset with Mr. Barr's decision to drop the charge and his overall handling of the Flynn review,
according to people familiar with their thinking.
Mr. Barr, who has long said that he had misgivings about the decision to
prosecute Mr. Flynn, asked the top federal prosecutor in St. Louis, Jeff Jensen, earlier this year to scrub
the case for any mistakes or improprieties.
Mr. Priestap's notes were among the documents that Mr. Jensen found. The
prosecutors already on the case, Mr. Jensen's team and the F.B.I. disagreed about whether they were
exculpatory and should be given to Mr. Flynn's lawyer, Sidney Powell. Mr. Jensen prevailed and gave them to
Ms. Powell, who declared that they would exonerate her client, people familiar with the events said.
Mr. Priestap played a central role in the F.B.I. investigation into Russian
interference in the presidential election and was involved in high-level discussions about whether to
question Mr. Flynn, whose phone calls to the Russian ambassador at the time, Sergey I. Kislyak, had aroused
investigators' suspicions.
Mr. Jensen and Ms. Ballantine, herself a veteran prosecutor, interviewed Mr.
Priestap along with another prosecutor, Sayler Fleming, and an F.B.I. agent from St. Louis who was there to
memorialize the encounter.
Justice Department investigators spoke with Mr. Priestap while they were
embroiled in a debate that began last month about whether to drop the Flynn case.
Mr. Jensen and officials in Mr. Shea's office pushed to give Mr. Flynn's
lawyers copies of the notes and other documents they had recently found. Mr. Van Grack and Dana Boente, the
F.B.I. general counsel, argued against disclosing them.
Eventually the F.B.I. agreed to release the documents because they contained
no classified or sensitive material, even though they believed they were not required to share them with the
defense, according to an email from lawyers in Mr. Boente's office on April 23.
By the beginning of May, Mr. Jensen recommended to Mr. Barr that the charge
be dropped, and the team began to draft the motion to dismiss it.
Mr. Van Grack and Ms. Ballantine, the prosecutors on the case, acknowledged
the facts but vociferously disagreed with Mr. Jensen's legal argument that Mr. Flynn's lies were immaterial
to the larger investigation into Russian election interference, according to department lawyers familiar
with their conversations.
As the lawyers digested the interview with Mr. Priestap, some prosecutors
expressed concern that they were moving too fast. But other officials pointed out that in less than a week
the department was due to respond to Mr. Flynn's motion to dismiss the case, and argued against proceeding
in that matter if they were about to drop the entire case.
Mr. Jensen agreed, as did Mr. Barr, and they filed their request. Even though
they knew it was coming, some prosecutors on the case expressed shock, associates said.
Mr. Flynn's case grew out of phone calls he made to Mr. Kislyak in the final
days of 2016, asking that Moscow refrain from retaliating after the Obama administration imposed sanctions
on Russia as punishment for interfering in the election. The conversations were captured on routine wiretaps
of Mr. Kislyak and prompted concern among the F.B.I. agents investigating Mr. Flynn once they learned of
them.
Then the incoming vice president, Mike Pence, publicly denied that Mr. Flynn
had asked Russia to hold off on sanctions. Agents began to suspect that Mr. Flynn was lying to other Trump
officials about the phone calls and were concerned that he was a blackmail risk because Russia knew the
truth of the calls.
Mr. Priestap's notes, taken hours before agents questioned Mr. Flynn on Jan.
24, 2017, showed that F.B.I. officials were debating how to proceed and trying to determine the objective of
questioning Mr. Flynn.
Mr. Priestap wrote: "What's our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie,
so we can prosecute him or get him fired?" Mr. Priestap also mentioned the risks of an interview, adding,
"Protect our institution by not playing games" and "If we're seen playing games, WH will be furious."
Those notes reflected Mr. Priestap's own thoughts before meeting with
F.B.I. leadership to discuss how to question Mr. Flynn, the people said. A footnote in Mr. Shea's motion
included a reference to Mr. Priestap's ruminations. The motion described them as "talking points."
The notes also showed that the F.B.I. softened its interview strategy with
Mr. Flynn. Officials decided that agents would be allowed to read back portions of the highly classified
phone call transcripts to refresh Mr. Flynn's memory. F.B.I. investigators felt at the time it was important
to figure out whether Mr. Flynn would tell the truth in an interview.
Though Mr. Flynn was told ahead of time about the interview, the F.B.I.
director at the time, James B. Comey, unilaterally decided to go forward with it, angering Justice
Department officials who said the bureau should have coordinated closely with them and notified the White
House Counsel's Office.
Two agents went to the White House to question Mr. Flynn. He lied repeatedly,
and prosecutors have said that agents gave him "multiple opportunities to correct his false statements by
revisiting key questions."
Mr. Flynn later agreed to plead guilty, entering a plea twice before he later
reversed himself, hiring new lawyers and asking Judge Sullivan to allow him to withdraw it.
After the notes and other documents were made public, Ms. Powell seized on
them to declare that they cast doubt on the F.B.I.'s decision to question Mr. Flynn and to charge him with
lying. She accused the bureau of framing her client.
Mr. Shea also argued that the F.B.I. had no legitimate reason to
interview Mr. Flynn. He said that the bureau's counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn had
essentially ended and agents had insufficient reason to keep it open and were trying to entrap him.
The interview with Mr. Flynn "seems to have been undertaken only to
elicit those very false statements and thereby criminalize Mr. Flynn," Mr. Shea wrote.
Mr. Barr has called Mr. Flynn's conversations with Mr. Kislyak "
laudable
"
and said that his lies were immaterial to the Russia investigation, rejecting the view of the prosecutors
who had said that
Mr. Flynn hurt the inquiry
by misleading the F.B.I. agents. Judge Sullivan has also said the lies were
material.
"... he recognizes he is sitting on a volcano, partly of his own making because of decisions he made; and those of Judge Rudy Contreras, the man who was on the bench when Flynn plead to the false charges, circa Dec. 1, 2017. ..."
"... Neither Contreras, nor Flynn's Covington lawyers, prior this plea, demanded the DOJ produce original FBI 302s -- of the Jan. 24, 2017 FBI interview of Flynn -- to show the concrete substance, that is, actual evidence, that would purportedly show the general lied. ..."
"... The DOJ never produced this. Ever. Sullivan, he never asked nor demanded nor got to read those original 302s either, even though he has been sitting on this case since Dec. 7, 2017. ..."
"... The only rational reason, I think, Sullivan said he needs "help" -- before consummating the DOJ's request to end this matter – is simple. Sullivan knows he is sitting on a volcano, and he can't take the heat. ..."
"... Thus, he might be creating conditions for a last hurrah of nonsense from the enemies of justice who are the enemies of Flynn, who want to file amica with the court. Put another way, the judge is inviting the very circus he claim to want to avoid, in his Minute Order. ..."
Federal Judge Emmett Sullivan needs "help."
His words, not mine. Although amica, or amicus briefs can be routine in civil cases, in a criminal case, it is
a prosecutor's duty to decide things as basic as whether to prosecute a case. But in the Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn matter, Sullivan says he now needs outside help.
The need, the judge says, came following the DOJ decision to end prosecution of the
general, having determined there was no crime; the heretofore prosecution of him was a
phantom of the opera.
Sullivan now wants an encore. What might that be? Pirates of Penzance? Sullivan Flies Over
the Cuckoo's Nest?
In a recent order the judge said he will invite outside parties -- outside of the DOJ --
to provide this judge "unique information or perspective that can help the court." The
absurdity of Sullivan notwithstanding, it could be: he recognizes he is sitting on a
volcano, partly of his own making because of decisions he made; and those of Judge Rudy
Contreras, the man who was on the bench when Flynn plead to the false charges, circa Dec. 1,
2017.
Neither Contreras, nor Flynn's Covington lawyers, prior this plea, demanded the DOJ
produce original FBI 302s -- of the Jan. 24, 2017 FBI interview of Flynn -- to show the
concrete substance, that is, actual evidence, that would purportedly show the general
lied.
The DOJ never produced this. Ever. Sullivan, he never asked nor demanded nor got to
read those original 302s either, even though he has been sitting on this case since Dec. 7,
2017.
After a year of sitting on the case, Flynn said he was ready to be sentenced: the
prosecutors had said they were fine with no jail time for him.
During this Dec. 18, 2018 hearing, Sullivan Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. [If you have not,
read transcript of this hearing, it's at least a half-hour read.] Sullivan told Flynn he
could face 15 years in jail, implied he committed treason, was a traitor to his country, blah
blah blah.
The prosecutor at the time, Brandon Van Grack, told the Pirate of Penzance that more
assistance of Flynn was needed for the bogus Mueller investigation. Sullivan [Gilbert was not
in the courtroom] then allowed Flynn's sentencing hearing to be continued, so long as Mueller
submitted monthly progress reports to ascertain the general was cooperating with the special
counsel office's "investigation" of nonexistent "crimes" against who knows what at that
point. To recap: Sullivan threatened Flynn with 15 years in prison; Flynn withdrew his
willingness to be sentenced at that time; Van Grack out of nowhere said the general needed to
cooperate some more with Mueller.
Had Sullivan not gone rouge at this hearing; had he demanded and gotten the original 302s,
I would give more credence to what I'll say next.
The only rational reason, I think, Sullivan said he needs "help" -- before
consummating the DOJ's request to end this matter – is simple. Sullivan knows he is
sitting on a volcano, and he can't take the heat.
Thus, he might be creating conditions for a last hurrah of nonsense from the enemies
of justice who are the enemies of Flynn, who want to file amica with the court. Put another
way, the judge is inviting the very circus he claim to want to avoid, in his Minute
Order.
Reason I'm not necessarily opposed to this circus is practical: more sunshine can be
brought to this prosecution, this malicious and political perecution of Flynn –
sunshine, via the DOJ release document after document that just piles onto the record
DOJ/FBI/CIA lawlessness that was directed against and targeted Flynn. And perhaps other
delicious nuggets, too.
When the smoke clears, the fat lady finally sings, Sullivan can say or claim he did
everything to give everyone their say, blah blah blah, and hope like hell everyone forgets
this Pirate's dereliction of duty, as a judge with a lifetime appointment.
Perhaps, should this show go on, we might discover why Contreras mysteriously recused
himself right after the Flynn pleas.
Perhaps we will read all of the Covington law firm Eric Holder and Michael Chertoff
emails, and what they were saying about Flynn, the good, the bad, the ugly.
And, since Barry decided to directly and publicly insert himself in this fiasco last week,
with his remark about Flynn and "perjury," who knows what other documents will be filed on
the docket. [Obama's pre meditated use of "perjury" when he knows it was not about that,
indicates just how sinister his public involvement now is.]
I would like to see all of Sullivan's communications, work related and private, involving
the Flynn case.
Please file all of them on the docket, Judge Sullivan, un-redacted, you who opened this
can of worms. [So we can see if you, by your own "standards" might be a "security threat" or
"sold out your country," etc.]
Sullivan didn't start this fire; he did pour gasoline on it.
". . . .Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows. . . ."[Epistle
to the Galatians]
Sir;
What was Flynn's attitude towards the "Holy Land" at that time? Was he a threat to the Judea
and Samaria clique?
I can't help but compare the treatment of Flynn to the treatment of Petraeus.
There is one hidden benefit leaving Flynn still "twisting slowly, slowly in the wind" for
making a "false statement during a federal investigation".
His treatment at the hands of his own government will certainly resonate with those we now
find on the unmasking list. They will soon be visited by federal investigators who will be
asking them a lot of questions - no lying guys and gals. Look what could happen to you
too.
I could use an explanation of the IMPLICATIONS of this revelation. Is it possible there's
nothing nefarious about someone who, for example, received a copy of Obama's daily briefing
in which Flynn may have been alluded to and therefore that person requested unmasking for a
fuller understanding of the matter? It's been reported that Obama exponentially expanded the
numbers of people who were privy to his daily briefing.
Does the fact that the FBI was undertaking a counterintelligence investigation of Gen.
Flynn at the time, wrong/unethical as that may have been, give cover?
Is there any legal jeopardy facing those whose names are on the list? If so, what?
And President Trump clearly won't let it go (and why should he after three years of utter
bullshit)...
If I were a Senator or Congressman, the first person I would call to testify about the
biggest political crime and scandal in the history of the USA, by FAR, is former President
Obama. He knew EVERYTHING. Do it @LindseyGrahamSC , just do it.
No more Mr. Nice Guy. No more talk!
-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 14,
2020
We won't be holding our collective breaths however, but it would be deliciously ironic if
the president who claimed "no scandals" during his presidency, was brought down after leaving
office by the biggest scandal in US history.
"... One of the most embarrassing is the testimony of Evelyn Farkas, a former Obama Administration official who was widely quoted in her plea to Congress to gather the evidence that she knew was found in by the Obama Administration. In her testimony under oath Farkas repeatedly stated that she knew of no such evidence of collusion. ..."
"... Farkas, who served as the deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia, was widely quoted when she said on MSNBC in 2017 that she feared that evidence she knew about would be destroyed by the Trump Administration. She stated: ..."
"... ...was urging my former colleagues, and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill Get as much information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves the administration, because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people that left. So it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy . . . the Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their, the staff, the Trump staff's dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence. So I became very worried, because not enough was coming out into the open, and I knew that there was more. ..."
"... 'You also didn't know whether or not anybody in the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia, did you?' Gowdy later asked, getting to the point. ..."
The long-delayed release of testimony from the House Intelligence Committee has proved
embarrassing for a variety of former Obama officials who have been extensively quoted on the
allegedly strong evidence of collusion by the Trump campaign and the Russians. Figures like
James Clapper, who is a CNN expert, long indicated hat the evidence from the Obama
Administration was strong and alarming. However, in testimony, Clapper denied seeing any
such evidence .
One of the most embarrassing is the testimony of Evelyn Farkas, a former Obama
Administration official who was widely quoted in her plea to Congress to gather the evidence
that she knew was found in by the Obama Administration. In her testimony under oath Farkas
repeatedly stated that she knew of no such evidence of collusion.
Farkas, who served as the deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia,
was widely quoted when she said on MSNBC in 2017 that she feared that evidence she knew about
would be destroyed by the Trump Administration. She stated:
...was urging my former colleagues, and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill Get as much
information as you can, get as much intelligence as you can, before President Obama leaves
the administration, because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with
the senior people that left. So it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy . . . the Trump
folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about their, the staff, the Trump staff's
dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning
we would no longer have access to that intelligence. So I became very worried, because not
enough was coming out into the open, and I knew that there was more.
MSNBC never seriously questioned the statements despite the fact that Farkas left
the Obama Administration in 2015 before any such investigation could have occurred. As we have
seen before, the factual and legal basis for such statements are largely immaterial in the age
of echo journalism. The statement fit the narrative even if it lacked any plausible basis.
Not surprisingly, the House Intelligence Committee was eager to have Farkas share all that
she stated she "knew about ["the Trump folks"], their staff, the Trump's staff's dealing with
Russian" and wanted to get "into the open." After all, she told MSNBC that "I knew that there
was more."
She was finally put under oath in the closed classified sessions and there was nothing but
classified crickets. Farkas was repeatedly asked to share that information that electrified the
MSNBC hosts and audience. She repeatedly denied any such knowledge, telling then Rep. Trey
Gowdy (R, S.C.), "I didn't know anything."
Gowdy noted that Farkas left the Obama administration in 2015 and asked "Then how did you
know?" She repeated again "I didn't know anything."
Gowdy then asked "Well, then why would you say, we knew?"
He also asked:
'You also didn't know whether or not anybody in the Trump campaign had colluded with Russia,
did you?' Gowdy later asked, getting to the point.
"I didn't," Farkas responded.
MSNBC has said nothing about its prior headline story being untrue. Indeed, the media has
barely acknowledged that the new documents reinforce that there was never any evidence of
collusion and ultimately the allegations were rejected by the Special Counsel, Congress, and
inspectors general.
'fter I left the Obama administration, I campaigned to help elect Secretary Clinton as our
next President. When Russians interfered in that election, I was among the first to sound the
alarm and urge Congress to take action. And I haven't let up since then.
She was indeed one of the first but it proved to be a false alarm based on
nonexistent knowledge. Does that matter anymore?
Released today is a list from the National Security Agency of officials who asked -- between
8 November 2016 and 31 January 2017 -- that a name be unmasked in intercepted communications,
and the name turned out to be Gen. Michael Flynn--
Gen. Paul M. Nakasone, the Director of the NSA, included the list with a short memo to
Richard Grenell, the Acting Director of National Intelligence, who declassified the list and
then routed it today to U.S. Senators Charles Grassley and Ron Johnson.
I think the senators should have asked for a wider time frame.
Americans expect that politicians will lie, but sometimes the examples are so brazen that
they deserve special notice. Newly released Congressional testimony shows that Adam Schiff
spread falsehoods shamelessly about Russia and Donald Trump for three years even as his own
committee gathered contrary evidence.
"... it's clear that Obama was always the vector through which the entire investigation into Donald Trump pointed. He's the only one with the power to have marshaled the forces arrayed against Trump for the past four years. ..."
"... What's clear now is the President Obama's administration was regularly engaged in illegally using NSA database access to spy on Americans and political opponents . This operation pre-dates Trump by a few years ..."
"... On April 18, 2016, following the preliminary audit results, Director Rogers shut down all FBI contractor access to the database after he learned FISA-702 "about"(17) and "to/from"(16) search queries were being done without authorization ..."
"... And that's when everything changed. Because at that point, having lost access Obama's spy team needed another way into the NSA database. Enter Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele and the ridiculous dossier used to issue FISA warrants on Carter Page and all the rest of it. ..."
"... Obama is guilty of the highest crimes a President can be guilty of, utilizing Federal law enforcement and intelligence services to spy on a political opponent during an election. This is after eight years of ruinous wars, coups both successful and not, drone-striking U.S. citizens and generally carrying on like the vandal he is. ..."
"... Obama's people have been covering for him for nearly four years now. They have been exposed as bald-faced liars by the transcripts of their impeachment testimonies to Adam Schiff and the House Intelligence Committee. ..."
"... Now that the heat is rising and the apparatus they used to control turns its attention to what they did, enough of them will roll over and give Attorney General William Barr what he wants. ..."
"... And here we are coming into the home stretch and the bitter end is staring these people in the face. They've lost all credibility, corrupted whole swaths of the Federal government beyond recognition and activated every resource they have in the media and the chattering classes to make manifest a bald-faced lie. And it didn't work. Now the desperation sets in. The exoneration of Gen. Michael Flynn, the release of the transcripts and conflicting stories told by John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey and the rest all point to something beyond sinister. ..."
"... You can smell the fear now. From Bill Kristol to John Brennan they can see the end of their project, whether it was for a New American Neocon Century or just the cynical push for a transnational oligarchy based around the European Union, their Utopian dreams have run into the immovable object of a people refusing to believe their lies anymore. ..."
From the beginning of the story RussiaGate was always about Barack Obama . I didn't always see it that way, certainly. My seething
hatred for all things Hillary Clinton is a powerful blind spot I admit to freely.
But, it's clear that Obama was always the vector through which the entire investigation into Donald Trump pointed. He's the
only one with the power to have marshaled the forces arrayed against Trump for the past four years.
We've known this for a couple of years now but there were a seemingly endless series of distractions put in place to obfuscate
the truth...
Donald Trump was not a Russian agent.
What's clear now is the President Obama's administration was regularly engaged in illegally using NSA database access to spy
on Americans and political opponents . This operation pre-dates Trump by a few years.
It was de rigeur by the time the election cycle ramped up in 2016. The timing of events is during that time period paints a very
damning picture.
This article from Zerohedge by way of
Conservative Treehouse lays out the timing, the activities and the shifts in the narrative that implicate Obama beyond any doubt.
On April 18, 2016, following the preliminary audit results, Director Rogers shut down all FBI contractor access to the
database after he learned FISA-702 "about"(17) and "to/from"(16) search queries were being done without authorization. Thus
begins the first discovery of a much bigger background story.
And that's when everything changed. Because at that point, having lost access Obama's spy team needed another way into the
NSA database. Enter Fusion GPS, Christopher Steele and the ridiculous dossier used to issue FISA warrants on Carter Page and all
the rest of it.
The details are all there for anyone with eyes willing to see, the question is whether anyone deep in the throes of Trump Derangement
Syndrome will take their eyes off the shadow play in front of them long enough to look.
I'm not holding my breath.
Obama is guilty of the highest crimes a President can be guilty of, utilizing Federal law enforcement and intelligence services
to spy on a political opponent during an election. This is after eight years of ruinous wars, coups both successful and not, drone-striking
U.S. citizens and generally carrying on like the vandal he is.
-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)
May 12, 2020
... ... ...
These people obviously missed the key point about Goebbels' Big Lie theory of propaganda. For it to work there has to be a nugget
of truth to wrap the lie in before you can repeat it endlessly to make it real. And that's why RussiaGate is dead. Long live ObamaGate.
Obama's people have been covering for him for nearly four years now. They have been exposed as bald-faced liars by the transcripts
of their impeachment testimonies to Adam Schiff and the House Intelligence Committee.
None of them were willing to testify under oath, and be guilty of perjury, to the effect that Trump was colluding with the Russians.
But, they'd say it on TV, Twitter and anywhere else they could to attack Trump with patent nonsense.
Now that the heat is rising and the apparatus they used to control turns its attention to what they did, enough of them will
roll over and give Attorney General William Barr what he wants. Some of them will fall on their sword for Obama.
But I don't think Trump will be satisfied with that. He has to know that Obama is the key to truly draining the Swamp if that
is, in fact, his goal. Because if he doesn't attack Obama now, Obama will be formidable in October. Both men are fighting for their
lives at this point.
Trump was supposed to roll over and play nice. But Pat Buchanan rightly had him pegged at the beginning of this back in January
of 2017, saying that Trump wasn't like Nixon, he wouldn't walk away to protect the office of the Presidency. He would fight to the
bitter end because that's who he is.
And here we are coming into the home stretch and the bitter end is staring these people in the face. They've lost all credibility,
corrupted whole swaths of the Federal government beyond recognition and activated every resource they have in the media and the chattering
classes to make manifest a bald-faced lie. And it didn't work. Now the desperation sets in. The exoneration of Gen. Michael Flynn,
the release of the transcripts and conflicting stories told by John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey and the rest all point to
something beyond sinister.
You can smell the fear now. From Bill Kristol to John Brennan they can see the end of their project, whether it was for a
New American Neocon Century or just the cynical push for a transnational oligarchy based around the European Union, their Utopian
dreams have run into the immovable object of a people refusing to believe their lies anymore.
The day just keeps getting better and better. The left is now moving the goalposts,
parroting the new talking point that: 'sure, Biden unmasked Flynn - but that just goes to show
how concerned everyone was about him.'
Biden spokesman Andrew Bates, meanwhile, took to Twitter to insult journalist Catherine
Herridge as a "partisan, rightwing hack who is a regular conduit for conservative media
manipulation..." for revealing Biden's involvement in unmasking Flynn. He then deleted the
tweet and issued a statement accusing President Trump of "dishonest media manipulation to
distract from his response to the worst public health crisis in 100 years," adding that the
documents "simply indicate the breadth and depth of concern across the American government --
including among career officials -- over intelligence reports of Michael Flynn's attempts to
undermine ongoing American national security policy through discussions with Russian officials
or other foreign representatives."
. @JoeBiden
camp responds to "unmasking" list: "These documents simply indicate the breadth and depth of
concern across the American govt...over intelligence reports of Michael Flynn's attempts to
undermine ongoing American national security policy" via @AndrewBatesNC
pic.twitter.com/bNl9Fp5JH1
Somehow their response failed to include why Biden tried to lie on Tuesday about knowledge
of the Flynn investigation. * * *
Update (1635ET): It did not take long for the liberalati to try and distract from what just
dropped and to turn their cognitive dissonance up to '11'. None other than Ben Rhodes quickly
ranted:
"The unconfirmed, acting DNI using his position to criminalize routine intelligence work
to help re-elect the president and obscure Russian intervention in our democracy would
normally be the scandal here..."
To which The Wall Street Journal's Kimberley Strassel rebuked rather eloquently...
"This is the best they've got--to complain about transparency. "
But perhaps most notable is the fact the unmasking involved here occurred BEFORE the Kislyak
call that was supposedly triggered the move against Flynn et al.
Another riddle we are sure Messrs. Biden et al. will quickly mumble-splain.
* * *
A list of Obama administration officials who participated in the 'unmasking' of former
National Security Adviser Michael Flynn has been released by Sens. Ron Johnson and Chuck
Grassley. The names include former FBI Director James Comey, former CIA Director John Brennan,
former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former Vice President Joe Biden
.
SCOOP @CBSNews obtains @RichardGrenell
notification to congress declassified "unmasking list" Flynn between late 2016 and January
2017 - Read 3 pages provided by NSA here pic.twitter.com/NozVpQlRn2
-- Catherine Herridge
(@CBS_Herridge) May 13,
2020
#FLYNN unmasking
docs include these key details "Each individual was an authorized recipient of the original
report and the unmasking was approved through NSA's standard process..While the principals
are identified below, we cannot confirm they saw the unmasked information." pic.twitter.com/vz9W3uHPSz
-- Catherine
Herridge (@CBS_Herridge) May 13,
2020
The revelation comes after Biden was caught trying to lie about his knowledge of the Flynn
investigation during a Tuesday morning interview - changing course after host George
Stephanopoulos pointed out his documented attendance at a
January 5 Oval Office meeting in which key members of the Obama administration discussed
the ongoing investigation into Flynn's intercepted contacts with the Russian ambassador.
Notably, Obama asked Comey to conceal the FBI's investigation from the incoming
administration.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/oIaqV0CtOBY
Declassified documents reveal V.P. Biden ordered the unmasking of General Flynn's private
conversation.
Anyone think that Biden might have abused his power to go after a political opponent...
The Senate must immediately hold hearings on this! Clapper, Comey, Brennan and even Biden
owe it to the American people. They should testify under oath. What did the former president
know?
As we have previously noted, "unmasking" is a term used when the identity of a U.S. citizen
or lawful resident is revealed in classified intelligence reports. Normally, when government
officials receive intelligence reports, the names of American citizens are redacted to protect
their privacy. But officials can request that names, listed as "U.S. Person 1," for example, be
unmasked internally in order to give context about the potential value of the intelligence.
Unmasking is justified for national security reasons but is governed by strict rules across the
U.S. intelligence apparatus that make it illegal to pursue for political reasons or to leak
classified information generated by the process .
Last week, Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grenell visited the Justice
Department with the list of unmaskers, which the DOJ effectively said was up to him to release,
according to a Fox News report.
After Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice was outed as the ringleader of an unmasking
campaign, the Wall Street Journal reported that she wasn't the only administration official to
participate in Flynn's unmasking .
The new disclosure comes after the FBI was revealed to have attempted to ensnare Flynn in a
perjury trap , despite the agency's own DC field office suggesting that the case be closed.
Last week,
remarks by Obama were leaked to Yahoo News that were highly critical about Trump and his
administration, seeming to break a convention in US politics that former occupants of the White
House rarely criticize their successors.
Speaking to alumni of his administration, Obama said he was worried about the "rule of law",
in light of the justice department's decision to drop its case against the former national
security adviser Michael Flynn. That's the issue at the heart of Trump's attempts to gin up an
"Obamagate" scandal, which on Tuesday morning he again claimed "makes Watergate look small
time!"
Obama also said the response to the coronavirus pandemic had been "an absolute chaotic
disaster".
McConnell was
speaking to Trump's daughter-in-law Lara Trump in an online fundraiser on Monday night.
Asked about Obama "slamming" the administration for its response to the coronavirus
outbreak, he said: "I think President Obama should have kept his mouth shut.
"You know, we know he doesn't like much this administration is doing. That's understandable.
But I think it's a little bit classless frankly to critique an administration that comes after
you."
He added: "You had your shot. You were there for eight years. I think the tradition that the
Bushes set up of not critiquing the president who comes after you is a good tradition."
There is a tradition of former presidents not commenting on or attacking their successors in
the Oval Office, but Trump is not part of the informal club which currently includes Obama,
George W Bush, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, and he has regularly attacked those who went
before him.
Plus, Obama's views of Trump are pretty well known, if usually by indirect routes and leaks
to the press. For example, in a Hulu documentary about Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign against
Trump, the Virginia senator Tim Kaine is seen to say the then president thinks Trump is a
fascist.
In the remarks leaked to Yahoo News, Obama said he would be hitting the campaign trail for
Joe Biden this fall to help him try to unseat Trump and make him a one-term president. Biden
leads Trump in key swing states and national polling and McConnell is also presiding over a
Senate majority that now looks increasingly at risk as Republican popularity dips.
"... House Intelligence Committee staff told me that after an exhaustive investigation reviewing intelligence and interviewing intelligence officers, they found that Brennan suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election . ..."
"... Instead, the Brennan team included low-quality intelligence that failed to meet intelligence community standards to support the political claim that Russian officials wanted Trump to win, House Intelligence Committee staff revealed. They said that CIA analysts also objected to including that flawed, substandard information in the assessment. ..."
"... Fox 's Henry said that he has obtained independent confirmation of the pro-Clinton Russia claim made by Fleitz . ..."
"... Brennan's concealment of this key information was yet another link in the chain of the Obama administration's plot to smear Donald Trump as a Russian asset - a hoax supported by the Clinton-funded Steele dossier, which the FBI knew was Russian disinformation (or, more likely, Steele's Russophobic fantasies) before they used it as a predicate to spy on Trump aide Carter Page during the 2016 election. ..."
Former CIA director John Brennan suppressed intelligence which
indicated that Russia wanted Hillary Clinton to win because "she was a known quantity," vs. the
unpredictable Donald Trump, according to Fox News ' Ed Henry.
During a Tuesday night discussion with Tucker Carlson, Henry said that Brennan "also had
intel saying, actually, Russia wanted Hillary Clinton to win because she was a known quantity,
she had been secretary of state, and Vladimir Putin's team thought she was more malleable,
while candidate Donald Trump was unpredictable."
Perhaps Russian President Vladimir Putin has fond memories of the time Bill Clinton
hung out at his 'private homestead' during the same trip where he collected a $500,000
payday for a speech at a Moscow bank, right before the Uranium One deal was approved.
And as
Breitbart 's Joel Pollak notes, Henry's claim backs up a similar
allegation by former National Security Council chief of staff Fred Fleitz , who said on
April 22:
House Intelligence Committee staff told me that after an exhaustive investigation
reviewing intelligence and interviewing intelligence officers, they found that Brennan
suppressed high-quality intelligence suggesting that Putin actually wanted the more
predictable and malleable Clinton to win the 2016 election .
Instead, the Brennan team included low-quality intelligence that failed to meet
intelligence community standards to support the political claim that Russian officials wanted
Trump to win, House Intelligence Committee staff revealed. They said that CIA analysts also
objected to including that flawed, substandard information in the assessment.
Fox 's Henry said that he has obtained independent confirmation of the pro-Clinton Russia
claim made by Fleitz .
Brennan's concealment of this key information was yet another link in the chain of the Obama
administration's plot to smear Donald Trump as a Russian asset - a hoax supported by the
Clinton-funded Steele dossier, which the FBI
knew was Russian disinformation (or, more likely, Steele's Russophobic fantasies) before
they used it as a predicate to spy on Trump aide Carter Page during the 2016 election.
And now, Brennan is a contributor on MSNBC. How fitting.
Why is former President Obama calling forth all his defensive resources now?
Why did former national security advisor Susan Rice write her CYA letter? Why have republicans in
congress not been willing to investigate the true origins of political surveillance? What is the
reason for so much anger, desperation and opposition from a variety of interests?
In a
single word in a single tweet tonight, President Trump explained it perfectly - with help from Fox
News' Tucker Carlson's detailed breakdown"
"OBAMAGATE!"
...
As around 2:15 in the clip above, Carlson explains that
then president of the United
States Barack Obama turned to the head of the FBI - the most powerful law enforcement official in
America, and said "Continue to secretly investigate my chief political rival so I can act against
him."
With the release of
recent
transcripts
and the
declassification
of material
from within the IG report, the Carter Page FISA and
Flynn
documents
showing FBI activity, there is a common misconception about
why
the
intelligence apparatus began investigating the Trump campaign in the first place. Why was Donald
Trump considered a threat?
In this outline we hope to provide some fully cited deep source material that will
explain the origin; and specifically why those inside the Intelligence Community began targeting
Trump and using Confidential Human Sources against campaign officials.
During the time-frame of December 2015 through April 2016 the NSA database was being
exploited
by contractors
within the intelligence community doing unauthorized searches.
On March 9, 2016, oversight personnel doing a review of FBI system access were alerted to
thousands of unauthorized search queries of specific U.S. persons within the NSA database.
NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers was made aware.
Subsequently NSA Director Rogers initiated a full compliance review of the system to identify
who was doing the searches; & what searches were being conducted.
On April 18, 2016, following the preliminary audit results, Director Rogers shut down all FBI
contractor access to the database after he learned FISA-702 "about"(17) and "to/from"(16) search
queries were being done without authorization. Thus begins the first discovery of a much bigger
background story.
When you compile the timeline with the people involved; and the specific wording of the
resulting review, which was then delivered to the FISA court; and overlay the activity that was
taking place in the GOP primary; what we discover is a process where the metadata collected by the
NSA was being searched for political opposition research and surveillance.
Additionally, tens-of-thousands of searches were identified by the FISA court as likely
extending much further than the compliance review period: "
while the government reports it is
unable to provide a reliable estimate of the non compliant queries since 2012, there is no apparent
reason to believe the November 2015 [to] April 2016 period coincided with an unusually high error
rate"
.
In short, during the Obama administration the NSA database was continually used to conduct
surveillance. This is the critical point that leads to understanding the origin of "Spygate", as it
unfolded in the Spring and Summer of 2016.
It was the discovery of the database exploitation and the removal of access as a surveillance
tool that created their initial problem.
Here's how we can tell
.
Initially in December 2015 there were 17 GOP candidates and all needed to be researched.
However, when Donald Trump won New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina the field was
significantly whittled. Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Kasich and Carson remained.
On Super Tuesday,
March
2, 2016
, Donald Trump won seven states (VT, AR, VA, GA, AL, TN, MA) it was then clear that
Trump was the GOP frontrunner with momentum to become the presumptive nominee. On
March
5th
, Trump won Kentucky and Louisiana; and on
March
8th
Trump won Michigan, Mississippi and Hawaii.
The next day,
March 9th
, NSA security alerts warned internal oversight
personnel that something sketchy was going on.
This timing is not coincidental. As FISA Judge Rosemary Collyer later wrote in her report, "
many
of these non-compliant queries involved the use of the
same identifiers
over
different date ranges
." Put another way: attributes belonging to a specific individual(s) were
being targeted and queried, unlawfully. Given what was later discovered, it seems obvious the
primary search target, over
multiple date ranges
, was Donald Trump.
There were tens-of-thousands of unauthorized search queries; and as Judge Collyer stated in her
report, there is no reason to believe the
85% non compliant rate
was any different from
the abuse of the NSA database going back to 2012.
As you will see below the NSA database was how political surveillance was being conducted during
Obama's second term in office. However, when the system was flagged, and when NSA Director Mike
Rogers shut down "contractor" access to the system, the system users needed to develop another way
to get access.
Mike Rogers shuts down access on April 18, 2016. On April 19, 2016, Fusion-GPS founder Glenn
Simpson's wife, Mary Jacoby visits the White House. Immediately thereafter, the DNC and Clinton
campaign contract Fusion GPS who then hire Christopher Steele.
Knowing it was federal "contractors", outside government with access to the system, doing the
unauthorized searches, the question becomes:
who were the contractors?
The possibilities are quite vast. Essentially anyone the FBI or intelligence apparatus was using
could have participated. Crowdstrike was a known
FBI
contractor
; they were also
contracted
by the DNC
. Shawn Henry was the former head of the FBI office in DC and is now the head of
Crowdstrike; a
rather
dubious contractor
for the government and a politically connected data security and forensic
company. James Comey's special friend Daniel Richman was an unpaid FBI "special employee"
with
security access
to the database. Nellie Ohr began working for Fusion-GPS on the Trump project
in
November 2015
and she was a
CIA
contractor
; and it's entirely likely Glenn Simpson or people within his Fusion-GPS network were
also contractors for the intelligence community.
Remember the Sharyl Attkisson computer intrusions? It's all part of this same network; Attkisson
even names Shawn Henry
as
a defendant
in her ongoing lawsuit.
All of the aforementioned names, and so many more, held a political agenda in 2016.
It seems likely if the NSA flags were never triggered then the contracted system users would
have continued exploiting the NSA database for political opposition research; which would then be
funneled to the Clinton team. However, once the unauthorized flags were triggered, the system users
(including those inside the official intelligence apparatus) needed to find another back-door to
continue Again, the timing becomes transparent.
Immediately after NSA flags were raised March 9th; the same intelligence agencies began using
confidential human sources (CHS's) to run into the Trump campaign. By activating intelligence
assets like
Joseph
Mifsud
and
Stefan
Halper
the IC (CIA, FBI) and system users had now created an authorized way to continue the
same political surveillance operations.
When Donald Trump hired Paul Manafort on
March
28, 2016
, it was a perfect scenario for those doing the surveillance. Manafort was a
known
entity
to the FBI and was previously under investigation. Paul Manafort's entry into the Trump
orbit was perfect for Glenn Simpson to sell his prior research on Manafort as a Trump-Russia
collusion script two weeks later.
The shift from "unauthorized exploitation of the NSA database" to legally authorized
exploitation of the NSA database was now in place. This was how they continued the political
surveillance. This is the confluence of events that originated "spygate", or what officially
blossomed into the FBI investigation known as "Crossfire Hurricane" on July 31.
If the NSA flags were never raised; and if Director Rogers had never initiated the compliance
audit; and if the political contractors were never blocked from access to the database; they would
never have needed to create a legal back-door, a justification to retain the surveillance. The
political operatives/contractors would have just continued the targeted metadata exploitation.
Once they created the surveillance door, Fusion-GPS was then needed to get the FBI known
commodity of Chris Steele activated as a pipeline. Into that pipeline all system users pushed
opposition research. However, one mistake from the NSA database extraction during an "about" query
shows up as a New Yorker named Michael Cohen in Prague.
That misinterpreted data from a FISA-702 "about query" is then piped to Steele and turns up
inside the dossier; it was the wrong Michael Cohen. It wasn't Trump's lawyer, it was an art dealer
from New York City with the same name; the same "identifier".
A DEEP DIVE – How Did It Work?
Start by reviewing the established record from the
99-page
FISC opinion
rendered by Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer on April 26, 2017. Review the details
within the FISC opinion.
I would strongly urge everyone to read the
FISC
report
(full pdf below) because Judge Collyer outlines how the DOJ, which includes the FBI, had
an "institutional lack of candor" in responses to the FISA court. In essence, the Obama
administration was continually lying to the FISA court about their activity, and the rate of fourth
amendment violations for illegal searches and seizures of U.S. persons' private information for
multiple years.
Unfortunately, due to intelligence terminology Judge Collyer's brief and ruling is not an easy
read for anyone unfamiliar with the FISA processes. That complexity also helps the media avoid
discussing it; and as a result most Americans have no idea the scale and scope of the Obama-era
surveillance issues. So we'll try to break down the language.
For the sake of brevity and common understanding CTH will highlight the most pertinent segments
showing just how systemic and troublesome the unlawful electronic surveillance was.
Early in 2016 NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers
was
alerted
of a significant uptick in FISA-702(17) "About" queries using the FBI/NSA database that
holds all metadata records on every form of electronic communication.
The NSA compliance officer alerted Admiral Mike Rogers who then initiated a full compliance
audit on/around
March 9th, 2016
, for the period of November 1st, 2015, through May
1st, 2016.
While the audit was ongoing, due to the severity of the results that were identified, Admiral
Mike Rogers stopped anyone from using the 702(17) "about query" option, and went to the
extraordinary step of blocking all FBI contractor access to the database on
April 18, 2016
(keep
these dates in mind).
Here are some significant segments:
The key takeaway from these first paragraphs is how the search query results were exported from
the NSA database to users who were not authorized to see the material. The FBI contractors were
conducting searches and then removing, or 'exporting', the results. Later on, the FBI said all of
the exported material was deleted.
Searching the highly classified NSA database is essentially a function of filling out search
boxes to identify the user-initiated search parameter and get a return on the search result.
♦ FISA-702(16) is a search of the system returning a U.S. person ("702"); and the "16" is a
check box to initiate a search based on "
To and From
". Example, if you put in a
date and a phone number and check "16" as the search parameter the user will get the returns on
everything "To and From" that identified phone number for the specific date. Calls, texts,
contacts etc. Including results for the inbound and outbound contacts.
♦ FISA-702(17) is a search of the system returning a U.S. person (702); and the "17" is a
check box to initiate a search based on everything "
About
" the search
qualifier. Example, if you put a date and a phone number and check "17" as the search parameter
the user will get the returns of everything
about
that phone. Calls, texts, contacts,
geolocation (or gps results), account information, user, service provider etc. As a result,
702(17) can actually be used to locate where the phone (and user) was located on a specific date
or sequentially over a specific period of time which is simply a matter of changing the date
parameters.
And that's just from a phone number.
Search an ip address "about" and read all data into that server; put in an email address and
gain everything about that account. Or use the electronic address of a GPS enabled vehicle (about)
and you can withdraw more electronic data and monitor in real time. Search a credit card number and
get everything about the account including what was purchased, where, when, etc. Search a bank
account number, get everything about transactions and electronic records etc. Just about anything
and everything can be electronically searched; everything has an electronic
'identifier'
.
The search parameter is only limited by the originating field filled out. Names, places,
numbers, addresses, etc. By using the "About" parameter there may be thousands or millions of
returns. Imagine if you put "@realdonaldtrump" into the search parameter? You could extract all
following accounts who interacted on Twitter, or Facebook etc. You are only limited by your
imagination and the scale of the electronic connectivity.
As you can see below, on March 9th, 2016, internal auditors noted the FBI was sharing "raw FISA
information, including
but not limited to
Section 702-acquired information".
In plain English the raw search returns were being shared with unknown entities without any
attempt to "minimize" or redact the results. The person(s) attached to the results were named and
obvious. There was no effort to hide their identity or protect their 4th amendment rights of
privacy; and database access was from the FBI network:
But what's the scale here? This is where the story really lies.
Read this next excerpt carefully.
The operators were searching "U.S Persons". The review of November 1, 2015, to May 1, 2016,
showed "eighty-five percent of those queries" were unlawful or "non compliant".
85% !!
"representing [redacted number]".
We can tell from the space of the redaction the number of searches were between 10,000 and
99,999 [six digits]. If we take the middle number of 50,000 – a non compliant rate of 85 percent
means 42,500 unlawful searches out of 50,000.
The [six digit] amount (more than 10,000, less than 99,999), and 85% error rate, was captured in
a six month period, November 2015 to April 2016.
Also notice this
very important
quote: "
many of these non-compliant queries
involved the use of the same identifiers over different date ranges
." This tells us the system
users were searching the same phone number, email address, electronic identifier, repeatedly over
different dates.
Specific person(s) were being tracked/monitored
.
Additionally, notice the last quote: "
while the government reports it is unable to provide a
reliable estimate of" these non lawful searches "since 2012, there is no apparent reason to believe
the November 2015 [to] April 2016 coincided with an unusually high error rate"
.
That means the 85% unlawful FISA-702(16)(17) database abuse has likely been happening
since
2012
.
2012 is an important date in this database abuse because a network of specific interests is
assembled that also shows up in 2016/2017:
Who was 2012 FBI Director? Robert Mueller, who was selected by the FBI group to become
special prosecutor in 2017.
Who was Mueller' chief-of-staff? Aaron Zebley, who became one of the lead lawyers on the
Mueller special counsel.
Who was 2012 CIA Director? John Brennan (remember the ouster of Gen Petraeus)
Who was ODNI? James Clapper.
Remember, the NSA is inside the Pentagon (Defense Dept) command structure. Who was Defense
Secretary? Ash Carter
Who wanted NSA Director Mike Rogers fired in 2016? Brennan, Clapper and Carter.
And finally, who wrote and signed-off-on the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment and
then lied about the use of the Steele Dossier? The same John Brennan, and James Clapper along with
James Comey.
Tens of thousands of searches over four years (since 2012), and 85% of them are illegal. The
results were extracted for? . (I believe this is all political opposition use; and I'll explain why
momentarily.)
OK, that's the stunning scale; but who was involved?
Private contractors with access to "
raw FISA information that went well beyond what was
necessary to respond to FBI's requests
":
And as noted, the contractor access was finally halted on April 18th, 2016.
[Coincidentally (or likely not), the wife of Fusion-GPS founder Glenn Simpson, Mary Jacoby,
goes
to the White House
the very next day on April 19th, 2016.]
None of this is conspiracy theory.
All of this is laid out inside this 99-page opinion from FISC Presiding Judge Rosemary Collyer
who also noted that none of this FISA abuse was accidental in a
footnote
on page 87
: "
deliberate decisionmaking
":
This specific footnote, if declassified, could be a key. Note the phrase: "(
[redacted]
access to FBI systems was the subject of an interagency memorandum of understanding entered into
[redacted])"
, this sentence has the potential to expose an internal decision; withheld from
congress and the FISA court by the Obama administration; that outlines a process for access and
distribution of surveillance data.
Note: "
no notice of this practice was given to the FISC until 2016
", that is important.
Summary:
The FISA court identified and quantified tens-of-thousands of search queries of the NSA/FBI
database using the FISA-702(16)(17) system. The database was repeatedly used by persons with
contractor access who unlawfully searched and extracted the raw results without redacting the
information and shared it with an unknown number of entities.
The outlined process certainly points toward a political spying and surveillance operation; and
we are not the only one to think that's what this system is being used for.
Back in 2017 when House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes was working to reauthorize
the FISA legislation, Nunes
wrote a letter
to ODNI Dan Coats
about this specific issue:
SIDEBAR
:
To solve the issue, well, actually attempt to ensure it never happened again, NSA Director
Admiral Mike Rogers eventually took away the "About" query option permanently in 2017. NSA Director
Rogers said the abuse was so inherent there was no way to stop it except to remove the process
completely. [
SEE
HERE
] Additionally, the NSA database operates as a function of the Pentagon, so the Trump
administration went one step further. On his last day as NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers -together
with ODNI Dan Coats- put U.S. cyber-command, the database steward, fully into the U.S. military as
a full combatant command. [
SEE
HERE
] Unfortunately it didn't work as shown by the 2018 FISC opinion rendered by FISC Judge
James Boasberg [
SEE
HERE
]
There is little doubt the FISA-702(16)(17) database system was used by Obama-era officials, from
2012 through April 2016, as a way to spy on their political opposition.
Quite simply there is no other intellectually honest explanation for the scale and volume of
database abuse that was taking place; and keep in mind these searches were all ruled to be
unlawful. Searches for repeated persons over a period time that were not authorized.
When we reconcile what was taking place and who was involved, then the actions of the exact same
principle participants take on a jaw-dropping amount of clarity.
All of the action taken by CIA Director Brennan, FBI Director Comey, ODNI Clapper and Defense
Secretary Ashton Carter make sense. Including their effort to get NSA Director Mike Rogers
fired
.
Everything after March 9th, 2016, had a dual purpose: (1) done to cover up the weaponization of
the FISA database. [
Explained
Here
] Spygate, Russia-Gate, the Steele Dossier, and even the 2017
Intelligence
Community Assessment
(drawn from the dossier and signed by the above) were needed to create a
cover-story and protect themselves from discovery of this four year weaponization, political
surveillance and unlawful spying. Even the appointment of Robert Mueller as special counsel makes
sense; he was
FBI Director
when this
began. And (2) they needed to keep the surveillance going.
The beginning decision to use FISA(702) as a domestic surveillance and political spy mechanism
appears to have started in/around 2012. Perhaps sometime shortly before the 2012 presidential
election and before John Brennan left the White House and moved to CIA. However, there was an
earlier version of data assembly that preceded this effort.
Political spying 1.0 was actually the weaponization of the IRS. This is where the term "
Secret
Research Project
" originated as a description from the Obama team. It involved the U.S.
Department of Justice under Eric Holder and the FBI under Robert Mueller. It never made sense why
Eric Holder requested over 1 million tax records via CD ROM, until overlaying the timeline of the
FISA abuse:
The IRS sent the FBI "21 disks constituting a 1.1 million page database of information from
501(c)(4) tax exempt organizations, to the Federal Bureau of Investigation." The transaction
occurred in October 2010 (
link
)
Why disks? Why send a stack of DISKS to the DOJ and FBI when there's a pre-existing financial
crimes unit within the IRS. All of the evidence within this sketchy operation came directly to the
surface in
early
spring 2012
.
The IRS scandal was never really about the IRS, it was always about the DOJ asking the IRS for
the database of information. That is why it was transparently a conflict when the same DOJ was
tasked with investigating the DOJ/IRS scandal. Additionally, Obama sent his chief-of-staff Jack Lew
to become Treasury Secretary; effectively placing an ally to oversee/cover-up any issues. As
Treasury Secretary Lew did just that.
Lesson Learned
– It would appear the Obama administration learned a lesson from
attempting to gather a large opposition research database operation inside a functioning
organization large enough to have some good people that might blow the whistle.
The timeline reflects a few months after realizing the "Secret Research Project" was now
worthless (June 2012), they focused more deliberately on a smaller network within the intelligence
apparatus and began weaponizing the FBI/NSA database. If our hunch is correct, that is what will be
visible in footnote #69:
How this all comes together in 2019/2020
Fusion GPS was not hired in April 2016 just to research Donald Trump. As shown in the evidence
provided by the FISC, the intelligence community was already doing surveillance and spy operations.
The Obama administration already knew everything about the Trump campaign, and were monitoring
everything by exploiting the FISA database.
However, after the NSA alerts in/around March 9th, 2016, and particularly after the April 18th
shutdown of contractor access, the Obama intelligence community needed Fusion GPS to create a legal
albeit
ex post facto
justification for the pre-existing surveillance and spy operations.
Fusion GPS gave them that justification in the Steele Dossier.
That's why the FBI small group, which later transitioned into the Mueller team, were so strongly
committed to and defending the
formation of the Steele Dossier
and its
dubious content.
The Steele Dossier, an outcome of the Fusion contract, contains three insurance policy purposes:
(1) the cover-story and justification for the pre-existing surveillance operation (protect Obama);
and (2) facilitate the FBI counterintelligence operation against the Trump campaign (assist
Clinton); and (3) continue the operation with a special counsel (protect both).
An insurance policy would be needed. The Steele Dossier becomes the investigative virus the FBI
wanted inside the system. To get the virus into official status, they used the FISA application as
the delivery method and injected it into Carter Page. The FBI already knew Carter Page; essentially
Carter Page was irrelevant, what they needed was the FISA warrant and the Dossier in the system {
Go
Deep
}.
The Obama intelligence community needed Fusion GPS to give them a plausible justification for
already existing surveillance and spy operations. Fusion-GPS gave them that justification and
evidence for a FISA warrant with the Steele Dossier.
Ultimately that's why the Steele Dossier was so important; without it, the FBI would not have a
tool that Mueller needed to continue the investigation of President Trump. In essence by renewing
the FISA application, despite them knowing the underlying dossier was junk, the FBI was keeping the
surveillance gateway open for Team Mueller to exploit later on.
Additionally, without the Steele Dossier the DOJ and FBI are naked with their FISA-702 abuse as
outlined by John Ratcliffe.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/wWsvZuiPyTI
Thankfully we know U.S. Attorney John Durham has talked to NSA Director Mike Rogers. In this
video Rogers explains how he was notified of what was happening and what he did after the
notification.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/CIJGH9RS2Fc
* * *
After tonight's tweets from President Trump, we should expect a full-court press from 'the
resistance' to distract from the cracks appearing in the former President's halo of
invincibility...
Flashback: Obama Ordered Comey To Conceal FBI Activities Right Before Trump Took
Office by Tyler
Durden Mon, 05/11/2020 - 14:05 With weeks to go before Donald Trump's inauguration, former
President Obama and VP Joe Biden were briefed by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, FBI
Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper on matters related to the Russia investigation.
The January 5, 2017 meeting - also attended by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice,
has taken on a new significance in light of revelations of blatant misconduct by the FBI - and
the fact that the agency decided not to brief then-candidate Trump that a "friendly foreign
government" (Australia) advised them that Russia had offered a member of his campaign 'dirt' on
Hillary Clinton.
The rumored 'dirt' was in fact told to Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos by Joseph
Mifsud - a shadowy Maltese professor and self-described member of the Clinton Foundation.
Papadopoulos then told Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, who told Aussie intelligence,
which tipped off the FBI, which then launched Operation Crossfire Hurricane. Papadopoulos was
then surveiled by FBI spy Stefan Halper and his honeypot 'assistant' who went by the name "Azra
Turk" - while in 2017, Papadopoulos claims a spy handed him $10,000 in what he says goes "all
the way back to the DOJ, under the previous FBI under Comey, and even the Mueller team."
Meanwhile, the Trump DOJ decided last week to drop the case against former Director of
National Security, Mike Flynn, after it was revealed that the FBI was trying to ensnare him in
a 'perjury trap,' and that Flynn was coerced into pleading guilty to lying about his very legal
communications with the Russian Ambassador.
And let's not forget that the FBI used the discredited Steele Dossier to spy on Trump
campaign associate Carter Page - and all of his contacts . Not only did the agency lie to the
FISA court to obtain the warrant, the DOJ knew the outlandish claims of Trump-Russia ties in
the Steele Dossier - funded by the Clinton Campaign - had no basis in reality.
And so, it's worth going back in time and reviewing that January 5, 2017 meeting which was
oddly documented by Susan Rice in an email to herself on January 20, 2017 - inauguration day,
which purports to summarize that meeting.
Rice later wrote an
email to herself on January 20, 2017 -- Trump's inauguration day and her last day in the
White House -- purporting to summarize that meeting. "On January 5, following a briefing by
IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election," Rice wrote,
"President Obama had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy
Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice President Biden and I were also
present."
According to Rice, "President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued
commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is handled by the Intelligence and law
enforcement communities 'by the book.'" But then she added a significant caveat to that
"commitment": "From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants
to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is
any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia . "
The next portion of the email is classified, but Rice then noted that " the President
asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we
share classified information with the incoming team . Comey said he would."
At the time Obama suggested to Yates and Comey -- who were to keep their posts under the
Trump administration -- that the hold-overs consider withholding information from the
incoming administration, Obama knew that President Trump had named Flynn to serve as national
security advisor. Obama also knew there was an ongoing FBI investigation into Flynn premised
on Flynn being a Russian agent. -
The Federalist
And so, instead of briefing Trump on the Flynn investigation, Comey "privately briefed Trump
on the most salacious and absurd 'pee tape' allegation in the Christopher Steele dossier."
The fact that Comey did so leaked to the press, which used the briefing itself as
justification to report on, and publish the dossier .
What Comey didn't brief Trump on was the FBI's bullshit case against Michael Flynn -
accusing the incoming national security adviser of being a potential Russian agent. And
according to The Federalist , " Even after Obama had left office and Comey had a new
commander-in-chief to report to, Comey continued to follow Obama's prompt by withholding intel
from Trump. "
The Federalist also raises questions about former DNI James Clapper - specifically, whether
Clapper lied to Congress in July of 2017 when he said he never briefed Obama on the substance
of phone calls between Flynn and the Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak.
According to the report, accounts from Comey and McCabe directly contradict Clapper's
claim.
" Did you ever brief President Obama on the phone call, the Flynn-Kislyak phone calls? "
asked Rep. Francis Rooney (R0FL) during Congressional testimony, to which Clapper replied: "
No. "
Except, Comey told Congress that Clapper directly briefed Obama ahead of the January 5
meeting.
"[A]ll the Intelligence Community was trying to figure out, so what is going on here?" Comey
testified. "And so we were all tasked to find out, do you have anything [redacted] that might
reflect on this. That turned up these calls [between Flynn and Kislyak] at the end of December,
beginning of January," Comey testified. "And then I briefed it to the Director of National
Intelligence, and Director Clapper asked me for copies [redacted], which I shared with him ...
In the first week of January, he briefed the President and the Vice President and then
President Obama's senior team about what we found and what we had seen to help them understand
why the Russians were reacting the way they did. "
And now to see if anything comes of the ongoing Durham investigation, or if Attorney General
Bill Barr will simply tie a bow on the matter and call it a day.
R ep. Lee Zeldin demanded that Rep. Adam Schiff be stripped
of his post as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and resign because of his role in
the Russia investigation.
"Adam Schiff should not be the chair of the House Intelligence Committee. His gavel should
be removed. He should be censured. He should resign," Zeldin said Monday on Fox News. "There's
a lot that should happen, but Nancy Pelosi isn't going to punish Adam Schiff. In fact, that's
the reason why he has the gavel in the first place."
Republicans have been critical of Schiff in recent weeks after reports suggested that
Schiff was trying to block the release of some of the transcripts of the investigation's 53
witness interviews.
Some of the transcripts were eventually released and
undercut claims used by Democrats to push for impeachment.
"He's the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, which became the House Impeachment
Committee because of the way he writes these fairy-tale parodies," Zeldin said.
The Republican from New York suggested that Schiff and Democrats who impeached Trump and
tried to remove him from office were aided by friends in the media.
"It's actually one that the Democrats reward. It's one that the media rewards," Zeldin said.
"So, I'm not going to expect any repercussions even though he should resign today."
"... Grenell reportedly visited the Justice Department last week to request the list of individuals, according to an official who spoke on condition of anonymity. ..."
Richard Grenell, President Trump's acting Director of National
Intelligence who successfully pressured Adam Schiff (D-CA) into releasing bombshell transcripts
from the Russia investigation, is now after former officials from the Obama administration
involved in the so-called "unmasking" of former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn during
his conversations with the former Russian ambassador following the 2016 election, according to
ABC News .
"Unmasking" is a term used when the identity of a U.S. citizen or lawful resident is
revealed in classified intelligence reports. Normally, when government officials receive
intelligence reports, the names of American citizens are redacted to protect their privacy. But
officials can request that names, listed as "U.S. Person 1," for example, be unmasked
internally in order to give context about the potential value of the intelligence. Unmasking is
justified for national security reasons but is governed by strict rules across the U.S.
intelligence apparatus that make it illegal to pursue for political reasons or to leak
classified information generated by the process .
And much like Obama's IRS targeting scandal, US government capabilities were exploited to
accomplish political objectives .
Grenell reportedly visited the Justice Department last week to request the list of
individuals, according to an official who spoke on condition of anonymity.
His visit indicates his focus on an issue previously highlighted in 2017 by skeptics of
the investigation into the Trump campaign's contacts with Russia, specifically allegations
that former officials improperly unveiled Flynn's identity from intercepts of his call with
former Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak.
Grenell's visit came the same week that Attorney General William Barr moved to dismiss the
criminal case against Flynn following his guilty plea for lying to the FBI about his
conversations with Kislyak. -
ABC News
After Obama National Security Adviser Susan Rice was outed as the ringleader of an unmasking
campaign, the Wall Street Journal reported that she wasn't the only administration official to
participate in Flynn's unmasking .
The news comes after the DOJ dropped all charges against Flynn, after several unsealed
documents revealed that the FBI was more interested in ensnaring him in a perjury trap - after
the agency's own DC field office advised that they were
barking up the wrong tree . Under pressure due to legal bills and an FBI threat to pursue
his son, Flynn caved and pleaded guilty to lying about his communications with the Russian
ambassador.
" They did not have a basis for a counterintelligence investigation against Flynn at that
stage , based on a perfectly legitimate and appropriate call he made as a member of the
transition," Barr told CBS last week.
In 2017, then-House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) accused the Obama
administration of unmasking Trump transition officials - while two national security officials
at the White House provided Nunes with supporting evidence.
Will Grenell unmask the unmaskers?
• @GenFlynn was wrongly targeted.
• The Steele Dossier was made-up.
• The Russia-collusion narrative was a farce.
Obama's White House and Justice Department led the way on these lies. Time for Susan Rice,
James Clapper, and Loretta Lynch to answer for what transpired.
So the RussiaGate was giant gaslighting of the US electorate by Clinton gang and intelligence
agencies rogues.
Notable quotes:
"... For two and a half years the House Intelligence Committee knew CrowdStrike didn't have the goods on Russia. Now the public knows too. ..."
"... House Intelligence Committee documents released Thursday reveal that the committee was told two and half years ago that the FBI had no concrete evidence that Russia hacked Democratic National Committee computers to filch the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks ..."
"... Henry testifies that "it appears it [the theft of DNC emails] was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually left." ..."
"... This, in VIPS view, suggests that someone with access to DNC computers "set up" selected emails for transfer to an external storage device – a thumb drive, for example. The Internet is not needed for such a transfer. Use of the Internet would have been detected, enabling Henry to pinpoint any "exfiltration" over that network. ..."
"... Bill Binney, a former NSA technical director and a VIPs member, filed a sworn affidavit in the Roger Stone case. Binney said: "WikiLeaks did not receive stolen data from the Russian government. Intrinsic metadata in the publicly available files on WikiLeaks demonstrates that the files acquired by WikiLeaks were delivered in a medium such as a thumb drive." ..."
"... Both pillars of Russiagate–collusion and a Russian hack–have now fairly crumbled. ..."
"... Thursday's disclosure of testimony before the House Intelligence Committee shows Chairman Adam Schiff lied not only about Trump-Putin "collusion," [which the Mueller report failed to prove and whose allegations were based on DNC and Clinton-financed opposition research] but also about the even more basic issue of "Russian hacking" of the DNC. [See: "The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate."] ..."
"... Fortunately, the cameras were still on when I approached Schiff during the Q&A: "You have every confidence but no evidence, is that right?" I asked him. His answer was a harbinger of things to come. This video clip may be worth the four minutes needed to watch it. ..."
"... Schiff and his partners in crime will be in for much tougher treatment if Trump allows Attorney General Barr and US Attorney John Durham to bring their investigation into the origins of Russia-gate to a timely conclusion. Barr's dismissal on Thursday of charges against Flynn, after released FBI documents revealed that a perjury trap was set for him to keep Russiagate going, may be a sign of things to come. ..."
For two and a half years the House Intelligence Committee knew CrowdStrike didn't have
the goods on Russia. Now the public knows too.
House Intelligence Committee
documents released Thursday reveal that the committee was told two and half years ago that
the FBI had no concrete evidence that Russia hacked Democratic National Committee computers
to filch the DNC emails published by WikiLeaks in July 2016.
The until-now-buried, closed-door testimony came on Dec. 5, 2017 from Shawn Henry, a
protégé of former FBI Director Robert Mueller (from 2001 to 2012), for whom
Henry served as head of the Bureau's cyber crime investigations unit.
Henry retired in 2012 and took a senior position at CrowdStrike, the cyber security firm
hired by the DNC and the Clinton campaign to investigate the cyber intrusions that occurred
before the 2016 presidential election.
The following excerpts from Henry's testimony
speak for themselves. The dialogue is not a paragon of clarity; but if read carefully, even
cyber neophytes can understand:
Ranking Member Mr. [Adam] Schiff: Do you know the date on which the Russians
exfiltrated the data from the DNC? when would that have been?
Mr. Henry: Counsel just reminded me that, as it relates to the DNC, we have
indicators that data was exfiltrated from the DNC, but we have no indicators that it was
exfiltrated (sic). There are times when we can see data exfiltrated, and we can say
conclusively. But in this case, it appears it was set up to be exfiltrated, but we just don't
have the evidence that says it actually left.
Mr. [Chris] Stewart of Utah: Okay. What about the emails that everyone is so, you
know, knowledgeable of? Were there also indicators that they were prepared but not evidence
that they actually were exfiltrated?
Mr. Henry: There's not evidence that they were actually exfiltrated. There's
circumstantial evidence but no evidence that they were actually exfiltrated.
Mr. Stewart: But you have a much lower degree of confidence that this data actually
left than you do, for example, that the Russians were the ones who breached the security?
Mr. Henry: There is circumstantial evidence that that data was exfiltrated off the
network.
Mr. Stewart: And circumstantial is less sure than the other evidence you've
indicated.
Mr. Henry: "We didn't have a sensor in place that saw data leave. We said that the data
left based on the circumstantial evidence. That was the conclusion that we made.
In answer to a follow-up query on this line of questioning, Henry delivered this classic:
"Sir, I was just trying to be factually accurate, that we didn't see the data leave, but we
believe it left, based on what we saw."
Inadvertently highlighting the tenuous underpinning for CrowdStrike's "belief" that Russia
hacked the DNC emails, Henry added: "There are other nation-states that collect this type of
intelligence for sure, but the – what we would call the tactics and techniques were
consistent with what we'd seen associated with the Russian state."
Interesting admission in Crowdstrike CEO Shaun Henry's testimony. Henry is asked when
"the Russians" exfiltrated the data from DNC.
Henry: "We did not have concrete evidence that the data was exfiltrated from the DNC,
but we have indicators that it was exfiltrated." ?? pic.twitter.com/TyePqd6b5P
Try as one may, some of the testimony remains opaque. Part of the problem is ambiguity in
the word "exfiltration."
The word can denote (1) transferring data from a computer via the Internet (hacking) or
(2) copying data physically to an external storage device with intent to leak it.
As the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity has been reporting for more than
three years, metadata and other hard forensic evidence indicate that the DNC emails were not
hacked – by Russia or anyone else.
Rather, they were copied onto an external storage device (probably a thumb drive) by
someone with access to DNC computers. Besides, any hack over the Internet would almost
certainly have been discovered by the dragnet coverage of the National Security Agency and
its cooperating foreign intelligence services.
Henry testifies that "it appears it [the theft of DNC emails] was set up to be
exfiltrated, but we just don't have the evidence that says it actually left."
This, in VIPS view, suggests that someone with access to DNC computers "set up"
selected emails for transfer to an external storage device – a thumb drive, for
example. The Internet is not needed for such a transfer. Use of the Internet would have been
detected, enabling Henry to pinpoint any "exfiltration" over that network.
Bill Binney, a former NSA technical director and a VIPs member, filed a sworn
affidavit in the Roger Stone case. Binney said: "WikiLeaks did not receive stolen data from
the Russian government. Intrinsic metadata in the publicly available files on WikiLeaks
demonstrates that the files acquired by WikiLeaks were delivered in a medium such as a thumb
drive."
The So-Called Intelligence Community Assessment
There is not much good to be said about the embarrassingly evidence-impoverished
Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) of Jan. 6, 2017 accusing Russia of hacking the
DNC.
But the ICA did include two passages that are highly relevant
and demonstrably true:
(1) In introductory remarks on "cyber incident attribution", the authors of the ICA made a
highly germane point: "The nature of cyberspace makes attribution of cyber operations
difficult but not impossible. Every kind of cyber operation – malicious or not –
leaves a trail."
(2) "When analysts use words such as 'we assess' or 'we judge,' [these] are not intended
to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on
collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary High confidence in a judgment
does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong."
[And one might add that they commonly ARE wrong when analysts succumb to political pressure,
as was the case with the ICA.]
The intelligence-friendly corporate media, nonetheless, immediately awarded the status of
Holy Writ to the misnomered "Intelligence Community Assessment" (it was a rump effort
prepared by "handpicked analysts" from only CIA, FBI, and NSA), and chose to overlook the
banal, full-disclosure-type caveats embedded in the assessment itself.
Then National Intelligence Director James Clapper and the directors of the CIA, FBI, and
NSA briefed President Obama on the ICA on Jan. 5, 2017, the day before they gave it
personally to President-elect Donald Trump.
On Jan. 18, 2017, at his final press conference, Obama saw fit to use lawyerly language on
the key issue of how the DNC emails got to WikiLeaks , in an apparent effort to cover
his own derriere.
Obama: "The conclusions of the intelligence community with respect to the Russian hacking
were not conclusive as to whether WikiLeaks was witting or not in being the conduit through
which we heard about the DNC e-mails that were leaked."
So we ended up with "inconclusive conclusions" on that admittedly crucial point. What
Obama was saying is that U.S. intelligence did not know -- or professed not to know --
exactly how the alleged Russian transfer to WikiLeaks was supposedly made, whether
through a third party, or cutout, and he muddied the waters by first saying it was a hack,
and then a leak.
From the very outset, in the absence of any hard evidence, from NSA or from its foreign
partners, of an Internet hack of the DNC emails, the claim that "the Russians gave the DNC
emails to WikiLeaks " rested on thin gruel.
In November 2018 at a public forum, I asked Clapper to explain why President Obama still
had serious doubts in late Jan. 2017, less than two weeks after Clapper and the other
intelligence chiefs had thoroughly briefed the outgoing president about their
"high-confidence" findings.
Clapper
replied : "I cannot explain what he [Obama] said or why. But I can tell you we're, we're
pretty sure we know, or knew at the time, how WikiLeaks got those emails." Pretty
sure?
Preferring CrowdStrike; 'Splaining to Congress
CrowdStrike already had a tarnished reputation for credibility when the DNC and Clinton
campaign chose it to do work the FBI should have been doing to investigate how the DNC emails
got to WikiLeaks . It had asserted that Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery
app, resulting in heavy losses of howitzers in Ukraine's struggle with separatists supported
by Russia. A Voice of America
report explained why CrowdStrike was forced to retract that claim.
Why did FBI Director James Comey not simply insist on access to the DNC computers? Surely
he could have gotten the appropriate authorization. In early January 2017, reacting to media
reports that the FBI never asked for access, Comey told the Senate Intelligence Committee
there were "multiple requests at different levels" for access to the DNC servers.
"Ultimately what was agreed to is the private company would share with us what they saw,"
he said. Comey described
CrowdStrike as a "highly respected" cybersecurity company.
Asked by committee Chairman Richard Burr (R-NC) whether direct access to the servers and
devices would have helped the FBI in their investigation, Comey said it would have. "Our
forensics folks would always prefer to get access to the original device or server that's
involved, so it's the best evidence," he said.
Five months later, after Comey had been fired, Burr gave him a Mulligan in the form of a
few kid-gloves, clearly well-rehearsed, questions:
BURR: And the FBI, in this case, unlike other cases that you might investigate
– did you ever have access to the actual hardware that was hacked? Or did you have to
rely on a third party to provide you the data that they had collected?
COMEY: In the case of the DNC, we did not have access to the devices themselves. We
got relevant forensic information from a private party, a high-class entity, that had done
the work. But we didn't get direct access.
BURR: But no content?
COMEY: Correct.
BURR: Isn't content an important part of the forensics from a counterintelligence
standpoint?
COMEY: It is, although what was briefed to me by my folks – the people who
were my folks at the time is that they had gotten the information from the private party that
they needed to understand the intrusion by the spring of 2016.
In June last year it was
revealed that CrowdStrike never produced an un-redacted or final forensic report for the
government because the FBI never required it to, according to the Justice Department.
By any normal standard, former FBI Director Comey would now be in serious legal trouble,
as should Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan, et al. Additional evidence of FBI
misconduct under Comey seems to surface every week – whether the abuses of FISA,
misconduct in the case against Gen. Michael Flynn, or misleading everyone about Russian
hacking of the DNC. If I were attorney general, I would declare Comey a flight risk and take
his passport. And I would do the same with Clapper and Brennan.
Schiff: Every Confidence, But No Evidence
Both pillars of Russiagate–collusion and a Russian hack–have now fairly
crumbled.
Thursday's disclosure of testimony before the House Intelligence Committee shows
Chairman Adam Schiff lied not only about Trump-Putin "collusion," [which the Mueller report
failed to prove and whose allegations were based on DNC and Clinton-financed opposition
research] but also about the even more basic issue of "Russian hacking" of the DNC. [See:
"The Democratic Money Behind Russia-gate."]
Five days after Trump took office, I had an opportunity to confront Schiff personally
about evidence that Russia "hacked" the DNC emails. He had repeatedly given that canard the
patina of flat fact during an address at the old Hillary Clinton/John Podesta "think tank,"
The Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Fortunately, the cameras were still on when I approached Schiff during the Q&A:
"You have every confidence but no evidence, is that right?" I asked him. His answer was a
harbinger of things to come. This video
clip may be worth the four minutes needed to watch it.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/SdOy-l13FEg
Schiff and his partners in crime will be in for much tougher treatment if Trump allows
Attorney General Barr and US Attorney John Durham to bring their investigation into the
origins of Russia-gate to a timely conclusion. Barr's dismissal on Thursday of charges
against Flynn, after released FBI documents revealed that a perjury trap was set for him to
keep Russiagate going, may be a sign of things to come.
Given the timid way Trump has typically bowed to intelligence and law enforcement
officials, including those who supposedly report to him, however, one might rather expect
that, after a lot of bluster, he will let the too-big-to-imprison ones off the hook. The
issues are now drawn; the evidence is copious; will the Deep State, nevertheless, be able to
prevail this time?
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of
the Saviour in inner-city Washington. His 27-year career as a CIA analyst includes serving as
Chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch and preparer/briefer of the President's Daily
Brief. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). This
originally appeared at Consortium
News .
"These agents specifically schemed and planned with each other how to not tip him off, that
he was even the person being investigated," Powell told Fox News' "Sunday Morning Futures,"
adding "So they kept him relaxed and unguarded deliberately as part of their effort to set him
up and frame him."
According to recently released testimony, President Obama revealed during an Oval Office
meeting weeks before the interview that he knew about Flynn's phone call with Russian
Ambassador Sergey Kislyak , apparently surprising then-Deputy Attorney General
Sally Yates .
After the meeting, Obama asked Yates and then-FBI Director James Comey to "stay behind."
Obama "specified that he did not want any additional information on the matter, but was
seeking information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently,
given the information." -
Fox News
Despite the FBI's Washington DC field office recommending closing the case against Flynn -
finding "no derogatory information" against him - fired agent Peter Strzok
pushed to continue investigating, while former FBI Director
James Comey admitted in December 2019 that he "sent" Strzok and agent Joe Pientka to
interview Flynn without notifying the White House first .
... ... ...
After Strzok and Pientka interviewed Flynn,
handwritten notes unsealed last month reveal that at least one agent thought the goal was
to entrap Flynn .
"What is our goal? Truth/Admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him
fired?" reads one note.
... ... ...
"The whole thing was orchestrated and set up within the FBI, [former Director of National
Intelligence James] Clapper, [Former CIA Director John] Brennan, and in the Oval Office meeting
that day with President Obama," said Powell. When asked if she thinks Flynn was the victim of a
plot that extended to Obama, she said "Absolutely."
FDR warned his son before his death of his understanding of the British takeover of American
foreign policy, but still could not reverse this agenda. His son recounted his father's ominous
insight:
"You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal
messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats
over there aren't in accord with what they know I think. They should be working for Winston.
As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are [working for Churchill]. Stop to think of
'em: any number of 'em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy
is to find out what the British are doing and then copy that!" I was told six years ago, to
clean out that State Department. It's like the British Foreign Office ."
Before being fired from Truman's cabinet for his advocacy of US-Russia friendship during the
Cold War, Wallace stated:
"American fascism" which has come to be known in recent years as the Deep State. "Fascism
in the postwar inevitably will push steadily for Anglo-Saxon imperialism and eventually for
war with Russia. Already American fascists are talking and writing about this conflict and
using it as an excuse for their internal hatreds and intolerances toward certain races,
creeds and classes."
In his 1946 Soviet Asia Mission , Wallace said " Before the blood of our boys is scarcely
dry on the field of battle, these enemies of peace try to lay the foundation for World War
III. These people must not succeed in their foul enterprise. We must offset their poison by
following the policies of Roosevelt in cultivating the friendship of Russia in peace as well
as in war."
"... "[Plea bargaining] is not some adjunct to the criminal justice system; it is the criminal justice system." ..."
"... Federal prosecutors are equipped with a considerable range of legal weapons that can be used to compel confessions and discourage a jury trial, including charge-stacking (charging multiple criminal counts derived from a single act), mandatory-minimum sentences which eliminate discretion on the part of a sentencing judge, pretrial confinement, inordinately high bail, threats against friends and family, and the reality that any sentence handed down after trial will be substantially greater than one that could be reached via a plea bargain. ..."
"... The upside of such a process is a streamlined criminal justice system which places a premium on convictions and incarceration without the cost of a trial. The downside, however, is an unacceptably high rate of false confessions obtained by the plea deal process -- the National Registry of Exonerations estimates that as many as 20 percent of all plea deal-related confessions are false . ..."
"... The Obama national security team abused its power by unmasking Flynn's identity, then leaked Flynn's identity to the press, using this press reporting to justify the continuance of a baseless counterintelligence investigation in order to set a perjury trap intended to place Flynn in legal jeopardy. This is not how American justice is supposed to be dispensed, and the fact that Flynn had to undergo this ordeal should send a shiver down every American's spine, because if left unchecked, there but for the grace of God go us all. ..."
The Department of Justice's case against retired Army
Lieutenant General and former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn has exposed an ugly
reality involving the abuse of power at the highest levels of the Executive Office all the way
down the justice system this country ostensibly holds so dear.
Plea bargains are an unfortunate reality of an American system of justice which finds merit
in coercing people to admit guilt for crimes they didn't commit in order to avoid the expense
of a trial and to prevent friends and family from potential legal liability. If the purpose
behind such procedural abuse of power is to fight actual crime, the American people have grown
accustomed to turning a blind eye. But if the purpose is to exact political revenge on someone
who has incurred the disfavor of those in power, then the plea bargain system is a direct
assault on the Constitution that should insult every American, regardless where they stand on
the respective merits of the case. General Flynn's case falls firmly in the latter
category.
But in a surprising turn of events, the Department of Justice has dropped
its case against Flynn on the eve of his being sentenced in a Federal Court. In their
dismissal of the case, the Justice department concluded that the FBI's interview with Flynn was
"conducted without any legitimate investigative basis" and that the questioning was "untethered
to, and unjustified by, the F.B.I.'s counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn."
Flynn's many critics have cried foul, claiming the dismissal is nothing short of a
perversion
of justice carried out at the behest of President Trump by an overly partisan Attorney
General, William Barr. Flynn's supporters have praised this outcome as a
clear case of exoneration in the face of corrupt FBI agents who abused the extraordinary
powers they wield to engage in Constitutionally impermissible conduct designed to frame the
former General.
In 2018, the Department of Justice initiated approximately
80,000 federal prosecutions . Two percent of these cases went to trial, with an 83 percent
conviction rate. Of the remaining 98 percent of the cases, some 90 percent ended with the
defendant pleading guilty; the remaining 8 percent were dismissed. The plea process is so
prevalent and pervasive in the U.S. Court system that in the Supreme Court's 2012 decision in
Missouri v. Frye , Justice Steven Kennedy, writing for the majority, quoted
a prominent law review article which concluded that "[Plea bargaining] is not some adjunct to
the criminal justice system; it is the criminal justice system."
Federal prosecutors are equipped with
a considerable range of legal weapons that can be used to compel confessions and discourage
a jury trial, including charge-stacking (charging multiple criminal counts derived from a
single act), mandatory-minimum sentences which eliminate discretion on the part of a sentencing
judge, pretrial confinement, inordinately high bail, threats against friends and family, and
the reality that any sentence handed down after trial will be substantially greater than one
that could be reached via a plea bargain.
The reason for such a high rate of occurrence rests in the coercive reality attached to the
tools used by the prosecutor to leverage a plea in the first place. For someone who is guilty
of a crime, a plea deal that reduces a potential 20-year sentence to five is very attractive.
For an innocent person, however, the prospect of not being able to afford competent legal
representation (an all-too reality, especially in one is subjected to pre-trial confinement and
as such unable to earn a living), combined with potential threats made to prosecute family and
friends, make pleading guilty to a crime not committed a viable option.
The plea bargain process also facilitates prosecutorial misconduct. By pleading guilty, a
defendant cedes control of the processes of justice to the prosecution; issues related to
discovery -- the requirement on the part of the prosecution to turn over all evidence relating
to the charged conduct, even if exculpatory in nature -- are often brushed aside, since guilt
is admitted and no challenge to the charges will be mounted. Prosecutors more often than not
bully their way into a coerced plea agreement, even when they know that their case would not
withstand scrutiny, because simple statistics have proven that more often than not they can get
away with it.
♦♦♦
The prosecution of General Flynn is a text-book example of clear prosecutorial abuse
designed to obtain a guilty plea. The FBI initiated a counterintelligence-scope investigation
against General Flynn not because he was accused of committing a crime, but rather because he
had incurred the wrath of the Obama administration.
When the FBI opened its Crossfire Hurricane investigation was opened on July 31, 2016, its
scope was limited to allegations that a Trump campaign advisor, George Papadopoulos, was in
contact with persons working on behalf of the Russian government who were involved in the
alleged theft of documents from the Democratic National Committee server. Flynn had no
connection whatsoever to this issue. However, the FBI used the Crossfire Hurricane
investigation as cover to
open a separate investigation , known as Crossfire Razor, against Flynn based upon contacts
he had with Russia Today, a state-sponsored media outlet.
William Barr has since determined
that Crossfire Razor was not a bona fide counterintelligence investigation in so far as it
lacked proper predication and Flynn's Russian connections were not materially relevant.
In January 2017 the FBI was preparing to shut down Crossfire Razor when FBI Special Agent
Peter Strzok argued that it remain open so that he could conduct an interview with Flynn about
his telephone call with Ambassador Kislyak in December 2016. This is where the Flynn case loses
touch with its foundation of legality. The Flynn-Kislyak phone call was monitored by the U.S.
intelligence community. Normally the identity of any U.S. citizen so monitored is "masked," or
hidden, from any consumer of the intelligence. On certain occasions, select senior officials
may request that an identity be "unmasked" to allow for a greater understanding of the context
of the conversation. Flynn's identity was "unmasked" using this procedure, most likely on the
orders of then-FBI Director James Comey.
According to Comey , he then briefed Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, who
in turn briefed President Obama.
There was bad blood between Flynn, Clapper and Obama. On November 10, 2016, when Obama met
with President-elect Trump in the White House,
he warned Trump not to hire Flynn as his National Security Advisor, ostensibly because of
his behavior while serving as the Director of DIA; Trump ignored this advice, naming Flynn as
the incoming NSA on November 18. Clapper was the man who fired Flynn at the DIA in 2014.
On January 12, David Ignatius published an article in The Washington Post which
detailed Flynn's December conversation with Kislyak; Sydney Powell, Flynn's laywer, has filed
documents with the Federal Court asserting that Ignatius had received this highly classified
information in violation of the law, and furthermore that is was Clapper who
cleared Ignatius to "take the kill shot on Flynn" by publishing the details of the
Flynn-Kislyak conversation.
If the potential for collusion between the FBI Director (Comey), the Director of National
Intelligence (Clapper) and the President of the United States (Obama) to undermine Flynn wasn't
disturbing enough, the fact that Ignatius' article enabled the FBI to conduct an interview on
January 24 with Flynn that has been
described by William Barr as "a perjury trap" should seal the deal.
Flynn was subsequently fired as the NSA, charged with lying to the FBI, bankrupted in the
process of trying to defend himself, and threatened with the prosecution of his son if he opted
to take the matter to trial. Like many before him, Flynn pled guilty to a crime he never should
have been charged with in the first place. Only the diligence of Flynn's current legal team in
forcing disclosure of exculpatory information, combined with William Barr's efforts to expose
wrongdoing by the FBI and the Intelligence Community in investigating alleged collusion between
the Trump campaign and Russia, made the dismissal of Flynn's case possible.
It doesn't matter where one stands on the issue of Mike Flynn, the man. I for one am
personally disturbed by his overly partisan approach toward national security, and the liberty
he takes with facts when making an argument. I don't believe he was the right person to serve
as Trump's National Security Advisor. Apparently neither did President Obama and his national
security team. But we don't have a vote in this matter; the National Security Advisor is
President Trump's responsibility to select. Elections have consequences.
The Obama national security team abused its power by unmasking Flynn's identity, then leaked
Flynn's identity to the press, using this press reporting to justify the continuance of a
baseless counterintelligence investigation in order to set a perjury trap intended to place
Flynn in legal jeopardy. This is not how American justice is supposed to be dispensed, and the
fact that Flynn had to undergo this ordeal should send a shiver down every American's spine,
because if left unchecked, there but for the grace of God go us all.
Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former
Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert
Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD. He is the author of several
books, including his forthcoming, Scorpion King: America's Embrace of Nuclear Weapons From FDR to Trump
(2020).
FBI under Obama acted as Gestapo -- the political police. Obama looks now especially bad and probably should be
prosecuted for the attempt to stage coup d'état against legitimately elected president. His CIA connections need to investigated
and prosecuted too, and first of all Brennan.
Notable quotes:
"... Yates, who was briefly the acting attorney general during the early days of the Trump administration before getting fired, also laid out how in the ensuing days, Comey kept the FBI's actions cloaked in secrecy and repeatedly rebuffed her suggestions that the incoming Trump team be made aware of the Flynn recordings. ..."
"... "One thing people will see when they look at the documents is how Director Comey purposely went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney General Yate s," Attorney General William Barr said during a Thursday interview with CBS News. "Deputy Attorney General Yates, I've disagreed with her about a couple of things, but, you know, here she upheld the fine tradition of the Department of Justice. She said that the new administration has to be treated just like the Obama administration, and they should go and tell the White House about their findings And, you know, Director Comey ran around that." ..."
"... Obama asked Yates and Comey to stay behind when the meeting concluded. ..."
"... Obama "started by saying that he had 'learned of the information about Flynn' and his conversation with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak," Yates said, according to the notes. "Obama specified he did not want any additional information on the matter but was seeking information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently." washington examiner ..."
"... Obama did not want any additional information on the matter? Careful CYA. From the account of this meeting it is clear that Obama and Biden knew that Comey was intent on pursuing Flynn. If that is so, then subsequent events indicate that Obama did not act to stop Comey, and since Comey was hiding his effort against Flynn from main Justice, it must be that someone on high was encouraging him. Now, who would that be? pl ..."
"... All this was known in DC for the past few years. Everyone on the HSPCI knew what the closed door testimony was. Clapper was categorical that there was "no empirical evidence of collusion". The Crowdstrike CEO was categorical that he had no definitive evidence that the Russians exfiltrated data from the DNC servers. Yet Schiff, Clapper, Brennan and all the media hacks were on TV every night screaming Russia! Russia! and Collusion! Collusion! ..."
"... I'm revealing my age by using this expression from the Watergate era, but "what did Obama, Biden and Comey know, and when did they know it?" ..."
"... So Obama used Yates to go after Flynn. They have really worked a number on Flynn to discredit him, and it almost worked. Now it would appear their scheme is starting to unravel a bit. ..."
"... Is Obama being thrown under the bus here? Are Comey and Yates (or others) trying to cover their asses now that Flynn is free? Did Trump and his allies always know this and waited for the right moment to reveal it for better effect? The game is at hand. ..."
"... Brennan was encouraging Comey. I just learned something recently. Brennan spent time in Indonesia around the same time that Obama's mother lived there. It has been reported that Obama and Brennan had a fairly close relationship. I wonder how long they have known each other. ..."
"... I did see a clip of Matt Gaetz calling out Ryan and Trey Gowdy from preventing them from issuing subpoenas. Why do you think the Republican leadership in the House and Senate did not want to investigate? ..."
"
Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates told special counsel Robert Mueller's team that
she first learned the FBI possessed and was investigating recordings of Flynn's late 2016
conversations with a Russian envoy following a Jan. 5, 2017, national security meeting at the
White House. It wasn't Comey who told her, but former President Barack Obama.
Yates, who was briefly the acting attorney general during the early days of the Trump
administration before getting fired, also laid out how in the ensuing days, Comey kept the
FBI's actions cloaked in secrecy and repeatedly rebuffed her suggestions that the incoming
Trump team be made aware of the Flynn recordings.
These revelations appear in declassified FBI interview notes of the Mueller team's
conversation with Yates in August 2017, highlighted by the Justice Department on Thursday as
U.S. Attorney for D.C. Timothy Shea moved to drop its
criminal charges against Flynn.
"One thing people will see when they look at the documents is how Director Comey purposely
went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney General Yate s," Attorney
General William Barr
said during a Thursday
interview with CBS News. "Deputy Attorney General Yates, I've disagreed with her about a
couple of things, but, you know, here she upheld the fine tradition of the Department of
Justice. She said that the new administration has to be treated just like the Obama
administration, and they should go and tell the White House about their findings And, you know,
Director Comey ran around that."
Yates told Mueller's team she first learned of the Flynn recordings following a White House
meeting about the Intelligence Community Assessment attended by Yates, Comey, Vice
President Joe Biden , then-CIA Director John Brennan, then-Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper, then-national security adviser Susan Rice, and others. Obama asked
Yates and Comey to stay behind when the meeting concluded.
Obama "started by saying that he had 'learned of the information about Flynn' and his
conversation with Russian ambassador Sergey Kislyak," Yates said, according to the notes.
"Obama specified he did not want any additional information on the matter but was seeking
information on whether the White House should be treating Flynn any differently." washington
examiner
-------------
Obama did not want any additional information on the matter? Careful CYA. From the account
of this meeting it is clear that Obama and Biden knew that Comey was intent on pursuing Flynn.
If that is so, then subsequent events indicate that Obama did not act to stop Comey, and since
Comey was hiding his effort against Flynn from main Justice, it must be that someone on high
was encouraging him. Now, who would that be? pl
All this was known in DC for the past few years. Everyone on the HSPCI knew what the
closed door testimony was. Clapper was categorical that there was "no empirical evidence of
collusion". The Crowdstrike CEO was categorical that he had no definitive evidence that the
Russians exfiltrated data from the DNC servers. Yet Schiff, Clapper, Brennan and all the
media hacks were on TV every night screaming Russia! Russia! and Collusion! Collusion!
Devin Nunes was spot on and correct that there was an attempted coup. All the media and
even many Republicans called him a conspiracy theorist.
SST maintaining its glorious tradition was spot on in its analysis with the limited data
available that there was a coup and the traitors were not those in the Trump campaign but the
leadership in law enforcement and intelligence. A big shoutout to you, Larry and David
Habakkuk.
Trump himself was like deer caught in the headlights. Furiously tweeting but not doing
much of anything else while his own nominees at the DOJ and FBI were plotting and acting to
destroy his presidency. Devin Nunes imploring him to declassify and expose all the evidence
from the FISA applications, the 302s, the internal communications among the plotters
including the prolific FBI lovers. He still hasn't.
What happens next? Will the whole coup be exposed in its entirety? Will anyone be held to
account?
If Trump doesn't care enough even when his ass was being fried to disclose all the
evidence with the stroke of his pen and if all he cares is to tweet "witch-hunt" and "Drain
the Swamp", how realistic is it that any of the coup plotters will be tried for treason?
So Obama used Yates to go after Flynn. They have really worked a number on Flynn to discredit
him, and it almost worked. Now it would appear their scheme is starting to unravel a bit.
Is Obama being thrown under the bus here? Are Comey and Yates (or others) trying to cover
their asses now that Flynn is free? Did Trump and his allies always know this and waited for
the right moment to reveal it for better effect? The game is at hand.
Yahoo released a leaked call today of Obama criticizing Trump's response over coronavirus.
Here's the big headline Yahoo is running:
Exclusive: Obama says in private call that 'rule of law is at risk' in Michael Flynn
case
The Flynn case was invoked by Obama as a principal reason that his former administration
officials needed to make sure former Vice President Joe Biden wins the November election
against President Trump. "So I am hoping that all of you feel the same sense of urgency
that I do," he said. "Whenever I campaign, I've always said, 'Ah, this is the most
important election.' Especially obviously when I was on the ballot, that always feels like
it's the most important election. This one -- I'm not on the ballot -- but I am pretty darn
invested. We got to make this happen."
Obama misstated the charge to which Flynn had previously pleaded guilty. He was charged
with false statements to the FBI, not perjury.
Misstated seems like a stretch. The call sounds scripted and I suspect the leak was
deliberate.
Brennan was encouraging Comey.
I just learned something recently. Brennan spent time in Indonesia around the same time
that Obama's mother lived there. It has been reported that Obama and Brennan had a fairly close relationship. I wonder how
long they have known each other.
O'Biden's Dad just wheeled around the corner in a wood paneled station wagon and dressed
down the neighborhood kids who took O'Biden's ball. A humiliating experience for O'Biden who
sits in the passenger seat as a mere spectator.
The open question is: Just who were those contractors?
Surely that is known to some, and is significant to current politically-charged
inquiries.
Just why that information has not become public is a good question.
Can anyone provide a reliable source for that information?
It is unsurprising @realDonaldTrump enjoys wallowing in his fetid self-indulgence, but I
find it surreal that so many other government officials encourage his ignorance,
incompetence, & destructive behavior.
BTW, history will be written by the righteous, not by his lickspittle.
She served as Acting AG, accepting the post when Trump was inaugurated. What did she tell him
about his whole affair? Was the opposition to the EO 13769 just an excuse to have herself
fired so she would not have to either perjure herself or reveal the truth to Trump?
Jack,
"All this was known in DC for the past few years."
You left out that Paul Ryan was Speaker of the House because the Republicans were in the
majority then and the HPSCI under his term as speaker did not subpoena a very large group of
people, didn't ask relevant questions, didn't release information to the public and thus
ensuring the left took over the House after the 2016 elections.
I, too, coincidentally just concluded a close reading of the Conservative Tree House post
that Mr. Harbaugh just recommended. It is, indeed, well worth such a close reading. There
have been various puzzling things along the way these last few years for which this post
provides explanations. Of particular utility, is its inclusion of a timeline of the arc of
the episodes of illegal government surveillance that began (?) with the IRS spying of 2012,
and how - and why - it evolved from that episode into the massive abuses of the FISA process
of which we are becoming increasingly aware as revelations are forthcoming.
CTH's work is superb, but I do want to say that I am also supremely grateful for all of
the good work and analysis from Larry Johnson, and other contributors, as well as for the
trenchant comments of Col. Lang. Multivalent sources of information, analysis, and comment
provide one with the parallax requisite to understanding this web of perfidy. My gratitude
also is owing to all of you Members of the Committee of Correspondence, each of whom brings
personal observations and insights to bear, always much to my benefit.
I did see a clip of Matt Gaetz calling out Ryan and Trey Gowdy from preventing them from
issuing subpoenas. Why do you think the Republican leadership in the House and Senate did not
want to investigate?
["One thing people will see when they look at the documents is how Director Comey purposely
went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney General Yates," Attorney
General William Barr said during a Thursday interview with CBS News. "Deputy Attorney General
Yates, I've disagreed with her about a couple of things, but, you know, here she upheld the
fine tradition of the Department of Justice. She said that the new administration has to be
treated just like the Obama administration, and they should go and tell the White House about
their findings And, you know, Director Comey ran around that."]
++++++++++++
This is fascinating because: this, what Barr is discussing, on national TV, . . . this
particular dimension, this Yates/Comey playing hide the bacon has nothing at all to do with
actual Brady material in the Lt. Gen. Flynn case.
Barr is referring to the Special Counsel Mueller Office's interview with Yates on Aug. 15,
2017, entered into the system three weeks later. Her interview occurred more than two months
prior to Flynn's coerced guilty plea.
This SCO document was released to the court May 7 as exhibit 4 attached to the DOJ motion
to end the prosecution of Flynn. It was produced in line with request by defense for Brady
material.
What Barr forgets to say is: This SCO interview of Yates shows that Comey and Yates talked
on the phone -- prior to -- the notorious Jan. 24, 2017 FBI interview of Flynn.
"Comey . . . informed her that two agents were on their way to interview Flynn at the
White House," the SCO said, according to the new court filing.
Yates took no action, -- she did nothing to order Comey to abort this soon-to-happen FBI
interview of Flynn, this SCO interview of her shows.
She was Comey's boss, the Acting Attorney General, at the time.
It shows that she was upset precisely because she wanted the FBI to coordinate with the
DOJ -- on getting Flynn screwed -- even suggesting, she told the SCO, that consideration that
Flynn be recorded, instead of memorialized using standard 302 form –
in-writing-only.
Yates wanted Flynn fired, she told the SCO.
Yates apparently was unable on her own to figure out, as the AG, the FBI and DOJ -- none
of them had any predicate, no "materiality," nothing "tethered" to any crime, as there was no
crime. And if she did not know these basic facts, had no awareness of them, then: why was she
the AG in the first place?
And what did Yates glean, right after this Jan. 24 interview of Flynn?
"Yates received a brief readout of the interview the night it happened, and a longer
readout the following day," which begs the question of why the original 302 of this was never
produced by the DOJ, to the defense; and also, why Covington law firm never asked to see this
before allowing Flynn to make his plea.
"Yates did not speak to the interviewing agents herself, but understood from others that
their assessment was that Flynn showed no 'tells' of lying," the SCO report says.
Based on her personal preference, rather than DOJ norms, she went to the White House, and
her expectation was they would fire Flynn. I fail to see how this nonsense by Yates seem to
escape Barr's notice. Or, is something else also going on?
She personally went to the White House, and her smear campaign against Flynn began, went
on and on and on, even after she was fired after being Acting AG for just ten days.
In her brief stint as Acting AG: Yates refused to tell the White House Counsel if Flynn
was being investigated, when the WHC asked her, directly, about this, according to what she
told the SCO. Can't blame this fact on the unctuous Comey.
She did tell the SCO that she wanted the WHC to know Flynn had been interviewed by the FBI
– and that she had concerns about Flynn, and she said those concerns related to the
Logan Act. Yates told SCO her concerns were because of the Logan Act, and that she expressed
this to the White House.
The Washington Examiner reporting that "It wasn't Comey who told her, but former President
Barack Obama" -- about the Flynn-Kislyak phone call --- this is interesting, very
interesting, if true, assuming Yates was telling the SCO the truth. This is what she claims
in her August 2017 interview with SCO.
But this bit of information is hardly Brady material [how is whether Obama or Comey told
her materially germane to the Flynn case, viz. Brady material?].
The question the SCO should have been concerned about is: who actually leaked the
transcript of the Flynn-Kislyak telephone call to the media?
Is this a serious crime? Or is this OK?
We still do not know this answer, and AG Barr has not told us. Nor has his boss,
Trump.
It is interesting that Barr chose to highlight that Comey went around Yates' back in Comey
ordering FBI to interview Flynn, but not that Yates knew of the Flynn interview before it
went down, and sat on her arse about it.
In fairness to Comey, they were, as the FB of Investigations, conducting the
investigation, which is their job, however rogue this FBI's I actually was, targeting
Flynn.
The Flynn-Kislyak telephone call, occurring late December of 2016, was reported by the
Washington Post on Jan. 12, 2017, eight days before Trump was sworn in.
And who leaked this, has anyone been prosecuted, will anyone be?
Obama still president, Loretta Lynch still AG, Yates still Deputy AG, Comey FBI director,
McCabe Deputy FBI director, etc.
Starting Jan. 20 and for ten days, Yates was the AG. She appeared bent on destroying
Flynn, and did nothing that I know of to prosecute who leaked the Flynn-Kislyak telephone
call to WAPO. Did someone on high perhaps ask her not to?
Nor was Comey and McCabe investigating this as best I can tell. Yet this was an actual,
clear cut crime we all saw, plain as day. Or maybe this is OK? Was someone on high asking
them not to?
I watched Barr say, during his interview with CBS news, [following the May 7 release of
documents to the court]: "One thing people will see when they look at the documents is how
Director Comey purposely went around the Justice Department and ignored Deputy Attorney
General Yates," Barr told Catherine Herridge.
And my first thought was: why is Barr doing an apparent CYA for Yates?
What office might she want to be running for in the future; is she a cooperating witness
in the wider Durham probe, why is Yates being portrayed as someone other than what she was: A
leader in the effort to destroy Michael Flynn.
She was the AG, and she failed to hold Comey accountable at the time; this is a fact,
apparently, that reflects poorly on her.
She told the White House -- as best she could -- that Flynn was a piece of dung, and told
the SCO, in their interview of her, that she expected the White House to fire Flynn. This
reflects poorly on her.
And threatened Logan Act prosecution of Flynn to the White house. This reflects poorly on
her.
She smeared Flynn in a CNN interview on May 16, the day before Mueller was appointed. This
reflects poorly on her.
Well, who leaked the Flynn-Kislyak telephone call, and did Yates act on that?
Folks that "should have known better" -- far and wide, smeared Flynn, justified the
lawlessness against him; one of many examples, titled: "Leaking Flynn's name to the press was
illegal, but utterly justified" published by TheHill.com.
She wasn't the only one, but Yates was smack dab in the middle of enabling and
perpetuating a long-running smear campaign against Flynn, to destroy him by any means
necessary. This reflects poorly on her.
Why is Barr carrying water for her.
As for Obama, he did nothing to stop Comey in 2016 when Comey announced he was exonerating
Clinton. Nor did AG Lynch, even though that is not the function of the FBI -- an act of
insubordination, by the way, for which Rosenstein officially fired him in May 2017, which
set, somehow, in motion the Mueller SC appointment by Rosenstein.
If Comey is such a rogue, and Barr is now claiming Yates tried to do the right thing, in
spite of Comey, then why didn't Yates fire Comey Jan. 24 right on the spot? And end the
fiasco right then and there?
In her May 16, 2017 CNN interview she only has kind words to say about him.
AS for who on high was encouraging Comey's extra legal free-lancing in the Clinton and
Flynn matters is a pertinent question.
Who were the enablers, in other words?
Barr appears to imply Comey did it all on his own, which is not entirely accurate. Perhaps
this also implies that Durham will prosecute Comey? I don't know if anyone will be prosecuted
at all. Time will tell.
It is clear Comey's enablers would, by rank, have been, viz. the Clinton matter: Obama and
Lynch.
In the Flynn matter: Trump and Yates.
Simple logic dictates that: if Main Justice was "not in the loop" then, for Clinton
matter, this means Obama was enabling Comey to exonerate her; and also dictate that, for
Flynn, that Trump was the one "on high" enabling Comey.
If there are others on high, they were not in the chain of command as I understand the
current US Government structure.
-30-
You seem to think Trump was informed of all the relevant information about the FBI's
conduct during his first ten days in office. Because Barr, being appointed AG two years after
these events, has yet to indict anyone in the case, Trump was actually enabling Yates in
destroying Flynn? Neither appear to be logical conclusions to me.
So on a December 29, 2016 The Obama administration placed sanctions on Russia that evolved to
Flynn, at the instruction of the incoming Trump administration, contacting the Russian
ambassador requesting that they not retaliate or heighten the situation.
On January 5th Ms. Yates learned from Obama of the Flynn intervention.
Rather than contact Trump directly Obama went along with the Comey Logan Act thoughts.
The decision to enact sanctions obviously involved State, CIA, DNI and FBI but why not
Justice or did it. But why was the incoming Trump administration not consulted.
There was only one Machiavellian thinker in that group and it wasn't the idiot who got his
panties all twisted up.
"This is a cabal of liars of the Obama administration senior officials," said Sara Carter, a
Fox News contributor and host of "The Sara Carter Show" on Fox News's show "The Ingraham Angle"
on Friday.
Watch
the latest video at <a href="https://www.foxnews.com">foxnews.com</a>
"And you have to ask yourself one question. They all stuck with the same exact propaganda,
the same exact his information, that the Trump administration, that the Trump campaign
conspired with Russia, even though they had no evidence whatsoever, and they manufactured that
evidence against the president."
"And this is why all of them need to be investigated " explained Carter.
" What they did here is not only in effect of our national security, they basically told a
lie across the globe and divided our nation for more than three years, and eventually someone
is going to pay the price for this. And I think this is exactly why John Durham and Attorney
General William Barr are conducting this investigation so thoroughly, because what they did was
a crime against the American people.
"Why is it that Obama asks Comey and Yates, how should we treat Michael Flynn? Why does he
ask that question to them in a private meeting in the Oval Office?" asked Raymond Arroyo, who
hosted "The Ingraham Angle' on Friday.
"I think that is pretty evident, because he along with Michael Flynn had a very divisive
relationship," responded Carter.
" When Michael Flynn challenged him on the narrative that he was spreading that Al Qaeda was
on the run and that ISIS was just this jayvee team, Michael Flynn was not going to accept that.
He also was not going to accept the fact that there were serious problems within the
intelligence community, and he challenged President Obama on that. I think in the beginning it
was a good relationship. I remember that, they had a good relationship, and then it broke
apart."
"A lot of people don't remember, was that meeting that President Trump, very first meeting
he had with President Obama at the White House," continued Sara Carter.
"When President Obama put a seed in President Trump's head, saying, I only have one person I
want to warn you about, and that is Mike Flynn. And the reason they wanted Mike Flynn out was
because he was the only one in the administration that really understood the intelligence
community, and he was going to catch all of them and what they were doing , which was what they
were trying to do was break the administration apart and remove President Trump."
This was a coup d'état and it has little to do with the protection of Oabama policies,
but a lot with protection of Clinton clan to which Obama belongs.
FBI investigators were corrupt and acted as a political police
Notable quotes:
"... Heavily redacted FBI documents that have been released indicate Flynn was one of several Trump campaign members who merited their own subfile investigation under the larger, now infamous " Crossfire Hurricane " debacle. Flynn even got his own cool codename -- "Crossfire Razor." (No, the FBI isn't usually that absurd. But absurdity colored that entire period of time.) ..."
"... FBI documents show that a Foreign Agent Registration Act ( FARA ) case was opened against Flynn. The stated reasons, in rank order, for initiating the investigation were that he was a member of the Trump campaign; he had "ties" to various Russian state-affiliated entities; he traveled to Russia; and he had a high-level top-secret clearance -- for which, by the way, he was polygraphed regularly to determine if he was a spy. ..."
"... None of the listed reasons is unusual activity for the kind of positions he held. Overall it is pretty thin justification for investigating an American citizen. Yet, most chillingly, the Crossfire Hurricane team stated it was investigating Flynn "specifically" because he was "an adviser to then Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump for foreign policy issues." ..."
"... Kevin R. Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, was an FBI special agent for 24 years and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). He is a founder and principal of NewStreet Global Solutions , which consults with private companies and public safety agencies on strategic mission technologies. ..."
investigation
of Michael Flynn , the
more it appears he was targeted precisely because, as the national security adviser to the
incoming Trump administration, he signaled that the new administration might undo Obama
administration policies -- which is kind of what the American people voted for in 2016.
Some will say that Gen. Flynn was investigated for legitimate criminal or national security
reasons. Yet, the FBI's ultimate interview of Flynn addressed none of the grounds that the FBI
used to open the original case against him. For those of us who have run FBI investigations,
that is more than odd.
Heavily redacted
FBI documents that have been released indicate Flynn was one of several Trump campaign
members who merited their own subfile investigation under the larger, now infamous "
Crossfire Hurricane " debacle. Flynn even got his own cool codename -- "Crossfire Razor."
(No, the FBI isn't usually that absurd. But absurdity colored that entire period of time.)
For the record, Flynn clearly exercised poor judgment as a result of being interviewed by
the FBI. The larger question is whether the team under then-Director James Comey had a legitimate basis to conduct the
interview at all.
FBI documents show that a Foreign Agent Registration Act ( FARA ) case was opened against Flynn. The stated
reasons, in rank order, for initiating the investigation were that he was a member of the Trump
campaign; he had "ties" to various Russian state-affiliated entities; he traveled to Russia;
and he had a high-level top-secret clearance -- for which, by the way, he was polygraphed
regularly to determine if he was a spy.
None of the listed reasons is unusual activity for the kind of positions he held. Overall it
is pretty thin justification for investigating an American citizen. Yet, most chillingly, the
Crossfire Hurricane team stated it was investigating Flynn "specifically" because he was "an
adviser to then Republican presidential candidate Donald J. Trump for foreign policy
issues."
Let me be clear: That is not a legitimate justification to investigate an American
citizen.
There is a theme that runs through the entire Crossfire Hurricane disaster, which has been
publicly articulated by Comey and his deputy director, Andrew McCabe : They saw themselves as stalwarts
in the breach defending America from a presidential candidate who they believed was an
agent
of Russia .
... ... ...
Kevin R. Brock, former assistant director of intelligence for the FBI, was an FBI
special agent for 24 years and principal deputy director of the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). He is a
founder and principal of NewStreet Global
Solutions , which consults with private companies and public safety agencies on strategic
mission technologies.
Russiagate has been an obvious coup attempt from the beginning, and several attempts have
followed...
__________________________________________________
That is not at all obvious.
Russiagate was obviously designed to look like a coup attempt, but you have to be extremely
gullible to believe any of it is real.
The recent Flynn bruhaha is a perfect example of the phoniness surrounding Russiagate.
The FBI investigators that interviewed Flynn believed he had not been deceptive and any
fool who was paying attention at the time believed he was not guilty because 2 weeks before
that FBI interview the news media had reported that the phone call with Kislyak had been
recorded by the FBI and that there was nothing improper or illegal that would motivate Flynn
to lie about his talk with Kislyak. The story that Flynn lied to the FBI is unbelievable on
its face.
Don't blame the FBI for creating this fake story. Trump is the one and only one that
created the fake Flynn-lied-to-the-FBI story, Before Trump created the phony story that Flynn
had lied to the FBI nobody else had at that time believed Flynn lied to the FBI.
But once Trump had created the phony story that Flynn lied to the FBI then all the gullible
morons started to believe the phony story. And even Flynn himself goes along with Trump's
phony story because he is a good soldier that follows command.
Before Comey's testimony to Congress that suggested that Trump was twisting Comey's arm to
let Flynn go for lying to the FBI no one had ever said that Flynn lied to the FBI. That story
was created by Trump and reported by Comey.
And then Mueller and Flynn and Comey all helped Trump foist that phony story that Flynn lied
to the FBI onto the public.
The implication of Comey's testimony to Congress was that in order to get Flynn off a
charge of Lying to the FBI Trump first tried to cajole Comey to go easy on Flynn and when
that did not work Trump fired Comey.
The problem with that whole BS story is that the crux of it (that Flynn lied to the FBI)
never happened. It was entirely invented by Trump to make it look like Trump was engaged in
mortal combat with the deep state. But it was all staged and fake (i.e. Kayfabe)
_______________________________________________
Well duh....
Russiagate was designed to fall apart.
It was obvious all along that all the stories that came out in the Mueller Report were
badly written sit-com material - the script for a comic soap opera. And they were all
scripted to fall apart when examined closely.
What I could never figure out was what this guy Mueller was going to say when he was
dragged in front of Congress and required to answer tough questions about all the garbage he
had produced. I thought for sure that for Mueller the jig would be up there was no way the
farce would not be revealed for all to see.
And then it happened. Mueller testified and it turned out Mueller could not remember any
of it.
Senator: Did you say XYZ?
Mueller: Is that in the report??
Senator: yes it is.
Mueller: Then it is true.
Making Mueller Senile and unable to remember anything was brilliant - pure genius. The
rest of the Russiagate script was mediocre at best.
It was a transparently false narrative designed, by the most incompetent election
campaign team in history ...
Occam's razor says Hillary threw the election. No seasoned politician would make the
mistakes that she made - especially when they yearn to make history (as the first
woman president) and the entire establishment (left and right) is counting on them to
win.
Believing what is evidently incredible has long been a test of loyalty
...
And you prove your loyalty with the belief that Hillary lost because of an
"incompetent election campaign".
All-in-all Obama was a CIA sponsored fraud: In 2008 I posted at another blog this: "Obama is a fraud and my view does not hang on
the controversial birther movement. " From whence he came? He made a speech at the Democratic
National Convention; 3 years in the Senate, then runs to occupy the White House. The media
puff pieces. "Hope and Change, Yes, We Can" Watch for the broken promises."
Notable quotes:
"... Now why is Obama against General Flynn? Hmmm. Good question. Did the FBI target Michael Flynn to protect Obama's policies, not national security? LINK ..."
"... Gen. Flynn: Obama Administration made a "wilful decision" to support Sunni extremists (a Jihadi proxy army) against Assad . This directly contradicts the phony narrative of Obama as peace-loving black man (as certified by his Nobel Prize!). ..."
"... In 2008 I posted at another blog this: "Obama is a fraud and my view does not hang on the controversial birther movement. " From whence he came? He made a speech at the Democratic National Convention; 3 years in the Senate, then runs to occupy the White House. The media puff pieces. "Hope and Change, Yes, We Can" Watch for the broken promises." ..."
Whether or not General Flynn is loathed or liked, there is Supreme Court decisions setting
precedence for dropping a case when found to be wrapped in prosecutorial misdeeds:
As for the first 'black' president out from the shadows;
Thanks for that additional link. And that's why Obama could not standby with Flynn in the
NSA role. Recall Hillary's on Trump- "if he is elected we'll hang" (paraphrased)
In 2008 I posted at another blog this: "Obama is a fraud and my view does not hang on
the controversial birther movement. " From whence he came? He made a speech at the Democratic
National Convention; 3 years in the Senate, then runs to occupy the White House. The media
puff pieces. "Hope and Change, Yes, We Can" Watch for the broken promises."
Fast Forward to 2011 he signs NDAA. "How Obama disappointed the world." Der Spiegel had
such an article 9 Aug.2011. But he was re-(S)-elected.
Did Obama Defense Deputy Lie To Protect Her Fraudulent Russiagate Sources?
xxx Barnacles, 1 minute ago
Justice for me, but not for thee. They prosecute Flynn, Manafort, Stone, Papadoupolis, and
tried to prosecute Trump. Yet, none of the Deep State/demonrats get prosecuted. No Comey,
Strzok, Page, McCabe, Clapper, or Brennan.
xxx booboo, 2 minutes ago
It would not be difficult to ascertain just the opposite, she spoke the truth in the MSNBC
interview and she lied under oath in a congressional hearing. There are always paper trails
and bread crumbs but they won't be followed because the Atlantic Council is the defacto State
Department. Ciitizen Jury, Crime and Punishment teams would have to enforce the law of the
land at this point.
xxx lwilland1012, 5 minutes ago (Edited)
Nobody is covering this bombshell that was dropped from the Grenell transcripts: "we had
indication that the DNC was hacked."
"Indication? Direct evidence?"
"No direct evidence."
Matt Taibi of all people is covering this bombshell from Crowdstrike
No direct evidence means that Russia DID NOT interfere in the election.
xxx onwisconsinbadger, 11 minutes ago
Did Michael Flynn Lie To Protect His Russia Sources?
Flynn was in violation of both federal law and the US Constitution Emoluments Clause which
forbids former military members from getting paid to lobby for a foreign government without
written permission from congress or the Secretary of the Army which he never got. Flynn was
lobbying for both Turkey and Russia without explicit permission to do so. Technically he
could be brought back to active duty and tried in a Courts Martial for what he did or be
charged in a federal court but that would be pointless with Trump as POTUS like so many other
things with Trump it establishes a dangerous precedent for future incidents because they will
argue a uneven application of law because Flynn wasn't prosecuted so why should they?
"... And now you are hoping the Bushites team up with Democrats. Let me tell you something. THEY ALREADY ARE AND HAVE BEEN. Most of the Bush family and their admins voted for Clinton. ..."
"... One of my far left Bernie buddies said something interesting ..."
"... . "The Democrats have embraced hypocrisy. They hated Nixon and loved Obama. Both did the exact same thing. One got busted. Democrats hated the Bush family, but love the Clintons and the Democrat establishment. THEY ARE THE SAME DAMN PEOPLE. There are 3 groups of people in the US. Trump supporters, Bernie supporters and the domestic enemy establishment." ..."
You just Freudianly said something interesting. As a former Democrat, I am proud of NEVER have
voted for anyone named "Bush". The entire family is as crooked as it gets. The entire
anti-Trump, never Trumping RINOs are led by the Bushes and their crooked apologists, like Bill
"I love me some Bush Oil Wars" Kristol.
How much did the Bush family throw at Jebby, in hopes he get the nomination in 2016? I think
it was $150m in Iowa alone?
And now you are hoping the Bushites team up with Democrats. Let me tell you something.
THEY ALREADY ARE AND HAVE BEEN. Most of the Bush family and their admins voted for
Clinton.
There is ZERO DIFFERENCE between the ENTIRE Democratic party and RUNOS - because they are
the same crooked, corrupt and terrible people. Same scam artists. Same criminals.
Thanks for pointing it out. One of my far left Bernie buddies said something
interesting. "The Democrats have embraced hypocrisy. They hated Nixon and loved
Obama. Both did the exact same thing. One got busted. Democrats hated the Bush family, but love
the Clintons and the Democrat establishment. THEY ARE THE SAME DAMN PEOPLE. There are 3 groups
of people in the US. Trump supporters, Bernie supporters and the domestic enemy
establishment."
This actually started with Clintons, who also can be viewed as CIA democrats. (especially Hillary)
In no way Sanders supporters will vote for Biden. They will stay home or vote for the third party candidate. This is kind
of mini-civil war withing the Dem Party and while Clinton wing won, this is a Pyrrhic victory.
Notable quotes:
"... There are the CIA Democrats who were elected in the last mid-terms. There was the obscene, degrading veneration of first James Comey and then Robert Mueller. ..."
"... There is Adam Schiff and the endless Russiagate black hole of mental resources, money, time and political capital. ..."
"... What they all have in common is the Democrats pressuring Trump for being insufficiently imperialist and warmongering. ..."
This is what I was thinking. It was obvious from 2015 that one of Trump's most effective messages was his criticism of the
Iraq War, of Nato, Syria and the endless occupation of Afghanistan. We can also set aside the fact that he has largely failed
to do much of what he implied in his campaign. The point is that he campaigned to the left of the Democrats on these issues and
did it knowingly -- and that this was a message that resonated with, as you say, voters connected in some way to the military.
Also significant in this context is that since his election, the mainstream Washington Dems have focused (besides their interminable
obsession with 'civility') on cultivating ever greater ties with the military and intelligence services.
There are the CIA Democrats who were elected in the last mid-terms. There was the obscene, degrading veneration of first
James Comey and then Robert Mueller.
There is Adam Schiff and the endless Russiagate black hole of mental resources, money, time and political capital.
What they all have in common is the Democrats pressuring Trump for being insufficiently imperialist and warmongering.
In this context, too, it is significant that the Dem mandarins have chosen Joe Biden, probably the most right wing of all the
remaining opponents facing off against Bernie -- definitely worse than Obama (remember that when he chose Biden as VP it was viewed
rightly as throwing a bone to the Blue Dogs and other Dem reactionaries!) and almost certainly worse even than HRC herself.
But it doesn't have to be that way. As you suggest, an anti-war message can reach voters in special ways and unite, for example,
groups that would otherwise view themselves as miles apart -- e.g. radicalised young people and rural working class families with
military connections. That is exactly the type of solidarity we need. And therefore almost as exactly the sort of thing that Democrats
minus Bernie will do all they can to prevent coming to pass!
Yes, I didn’t mean to suggest that direct exposure to the often tragic consequences of serving the American Empire inevitably
leads those affected to critical insights into how it operates or sustains itself – there is a difference between experience and
insight, feeling and knowing. But I believe it does mean there is a very fertile ground for anti-war sentiments in precisely those
groups most frequently dismissed by mainstream Democrats or the media as irredeemably…ahem…deplorable.
Not sure I agree that internationally minded socialism died in the trenches of WWI. It was quite literally murdered in that
war’s aftermath through the brutal suppression of working class struggles like the Spartacist uprising and political assassinations
of figures like Rosa Luxermburg and Karl Liebknecht. And it was ideologically murdered by the capital-assisted rise of fascism
and national chauvinism at precisely the moment when global capitalism was entering a period of potentially terminal crisis. In
that broad sweep of events I would go so far as to include the ascension to power of Stalin in the Soviet Union and his socialism-in-one-country,
which effectively ended the internationalism unleashed by the 1917 Revolution.
After WWII, the capitalist West of course responded to these crises by ceding more ground to workers than they had ever done
before. Socialised healthcare in Europe, the welfare state, access to education, state-led investment. They rightly feared the
consequences of a resurgent international socialism and opted to head things off at the pass (I hate that cliche, to quote Hedley
Lamarr!). But no less influential was the Stalinist Soviet Union’s cynical manipulation of liberation struggles and the various
Communist Parties they funded across the West and Latin America. Their sabotage of the Spanish Republican struggle was here the
template, as they evolved various “popular front” tactics to lead various working-class movements down strategically (for them)
useful blind alleys.
In fact, the list of betrayals committed by the Soviet Union with regard to their international ‘comrades’ bears comparison
with the Democratic Party’s own patented ability to bury social movements in the US – leading bravely and courageously…from behind.
As for Bernie/AOC, their plan to ‘deal with domestic problems first’ is exactly what I take issue with. In the first place,
I see no evidence that the ruling class will allow even their modest policies to be enacted. This is not the Depression Era. Unions
are weak, corrupt or worse. Political consciousness may be growing but remains relatively low compared to the 20th century. There
is no broad mass movement beyond Washington DC which political leaders can use as leverage in the struggles that would inevitably
need to be fought over policies like Medicare for All. Maybe they will emerge once the struggles gain momentum, but for now the
disposition of social forces and political power is very different from the context in which the New Deal was (partially) executed
or the Civil Rights Era in the 60s.
More importantly, though, and what I’ve been trying to get at is the idea that you can effectively decouple domestic from foreign
issues is a mirage. Particularly in a period of unparalleled interconnection where global capital and finance have themselves
eroded the integrity of nation states or their sovereignty. And besides that, Trump’s election has brought into the open the enormous
political power that has been amassed by the military and intelligence services – and which will without doubt be brought to bear
on any Bernie or AOC attempting to bring about domestic reforms opposed by the oligarchy.
I just don’t think it is possible to confront one set of issues without confronting the other – their interrelationship requires
them to be faced at the same time. And that is of course before we talk about the moral imperative to do so.
One last thing – a lesson learned painfully from Labour under Corbyn. His constant capitulations over mainly foreign issues
– Israel, Trident, the Skripal case, Syria, Julian Assange – didn’t free up space or energy to fight for domestic reform. It didn’t
satisfy his opponents in the media or on the right wing of his own party. It signalled his weakness and encouraged them to press
on with ever more insistent demands. And, crucially, it demotivated and demobilised the very popular support on which his insurgent
movement relied. It disillusioned, confused and depressed the energies of those who had powered him to the leadership. And, finally,
it exposed him as weak or vacillating to voters he needed to convince or galvanise.
Now Bernie is a much, much more skilled political operator than Jeremy Corbyn, but on the other hand the Democratic Party is
far more corrupt and corporatist, far more detached from and unaccountable to its base of support. The Labour Party, at least,
is a mass membership party with continued trade union links. The Dems are a mafia cartel/protection racket based around no more
than perpetuating the privileges of those they call their own (elected officials, consultants, media cheerleaders etc). As I said
in my first post, I acknowledge he is fighting a very particular fight for the nomination/presidency – and he is kept constantly
busy fending off dishonest attacks from all sides – but if not him, then others, like AOC, need in my view to stop putting off
confrontation over foreign issues for another day – the struggle needs to combine domestic and international otherwise it will
end up sacrificing both.
I don’t think Bernie is a much more skilled political operator than Jeremy Corbyn–I think he’s about as bad, so bad that he’s
about to get defeated by a Joe Biden, a pudding brained old man with a terrible record.
But Bernie is going to do a great service (I hope) by losing and that’s to turn the nascent left away from electoralism and
more toward the street, organizing the masses in the manner that the right wing has: by emphasizing propaganda to radicalize the
normies (radio/podcasts/youtube), by siloing cadres into a parallel culture, and by growing tendencies toward revolutionary action
by encouraging socialization with specific political content (in the right wing world these are gun/religious groups).
Out of these social formations, electoral success organically follows. The left ought to build the secular equivalent of evangelical
churches (a Socialist Meeting Hall in every town!) and gun groups (left wing boy scouts and also…left wing gun groups?). Get the
people out of their homes to meet one another in a specific political context. When someone identifies as “Socialist,” it should
be a shorthand for a kind of “social” existence that is notably separate from the “normal” (as it is right now for the Right Wing–a
strong reason, in my view, for the successful rightward political seduction of such a large portion of the masses, who ought to
be easy pickings for the left).
> The overextension of empire is always going to provide its weakest points.
Exhibit A at least in terms of visibility: The supply chain.
It would surely be possible to frame, and possibly even to conceptualize, the combination of gutting manufacturing in this
country and moving it to China as a bad case of Imperial overstretch….
So sellout by Clinton of the Democratic Party to Wall Street proved to be durable and
sustainable...
Bernie again behaves like a sheep dog with no intention to win... "Let's be friends" is not a
viable strategy...
Notable quotes:
"... the same character traits that make him an honorable politician also make him fundamentally unsuited for the difficult task of waging a successful outsider campaign for the nomination of a major political party. ..."
"... Why hasn't Sara Nelson, head of the Flight Attendants' Union, endorsed Bernie? (Personally I have always thought she'd be a good VP.) ..."
"... Robinson is dreaming if he thinks Non-Profit Industrial Complex entities like EMILY's List and Planned Parenthood will lift a finger to help Sanders, or busines unionists like Randi Weingarten. To his credit, though, Ady Barkan switched immediately. External support, though is correct: IIRC, there are plenty of union locals to be had; the Culinary Workers should be only the first. ..."
"... "Corporate Lobbyists Control the Rules at the DNC" [ ReadSludge ]. "Among the 447 total voting DNC members, who make up the majority of 771 superdelegates, there are scores of corporate lobbyists and consultants -- including many of the 75 at-large DNC members, who were not individually elected . ..."
"... The 32-member DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee contains the following 20 individuals: a health insurance board member co-chair, three surrogates for presidential campaigns (two for Bloomberg, one for Biden), four current corporate lobbyists, two former corporate lobbyists, six corporate consultants, and four corporate lawyers." ..."
"... "Joe Biden is a friend of mine" is the 2020-updated version of "enough about the damn e-mails, already". No amount of ground-level organizing can make up for a candidate willing to publicly overlook what should be high-office-disqualifying fundamental character traits in his opponents out of "niceness". ..."
"... It's easy to do a post Super Tuesday defeat analysis of Sanders but remember, everything seems to work before SC where I think the Democrats fixed the election and the same holds for Super Tuesday. ..."
Sanders (D)(1): "Bernie Sanders needs to find the killer instinct" [Matthew Walther,
The Week ].
I've heard Useful Idiots, Dead Pundits, and the inimitable Jimmy Dore all make the same point,
but Walther's prose makes the point most forcefully (as prose often does). The situation:
There is no greater contrast imaginable than the one between the popular (and frequently
exaggerated) image of so-called "Bernie bros" and the almost painfully conciliatory instincts
of the man they support.
This was fully in evidence on Wednesday afternoon when Sanders responded to arguably the
worst defeat of his political career by chatting with journalists about how " disgusted "
he is at unspecified online comments directed at Elizabeth Warren and her supporters and what
a " decent
guy " Joe Biden is.
He did this despite the fact that Warren, with the connivance of debate moderators,
recently called him a sexist in front of an audience of millions, effectively announcing that
she had no interest in making even a tacit alliance with the only other progressive candidate
in the race and, one imagines, despite thinking that the former vice president's record on
virtually everything -- finance, health care, race relations, the environment, foreign policy
-- should render him ineligible for office.
It should go without saying that offering these pleasantries will do Sanders few if any
favors.
Lambert here: This is a Presidential primary, not the Senate floor. There is no comity.
Walther then gives a list of possible scorched earth tactics to use against Biden; we could all
make such a list. But then:
Sanders's benevolent disposition does him credit. But the same character traits that
make him an honorable politician also make him fundamentally unsuited for the difficult task
of waging a successful outsider campaign for the nomination of a major political
party.
Corbyn had the same problem...
Sanders really must not let Biden and the Democrat Establishment off the hook. He seems to
have poor judgment about his friends. Warren was no "friend." And neither is Joe Biden.
He should forget those false friends, go into the next debate, and slice Joe Biden off at
the knees. Trump would. And will, if Sander loses.
His canvassers and more importantly his millions of small donors deserve no less. The race
and the debate is now between two people, and only one can emerge the winner. Sanders needs to
decide if he wants to be that person, and then do
what it takes . (If the outcome of the Sanders campaign is a left that is a permanently
institutionalized force, distinct from liberal Democrats, I would regard that as a net
positive. If that is Sanders' ultimate goal, then fine. He's not going to achieve that goal by
being nice to Joe Biden. Quite the reverse.)
UPDATE Sanders (D)(2): "Time To Fight Harder Than We've Ever Fought Before" [Nathan J.
Robinson, Current
Affairs ].
"Biden now has some formidable advantages going forward: Democrats who no longer see him as
a failed or risky bet will finally endorse and campaign for him. He will find it easier to
raise money. He will have "momentum." Bloomberg's exit will bring him new voters.
Sanders may find upcoming states even harder to win than the Super Tuesday contests. But the
one thing that would guarantee a Sanders loss is giving up and going home, which is exactly
what Joe Biden hopes we will now do."
Here follows a laundry list of tactics. Then: "The real thing Bernie needs in order to win,
though, is external support. Labor unions, activists, lawmakers, anyone with a public platform:
We need to be pressuring them to endorse Bernie.
Why hasn't Sara Nelson, head of the Flight Attendants' Union, endorsed Bernie?
(Personally I have always thought she'd be a good VP.)
Now that Elizabeth Warren is clearly not going to win, will organizations like the Working
Families Party and EMILY's List and people like AFT president Randi Weingarten and Medicare For
All advocate Ady Barkan switch and endorse Sanders?
Where is the Sierra Club, SEIU (Bernie, after all, was one of the first national figures to
push Fight for $15), the UAW, Planned Parenthood? Many progressive organizations have been
sitting out the race because Warren was in it."
Good ideas in general, but Robinson is dreaming if he thinks Non-Profit Industrial
Complex entities like EMILY's List and Planned Parenthood will lift a finger to help Sanders,
or busines unionists like Randi Weingarten. To his credit, though, Ady Barkan switched
immediately. External support, though is correct: IIRC, there are plenty of union locals to be
had; the Culinary Workers should be only the first.
Warren (D)(1): "Why Elizabeth Warren lost" [Ryan Cooper, The Week ]. "Starting in
November, however, she started a long decline that continued through January, when she started
losing primaries . So what happened in November?
It is hard to pin down exactly what is happening in such a chaotic race, but Warren's
campaign certainly made a number of strategic errors. One important factor was surely that
Warren started backing away from Medicare-for-all, selling instead a bizarre two-step plan.
The idea supposedly was to pass universal Medicare with two different bills, one in her
first year as president and one in the third year. Given how difficult it is to pass anything
through Congress, and that there could easily be fewer Democrats in 2023 than in 2021, it was a
baffling decision. Worse, Warren then released a plan for financing Medicare-for-all that was
simply terrible.
Rather than levying a new progressive tax, she would turn existing employer contributions to
private health insurance plans into a tax on employers, which would gradually converge to an
average for all businesses but the smallest. The clear objective here was to claim that she
would pay for it without levying any new taxes on the middle or working classes. But because
those employer payments are still part of labor compensation, it is ultimately workers who pay
them -- making Warren's plan a horribly regressive head tax (that is, an equal dollar tax on
almost all workers regardless of income).
All that infuriated the left, and struck directly at Warren's branding as the candidate of
technical competence. It suggested her commitment to universal Medicare was not as strong as
she claimed, and that she would push classic centrist-style Rube Goldberg policies rather than
clean, fair ones. (Her child care plan, with its complicated means-testing system, had a
similar defect).
Claiming her plan was the only one not to raise taxes on the middle class was simply
dishonest. In sum, this was a classic failed straddle that alienated the left but gained no
support among anti-universal health care voters. More speculatively, this kind of hesitation
and backtracking may have turned off many voters." • On #MedicareForAll, called it here on
"pay for" ; and here on "transition." Warren's plans should not have been well-received,
and they were not. I'm only amazed that these really technical arguments penetrated the media
(let along the voters).
Warren (D)(2): "Warren Urged by National Organization for Women Not to Endorse Sanders: He
Has 'Done Next to Nothing for Women'" [
Newsweek ]. • Establishment really pulling out all the stops.
* * *
"Why Southern Democrats Saved Biden" [Mara Gay, New York
Times ]. (Gay was the lone member of the Times Editorial Board to endorse Sanders
.) "Through Southern eyes, this election is not about policy or personality. It's about
something much darker. Not long ago, these Americans lived under violent, anti-democratic
governments. Now, many there say they see in President Trump and his supporters the same
hostility and zeal for authoritarianism that marked life under Jim Crow .
They were deeply skeptical that a democratic socialist like Mr. Sanders could unseat Mr.
Trump. They liked Ms. Warren, but, burned by Hillary Clinton's loss, were worried that too many
of their fellow Americans wouldn't vote for a woman."
Well worth a read. At the same time, it's not clear why the Democrat Establishment hands
control over the nomination to the political establishment in states they will never win in the
general; the "firewall" in 2016 didn't work out all that well, after all. As for Jim Crow, we
might do well to remember that Obama destroyed a generation of Black wealth his miserably
inadequate response to the foreclosure crisis, and his pathetic stimulus package kept Black
unemployment high for years longer than it should have been. And sowed the dragon's teeth of
authoritarian reaction as well.
"Corporate Lobbyists Control the Rules at the DNC" [ ReadSludge
]. "Among the 447 total voting DNC members, who make up the majority of 771 superdelegates,
there are scores of corporate lobbyists and consultants -- including many of the 75 at-large
DNC members, who were not individually elected .
The 32-member DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee contains the following 20 individuals: a
health insurance board member co-chair, three surrogates for presidential campaigns (two for
Bloomberg, one for Biden), four current corporate lobbyists, two former corporate lobbyists,
six corporate consultants, and four corporate lawyers."
"Joe Biden is a friend of mine" is the 2020-updated version of "enough about the damn
e-mails, already". No amount of ground-level organizing can make up for a candidate willing to
publicly overlook what should be high-office-disqualifying fundamental character traits in his
opponents out of "niceness".
That's fine, but if his organization is then put at the disposal of Joe Biden, I don't see
how the organization survives. (That's why the DNC cheating meme* is important; it provides the
moral cover to get out of that loyalty oath (which the Sanders campaign certainly should have
had its lawyers take a look at)).
NOTE * Iowa, Texas, and California have all had major voting screw-ups, all of which
impacted Sanders voters disproportionately. The campaign should sue. They have the money.)
I once met an union organizer and he said he could go back to any site he had worked and be
on friendly terms with everyone. Bernie is thinking like an organizer. I think that making this
about Social Security is his best bet. It demolishes Biden in a way that makes the election
about the American people.
he needs to go after biden on the issues in a much more forceful manner than he typically
does, with lots and lots of specifics. did i mention lots of specifics? and lots of pointed
references to biden's past positions, and a focus on pinning him down on his position now. he
needs to ask questions biden will not be prepared for with easy scripted responses.
Perhaps if Sanders can keep successfully baiting Biden with hooks baited with Biden's own
past statements over and over and over again, that Sanders can then go on to practice some very
well disguised passive-aggressive pointing/not-pointing to Biden's mental condition by asking
Biden at every opportunity: " don't you remember that, Joe? You remember saying that, don't you
Joe? Don't you remember when you said that, Joe?"
Except 70% of Women according to Stanford finding these kind of confrontations distressing
to very distressing. Tricky. One changes emotions by using emotions so the trick here is
"allowing" Biden to act deranged and expressing sorrow over it. For 70% of guys they won't get
the emotional content, but will understand the logic of the questions and lack of answers. It
can be done, Bill Clinton and Obama were very good at this. Look you want to be president you
got to play the game at the highest level. Good practice for dealing with trump.
Timing was right for both Obama and Clinton. After the GFC voters would have gone for any
Democrat because Republicans were toxic. Similarly, it was fortuitous for Clinton because Perot
was running and he quit the race a couple of months before the election.
Obama got loads and loads of money from Wall Street. Neither of these guys would stand a
chance in an election year when the economy was doing well.
It's easy to do a post Super Tuesday defeat analysis of Sanders but remember, everything
seems to work before SC where I think the Democrats fixed the election and the same holds for
Super Tuesday.
I didn't see anyone pointing out that Bernie had to be confrontational when he seems to be
winning.
Wait. How many days ago was the field of candidates wide open?
If Bernard does not roast Biden on Social Security I will be disappointed. If Smokin' Joe
doesn't lash out with his typical aplomb, I'll be disappointed. I'm saving myself up
for bigger disappointments.
I'll be happy with the Vermont interpretation of Huey Long. I'm glad that people are finally
noticing we have one Socialist Senator.
Idea for an 'own the slur' bumper sticker: "I'm tickled pink by Bernie" -- Although I don't
know how the post-dial-up-modem crowd might misinterpret that?
I support Bernie because Bernie supports the polices I think we need to save the country:
M4A, GND,$15/hr min, free college, etc. To me, being an FDR Dem like Bernie is the moderate
position, we've done it before, we know it works. Biden's support of neoliberal polices that
have wrecked America is the extreme position.
But the DNC does not support FDR's Democracy. They have ended up to the right of Ronald
Reagan. Pelosi could have pushed a M4A bill but did not. Pelosi could have pushed any number of
polices to show how Trump is failing the working and middle class, but she did not.
So if Bernie is not picked for the general, I no longer have a reason to support the Dems,
and will stay home. Actually, I will probably not stay home, I will work to get Dems out of
office, and in general, work to burn the party to the ground. Why? Because it is in the way,
and does not support the working class or the middle class.
The Dem party has to decide – do they really support the working and middle class or
not. Because only Bernie supports those polices, and the rest of the Dems running for President
do not.
An alternative view that has been circulating for several years suggests that it was not a
hack at all, that it was a deliberate whistleblower-style
leak of information carried out by an as yet unknown party, possibly Rich, that may have
been provided to WikiLeaks for possible political reasons, i.e. to express disgust with the DNC
manipulation of the nominating process to damage Bernie Sanders and favor Hillary Clinton.
There are, of course, still other equally non-mainstream explanations for how the bundle of
information got from point A to point B, including that the intrusion into the DNC server was
carried out by the CIA which then made it look like it had been the Russians as
perpetrators. And then there is the hybrid point of view, which is essentially that the
Russians or a surrogate did indeed intrude into the DNC computers but it was all part of normal
intelligence agency probing and did not lead to anything. Meanwhile and independently, someone
else who had access to the server was downloading the information, which in some fashion made
its way from there to WikiLeaks.
Both the hack vs. leak viewpoints have marshaled considerable technical analysis in the
media to bolster their arguments, but the analysis suffers from the decidedly strange fact that
the FBI never even examined the DNC servers that may have been involved. The hack school of
thought has stressed that Russia had both the ability and motive to interfere in the election
by exposing the stolen material while the leakers have recently asserted that the sheer volume of
material downloaded indicates that something like a higher speed thumb drive was used,
meaning that it had to be done by someone with actual physical direct access to the DNC system.
Someone like Seth Rich.
... ... ...
Given all of that back story, it would be odd to find Trump making an offer that focuses
only on one issue and does not actually refute the broader claims of Russian interference,
which are based on a number of pieces of admittedly often dubious evidence, not just the
Clinton and Podesta emails.
Which brings the tale back to Seth Rich. If Rich was indeed responsible for the theft of the
information and was possibly killed for his treachery, it most materially impacts on the
Democratic Party as it reminds everyone of what the Clintons and their allies are capable
of.
It will also serve as a warning of what might be coming at the Democratic National
Convention in Milwaukee in July as the party establishment uses fair means or foul to stop
Bernie Sanders. How this will all play out is anyone's guess, but many of those who pause to
observe the process will be thinking of Seth Rich.
I don't ascribe to the idea that the intel agencies kill American citizens without a great
deal of thought, but in Rich's case, they probably felt like they had no choice. Think about
it: The DNC had already rigged the primary against Bernie, the Podesta emails had already
been sent to Wikileaks, and if Rich's cover was blown, then he would publicly identify
himself as the culprit (which would undermine the Russiagate narrative) which would split the
Democratic party in two leaving Hillary with no chance to win the election.
I can imagine Hillary and her intel connections looking for an alternative to whacking
Rich but eventually realizing that there was no other way to deflect responsibility for the
emails while paving the way for an election victory.
If Seth Rich went public, then Hillary would certainly lose.
I imagine this is what they were thinking when they decided there was really only one
option.
"I have watched incredulous as the CIA's blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story
– blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is
no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton's corruption." https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2016/12/cias-absence-conviction/
@plantman It's more than Hillary losing. It would have been easy to connect the dots of
the entire plot to get Trump. Furthermore, it would have linked Obama and his cohorts in ways
that the country might have exploded. This was the beginning of a Coup De'tat that would have
shown the American political process is a complete joke.
To understand why the DNC mobsters and the Deep State hate him, watch this great 2016
interview where Assange calmly explains the massive corruption that patriotic FBI agents
refer to as the "Clinton Crime Family." This gang is so powerful that it ordered federal
agents to spy on the Trump political campaign, and indicted and imprisoned some participants
in an attempt to pressure President Trump to step down. It seems Trump still fears this gang,
otherwise he would order his attorney general to drop this bogus charge against Assange, then
pardon him forever and invite him to speak at White House press conferences.
Well, here was my own take on the controversy a couple of years ago, and I really haven't
seen anything to change my mind:
Well, DC is still a pretty dangerous city, but how many middle-class whites were
randomly murdered there that year while innocently walking the streets? I wouldn't be
surprised if Seth Rich was just about the only one.
Julian Assange has strongly implied that Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails that
cost Hillary Clinton the presidency. So if Seth Rich died in a totally random street
killing not long afterward, isn't that just the most astonishing coincidence in all of
American history?
Consider that the leaks effectively nullified the investment of the $2 billion or so
that her donors had provided, and foreclosed the flood of good jobs and appointments to her
camp-followers, not to mention the oceans of future graft. Seems to me that's a pretty good
motive for murder.
Here's my own plausible speculation from a couple of months ago:
Incidentally, I'd guess that DC is a very easy place to arrange a killing, given that
until the heavy gentrification of the last dozen years or so, it was one of America's
street-murder capitals. It seems perfectly plausible that some junior DNC staffer was at
dinner somewhere, endlessly cursing Seth Rich for having betrayed his party and
endangered Hillary's election, when one of his friends said he knew somebody who'd be
willing to "take care of the problem" for a thousand bucks
Let's say a couple of hundred thousand middle-class whites lived in DC around then, and
Seth Rich was about the only one that year who died in a random street-killing, occurring not
long after the leak.
Wouldn't that seem like a pretty unlikely coincidence?
"If Rich was indeed responsible for the theft of the information and was possibly killed for
his treachery ."
Heroism is the proper term for what Seth Rich did. He saw the real treachery, against
Bernie Sanders and the democratic faithful who expect at least a modicum of integrity from
their Party leaders (even if that expectation is utterly fanciful, wishful thinking), and he
decided to act. He paid for it with his life. A young, noble life.
In every picture I've seen of him, he looks like a nice guy, a guy who cared. And now he's
dead. And the assholes at the DNC simply gave him a small plaque over a bike rack, as I
understand it.
Seth Rich: American Hero. A Truth-Teller who paid the ultimate price.
Great reporting, Phil. Another home run.
(And thanks to Ron for chiming in. Couldn't agree more. As a Truth-Teller extraordinaire,
please watch your back, Bro. And Phil, too. You both know what these murderous scum are
capable of.)
Because the {real} killers of JFK, MLK and RFK were never detained and jailed/hanged, why
would one expect a lesser known, more ordinary individual's murder [Seth] to be solved?
Seymour Hersh, in a taped phone conversation, claimed to have access to an FBI report on the
murder. According to Hersh, the report indicated tha FBI Cyber Unit examined Rich's computer
and found he had contacted Wikileaks with the intention of selling the emails.
Another reason Assange may not want to reveal it, if Seth Rich was a source for Wikileaks,
could be that Seth Rich didn't act alone, and revealing Seth's involvement would compromise
the other(s).
Or it could simply be that Wikileaks has promised to never reveal a source, even after
that source's death, as a promise to future potential sources, who may never want their
identities revealed, to avoid the thought of embarrassment or repercussions to their
associates or families.
Incidentally, they only started really going after Assange after the Vault 7 leaks of the
CIA's active bag of software tricks. I think, for Assange's sake, they should instead have
held on to that, and made it the payload of a dead man's switch.
I'm not sure how credible the source is but Ellen Ratner, the sister of Assange's former
lawyer and a journalist, told Ed Butowsky that Assange told her that it was Seth Rich. She
asked Butowsky to contact Rich's parents. She confirms the Assange meeting in an interview,
link below. Butowsky does not seem to be a credible source but Ratner does. If it was Seth
Rich then I have no doubt that his brother knows the details and the family does not want to
lose another son.
"According to Assange's lawyers, Rohrabacher offered a pardon from President Trump if Assange
were to provide information that would attribute the theft or hack of the Democratic National
Committee emails to someone other than the Russians."
Not to quibble on semantics but Rohrabacher met with Assange to ask if he would be willing
to reveal the source of the emails then Rohrabacher would contact Trump and try to make deal
for Assange's freedom. Rohrabacher clarified that he never talked to Trump or that he was
authorized by Trump to make any offer.
The MSM has been using the "amnesty if you say it was not the Russians" narrative to hint
at a coverup by Russian agent Trump. Normal for the biased MSM.
Giraldi's link "Assange did not take the offer" has nothing to do with Rohrabacher's
contact. It's just a general piece on Assange acting as a journalist should act.
I'm of the opinion Ron Unz seems to share, that Rich was not a particularly "big hitter" in
the DNC hierarchy and that his murder was more likely the result of a very nasty inter-party
squabble. I seem to recall a LOT of very nasty talk between the Jewish neocons in the Bush
era and the decent, traditional "small-government" style Republicans who greatly resented the
neocons' hijacking of the GOP for their demonic zionist agenda.
Common sense would suggest that the zionist types who have (obviously) hijacked the DNC
are at least as nasty and ruthless as the neocons who destroyed any decency or fair-play
within the GOP. It's not exactly hard to believe that these Murder, Inc. types (also lefties
of their era) wouldn't hesitate to whack someone like Rich for merely uttering a criticism of
Israel, for example.
Hell, Meyer Lansky ordered the hit-job on Bugsy Seigel for forgetting to bring bagels to a
sit-down ! There was a great web-site by a mobster of that era, long since taken down, who
described the story in detail. I forget the names .. but I'll see if I can't find a copy of
some of the pieces posted at least a decade ago .
It's not exactly hard to imagine some very nasty words being exchanged between the Rahm
Emmanuel types and decent Chicago citizens, for example, who genuinely cared for their city
and weren't afraid of The Big Jew and his mobster cronies . to their detriment I'm sure.
We're talking about organized crime, here, folks. The zionists make the so-called (mostly
fictitious) Sicilian Mafia look like newborn puppies. They wouldn't hesitate to whack a guy
like Rich for taking their favorite space in the bicycle rack.
My only trouble with the Seth Rich thing is, it seems a bit extreme, they seem quite callous
in murdering foreigners but US citizens in the US who are their staffers? If they really were
prepared to go out and kill in this way, they're be a lot more suspicious deaths.
What makes the case most compelling is the very quick investigation by police that looks
like they were told by somebody concerned about how the whole thing looked to close up the
case nice and quickly. That and the fact that he was shot in the back, which doesn't make
sense for an attempted robbery turned murder.
However, it may also be that as in so many cities in the US, murder clearance rates for
street shootings (Little forensic evidence, can only go by witness accounts or through poor
alibis from usual suspects and their associates. In this case there is also no connection
between Rich and any possible shooter with no witnesses.) are just so very low that DC police
don't bother and Seth Rich's death just happened to be one such case that attracted some
scrutiny.
But then maybe for the reasons above a place like DC is perfect to just murder somebody on
the street and that's why they were so brazen about it.
Seth Rich's death just happened to be one such case that attracted some scrutiny.
Well, upthread someone posted a recording of a Seymour Hersh phone call that confirmed
Seth Rich was the fellow who leaked the DNC emails to Wikileaks, thereby possibly swinging
the presidential election to Trump and overcoming $2 billion of Democratic campaign
advertising.
Shortly afterwards, he probably became about the only middle-class white in DC who died in
a "random street killing" that year. If you doubt this, see if you can find any other such
cases that year.
I think it is *extraordinarily* unlikely that these two elements are unconnected and
merely happened together by chance.
What the Clintons and their allies are capable of, indeed! Cord Meyer bragged of recruiting
Bill. His wifey's CIA handlers I mean allies planted her on the House Judiciary Committee
staff to conceal key authorities bearing on the Watergate investigation. They illicitly
enriched her with a commodity trading wheeze as hilariously, blatantly improbable as the
Zorro Trust's New Mexico lottery win (itself recently reburied with factoids as
contemptuously half-assed as George Bush the CIA Janitor:)
CIA put Bill to work laundering drug money at Mena. Then the couple ran that unprecedented
macro-scale covert ops slush fund the Clinton Foundation.
To install Hillary as presidential figurehead, DCI John Brennan initiated the
Russia-hacking Big Lie with its chorus of elderly spooks in the Mockingbird media. Misjudging
Hillary's profoundly repulsive personality, Brennan failed.
Now Hillary, ridden with Parkisons, is squawking and wobbling like Ahnold's faulty
disguise in Total Recall, and CIA has given up on her. But they haven't given up on ruling
your country. Lest we forget, the guy who's now buying the party and hiring its apparatchiks
has got his own CIA medal in the vault: he set up the biggest domestic Chiến dịch
Phụng Hoàng center in New York.
"... The Russiagate investigation, which had formerly focused against the current US President, has reversed direction and now targets the prior President. ..."
"... In order to appreciate the seriousness of that misconduct and its implications, it is useful to understand certain procedural and substantive requirements that apply to the government's conduct of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. Title I of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA ), codified as amended at 50 USC. 1801-1813, governs such electronic surveillance. It requires the government to apply for and receive an order from the FISC approving a proposed electronic surveillance. When deciding whether to grant such an application, a FISC judge must determine among other things, whether it provides probable cause to believe that the proposed surveillance target is a "foreign power" or an agent a foreign power. ..."
"... The government has a heightened duty of candor to the FISC in ex parte proceedings, that is, ones in which the government does not face an adverse party, such as proceedings on electronic surveillance applications. The FISC expects the government to comply with its heightened duty of candor in ex parte proceedings at all times. Candor is fundamental to this Court's effective operation. ..."
"... On December 9, 2019, the government filed, with the FISC, public and classified versions of the OIG Report. It documents troubling instances in which FBI personnel provided information to NSD ..."
"... which was unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession. It also describes several instances in which FBI personnel withheld from NSD information in their possession which was detrimental to their case for believing that Mr. ..."
"... Page was acting as an agent of a foreign power. ..."
"... MACCALLUM: Were you surprised that he ..."
"... seemed to give himself such a distance from the entire operation? ..."
"... "JAMES COMEY: As the director sitting on top of an organization of 38,000 people you can't run an investigation that's seven layers below you. You have to leave it to the career professionals to do." ..."
"... MACCALLUM: Do you believe that? ..."
"... BARR: No, I think that the -- one of the problems with what happened was precisely that they pulled the investigation up to the executive floors, and it was run and bird dogged by a very small group of very high level officials. And the idea that this was seven layers below him is simply not true. ..."
"... Allegedly, George Papadopoulos said that "Halper insinuated to him that Russia was helping the Trump campaign" , and Papadopoulos was shocked at Halper's saying this. Probably because so much money at the Pentagon is untraceable, some of the crucial documentation on this investigation might never be found. For example, the Defense Department's Inspector General's 2 July 2019 report to the US Senate said "ONA personnel could not provide us any evidence that Professor Halper visited any of these locations, established an advisory group, or met with any of the specific people listed in the statement of work." ..."
"... very profitable business ..."
"... Schultz and other members of the DNC staff had exercised bias against Bernie Sanders and in favor of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Democratic primaries -- which favoritism had been the reason why Obama had appointed Shultz to that post to begin with. She was just doing her job for the person who had chosen her to lead the DNC. Likewise for Comey. In other words: Comey was Obama's pick to protect Clinton, and to oppose Trump (who had attacked both Clinton and Obama). ..."
"... Nowadays, Obama is telling the Party's billionaires that Elizabeth Warren would be good for them , but not that Sanders would -- he never liked Sanders. ..."
"... and, so, Trump now will be gunning against Obama ..."
"... Whatever the outcome will be, it will be historic, and unprecedented. (If Sanders becomes the nominee, it will be even more so; and, if he then wins on November 3rd, it will be a second American Revolution; but, this time, a peaceful one -- if that's even possible, in today's hyper-partisan, deeply split, USA.) ..."
"... There is no way that the outcome from this will be status-quo. Either it will be greatly increased further schism in the United States, or it will be a fundamental political realignment, more comparable to 1860 than to anything since. ..."
"... Reform is no longer an available option, given America's realities. A far bigger leap than that will be required in order for this country to avoid falling into an utter abyss, which could be led by either Party, because both Parties have brought the nation to its present precipice, the dark and lightless chasm that it now faces, and which must now become leapt, in order to avoid a free-fall into oblivion. ..."
"... The problem in America isn't either Obama or Trump; it's neither merely the Democratic Party, nor merely the Republican Party; it is instead both; it is the Deep State . ..."
Former US President
Barack Obama is now in severe legal jeopardy, because the Russiagate investigation has turned
180 degrees; and he, instead of the current President, Donald Trump, is in its cross-hairs.
The biggest crime that a US President can commit is to try to defeat American democracy (the
Constitutional functioning of the US Government) itself, either by working with foreign powers
to take it over, or else by working internally within America to sabotage democracy for his or
her own personal reasons. Either way, it's treason (crime that is intended to, and does,
endanger the continued functioning of the Constitution itself*), and Mr. Obama is now being
actively investigated, as possibly having done this.
The Russiagate investigation, which had
formerly focused against the current US President, has reversed direction and now targets the
prior President. Although he, of course, cannot be removed from office (since he is no longer
in office), he is liable under criminal laws, the same as any other American would be, if he
committed any crime while he was in office.
A
December 17th order by the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) Court severely
condemned the performance by the FBI under Obama, for having obtained, on 19 October 2016 (even prior to the US Presidential
election), from that Court, under false pretenses, an authorization for the FBI to commence
investigating Donald Trump's Presidential campaign, as being possibly in collusion with
Russia's Government. The Court's ruling said:
In order to appreciate the seriousness of that misconduct and its implications, it is
useful to understand certain procedural and substantive requirements that apply to the
government's conduct of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes. Title I of
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA ), codified as amended at 50 USC. 1801-1813,
governs such electronic surveillance. It requires the government to apply for and receive an
order from the FISC approving a proposed electronic surveillance. When deciding whether to
grant such an application, a FISC judge must determine among other things, whether it
provides probable cause to believe that the proposed surveillance target is a "foreign power"
or an agent a foreign power.
The government has a heightened duty of candor to the FISC in ex parte proceedings, that
is, ones in which the government does not face an adverse party, such as proceedings on
electronic surveillance applications. The FISC expects the government to comply with its
heightened duty of candor in ex parte proceedings at all times. Candor is fundamental to this
Court's effective operation.
On December 9, 2019, the government filed, with the FISC, public and classified versions
of the OIG Report. It documents troubling instances in which FBI personnel provided information
to NSD [National Security Division of the Department of Justice] which was unsupported
or contradicted by information in their possession. It also describes several instances in
which FBI personnel withheld from NSD information in their possession which was detrimental to
their case for believing that Mr. [Carter] Page was acting as an agent of a foreign
power.
On December 18th, Martha McCallum, of Fox News,
interviewed US Attorney General Bill Barr , and asked him (at 7:00 in the video
) how high up in the FBI the blame for this (possible treason) goes:
MACCALLUM: Were you surprised that he [Obama's FBI Director James Comey]
seemed to give himself such a distance from the entire operation?
"JAMES COMEY: As the director sitting on top of an organization of 38,000 people you
can't run an investigation that's seven layers below you. You have to leave it to the career
professionals to do."
MACCALLUM: Do you believe that?
BARR: No, I think that the -- one of the problems with what happened was precisely
that they pulled the investigation up to the executive floors, and it was run and bird dogged
by a very small group of very high level officials. And the idea that this was seven layers
below him is simply not true.
The current (Trump) A.G. there called the former (Obama) FBI Director a liar on that.
If Comey gets heat for this possibly lie-based FBI investigation of the US Presidential
nominee from the opposite Party of the sitting US President (Comey's own boss, Obama), then
protecting himself could become Comey's top motivation; and, in that condition, protecting his
former boss might become only a secondary concern for him.
Though Halper actually did no such studies for the Pentagon,
he instead functioned as a paid FBI informant (and it's not yet clear whether that money came
from the Pentagon, which spends
trillions of dollars that are off-the-books and untraceable ), and at some point Trump's
campaign became a target of Halper's investigation. This investigation was nominally to examine
"The Russia-China Relationship: The impact on US Security interests."
It seems that the Pentagon-contracted work was a cover-story, like
pizza parlors have been for some Mafia operations. But, anyway, this is how America's
'democracy' actually functions .
And, of course, America's
Deep State works not only through governmental agencies but also through
underworld organizations . That's just reality, not at all speculative. It's been this way
for decades, at least since the time of Truman's Presidency (as is documented at that
link).
Furthermore, inasmuch as this operation certainly involved Obama's CIA Director John Brennan
and others, and not only top officials at the FBI, there is no chance that Comey would have
been the only high official who was involved in it. And if Comey was
involved, then he would have been acting in his own interest, and not only in his boss's -- and
here's why: Comey would be expected to have been highly motivated to oppose Mr. Trump,
because Trump publicly questioned whether NATO (the main international selling-arm for
America's 'defense'-contractors) should continue to exist, and also because Comey's entire
career had been in the service of America's Military-Industrial Complex, which is the reason
why Comey's main
lifetime income has been the tens of millions of dollars he has received via the revolving door
between his serving the federal Government and his serving firms such as Lockheed Martin .
For these people, restoring, and intensifying, and keeping up, the Cold War , is a very profitable business . It's called
by some "the Military-Industrial Complex," and by others "the Deep State," but by any name it
is simply agents of the billionaires who own and control US-based international corporations,
such as General Dynamics and Chevron. As a governmental official, making decisions that are in
the long-term interests of those investors is the likeliest way to become wealthy.
Consequently, Comey would have been benefitting himself, and other high officials of the
Obama Administration, by sabotaging Trump's campaign, and by weakening Trump's Presidency in
the event that he would become elected. Plus, of course, Comey would have been benefitting
Obama himself. Not only was Trump constantly condemning Obama, but Obama had appointed to lead
the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 Presidential primaries, Debbie Wasserman Schultz ,
who as early as
20 February 2007 had endorsed Hillary Clinton for President in the Democratic Party
primaries, so that Shultz was one of the earliest supporters of Clinton against even Obama
himself. In other words, Obama had appointed Shultz in order to
increase the odds that Clinton -- not Sanders -- would become the nominee in 2016 to
continue on and protect his own Presidential legacy. Furthermore, on 28 July 2016, Schultz
became forced to resign from her leadership of the DNC after WikiLeaks released emails
indicating that Schultz and other members of the DNC staff had exercised bias against Bernie
Sanders and in favor of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 Democratic primaries -- which
favoritism had been the reason why Obama had appointed Shultz to that post to begin with. She
was just doing her job for the person who had chosen her to lead the DNC. Likewise for Comey.
In other words: Comey was Obama's pick to protect Clinton, and to oppose
Trump (who had attacked both Clinton and Obama).
Nowadays, Obama is telling the Party's billionaires that Elizabeth Warren would be good for
them , but not that Sanders would -- he never liked Sanders. He wants Warren to get the
voters who otherwise would go for Sanders, and he wants the Party's billionaires to help her
achieve this (be the Party's allegedly 'progressive' option), so that Sanders won't be able to
become a ballot option in the general election to be held on 3 November 2020.
He is telling
them whom not to help win the Party's nomination. In fact, on November 26th,
Huffington Post headlined
"Obama Said He Would Speak Up To Stop Bernie Sanders Nomination: Report" and indicated that
though he won't actually say this in public (but only to the Party's billionaires), Obama is
determined to do all he can to prevent Sanders from becoming the nominee. In 2016, his
choice was Hillary Clinton; but, today, it's anyone other than Sanders; and, so, in a sense, it
remains what it was four years ago -- anyone but Sanders.
Comey's virtually exclusive concern, at the present stage, would be to protect himself, so
that he won't be imprisoned. This means that he might testify against Obama. At this stage,
he's free of any personal obligation to Obama -- Comey is now on his own, up against Trump, who
clearly is his enemy. Some type of back-room plea-bargain is therefore virtually inevitable --
and not only with Comey, but with other top Obama-appointees, ultimately. Obama is thus clearly
in the cross-hairs, from now on. Congressional Democrats have opted to gun against Trump (by
impeaching him); and, so, Trump now will be gunning against Obama -- and against the
entire Democratic Party (unless Sanders becomes its nominee, in which case, Sanders will
already have defeated that Democratic Party, and its adherents will then have to choose between
him versus Trump; and, so, too, will independent voters).
But, regardless of what happens, Obama now is in the cross-hairs. That's not just political
cross-hairs (such as an impeachment process); it is, above all, legal cross-hairs (an
actual criminal investigation). Whereas Trump is up against a doomed effort by the Democratic
Party to replace him by Vice President Mike Pence, Obama will be up against virtually
inevitable criminal charges, by the incumbent Trump Administration. Obama played hardball
against Trump, with "Russiagate," and then with "Ukrainegate"; Trump will now play hardball
against Obama, with whatever his Administration and the Republican Party manage to muster
against Obama; and the stakes this time will be considerably bigger than just whether to
replace Trump by Pence.
Whatever the outcome will be, it will be historic, and unprecedented. (If Sanders becomes
the nominee, it will be even more so; and, if he then wins on November 3rd, it will be a second
American Revolution; but, this time, a peaceful one -- if that's even possible, in today's
hyper-partisan, deeply split, USA.)
There is no way that the outcome from this will be status-quo. Either it will be greatly
increased further schism in the United States, or it will be a fundamental political
realignment, more comparable to 1860 than to anything since.
The US already has a
higher percentage of its people in prison than does any other nation on this planet.
Americans who choose a 'status-quo' option will produce less stability, more violence, not more
stability and a more peaceful nation in a less war-ravaged world. The 2020 election-outcome for
the United States will be a turning-point; there is no way that it will produce reform.
Americans who vote for reform will be only increasing the likelihood of hell-on-Earth. Reform
is no longer an available option, given America's realities. A far bigger leap than that will
be required in order for this country to avoid falling into an utter abyss, which could be led
by either Party, because both Parties have brought the nation to its present precipice, the
dark and lightless chasm that it now faces, and which must now become leapt, in order to avoid
a free-fall into oblivion.
The problem in America isn't either Obama or Trump; it's neither merely the Democratic
Party, nor merely the Republican Party; it is instead both; it is the
Deep State .
That's the reality; and the process that got us here started on 26 July 1945 and secretly continued on the American side even after
the Soviet Union ended and Russia promptly ended its side of the Cold War. The US regime's
ceaseless thrust, since 26 July 1945, to rule the entire world, will climax either in a Third
World War, or in a US revolution to overthrow and remove the Deep State and end its
dictatorship-grip over America. Both Parties have been controlled by that
Deep State , and the final stage or climax of this grip is now drawing near. America thus
has been having a string of the worst
Presidents -- and worst Congresses -- in US history. This is today's reality.
Unfortunately, a lot of American voters think that this extremely destabilizing reality, this
longstanding trend toward war, is okay, and ought to be continued, not ended now and replaced
by a new direction for this country -- the path toward world peace, which FDR had accurately
envisioned but which was aborted on 26 July 1945. No matter how many Americans might vote for
mere reform, they are wrong. Sometimes, only a minority are right. Being correct is not a
majority or minority matter; it is a true or false matter. A misinformed public can willingly
participate in its own -- or even the world's -- destruction. That could happen.
Democracy is a
prerequisite to peace, but it can't exist if the public are being systematically misinformed.
Lies and democracy don't mix together any more effectively than do oil and water.
Paul is probably just trying to get ahead of it. Possibly he was tipped
off he was about to be busted? Just a thought. Nothing better than blaming Q in a leftist mind..
Edit: In the Alex Jones case they sent the child porn as an attachment to
an email. This is straight up using his IP address. I'm no computer expert so I don't know if this can be
done? Or how hard it would be to do.
level 2
If someone had a backdoor into his system, it's theoretically possible
they could have done it by remote control. His description of it is completely ridiculous, though.
Continue this thread
level 1
even though prison limits Internet usage, the good news is he'll be allowed to use a
FAX MACHINE!
(FYI- Krugman's two famous predictions are 1) bitcoin is not worth its $100 price and
will soon go to $0.. and 2) the Internet will fail and be nothing more than a glorified fax machine)
"... Far from being the work of a single political party, intelligence agency or country, the power structure revealed by the network connected to Epstein is nothing less than a criminal enterprise that is willing to use and abuse children in the pursuit of ever more power, wealth and control. ..."
"... According to one U.S. investigator with substantial knowledge of BCCI's activities, some BCCI officials have acknowledged that some of the females provided some members of the Al-Nahyan family [one of the ruling families in the UAE] were young girls who had not yet reached puberty, and in certain cases, were physically injured by the experience. The official said that former BCCI officials had told him that BCCI also provided males to homosexual VIPs." ..."
"... BCCI was largely brought into the United States business community through the efforts of Jackson Stephens and Bert Lance, former budget director for Jimmy Carter, who assisted with BCCI's acquisition of First American Bank. The law firm involved in this effort was Arkansas' Rose Law Firm and it involved several of the firm's lawyers, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, Webster Hubbell and C.J. Giroir. Also involved in the effort was Clark Clifford, former Secretary of Defense under Lyndon B. Johnson, and Kamal Adham, former director general of Saudi intelligence. ..."
"... The late journalist Michael Ruppert asserted that this "bugged software" was none other than the Promis software, which both U.S. and Israeli intelligence had bugged in order to spy on intelligence and which had been marketed in part by Robert Maxwell, father of Jeffrey Epstein's madam, Ghislaine Maxwell. Ruppert cited Systematics as "a primary developer of Promis for financial intelligence use." Promis had originally been leased by Inslaw Inc., a small software company founded by Bill Hamilton, to the Department of Justice -- which later stole it from Inslaw, forcing it to declare bankruptcy. ..."
"... Systematics also had a subsidiary in Israel that, according to a former Israeli intelligence officer, was operated by contractors for the Mossad and sold software to banks and telecommunications companies. According to Richardson's letter, that Israeli subsidiary of Systematics also had a Massachusetts-based front company, which was partially owned by a former U.S. intelligence official. ..."
"... Two partners in the Rose Law Firm who would later serve in the Clinton administration, Vince Foster and Webster Hubbell, acquired significant financial interests in Systematics through ownership in Alltel, which purchased Systematics in the early 1990s. The Hamiltons also provide considerable evidence that Foster's distress prior to his death in 1993 appears to have been related to concerns about litigation involving Systematics and the on-going litigation over Promis' theft. ..."
"... Casolaro had been investigating an international crime syndicate he termed " the Octopus " at the time of his death in 1991. Casolaro believed that this "Octopus" involved powerful individuals in the private and public sectors as well as the criminal underworld and that they were collectively responsible for some of the biggest scandals of the 1980s, including Iran-Contra, BCCI and the theft of the Promis software. ..."
"... Two days after arriving in Martinsburg, Casolaro was found dead in his hotel room and his briefcase full of his research notes and evidence was missing. His death was ruled a suicide. ..."
"... Speculation only grew following the FBI investigation , given that the FBI lied to Congress, pressured its own agents not to question whether it was a suicide and lost 90 percent of its files related to Casolaro's death -- among other glaring inconsistencies. ..."
"... Ostrovsky, in his #1 New York Times bestseller " By Way of Deception ," notes that Khashoggi had been recruited by the Mossad years before and that his private jet had been fitted in Israel. In relation to Iran-Contra, Ostrovsky claims that it was a $5 million bridge loan that Khashoggi provided that helped to overcome the lack of trust between Israel and Iran during the initial arms deals in the early 1980s, and thus his participation was critical to the success of the scheme. ..."
"... One of Epstein's clients after leaving Bear Stearns, per Ward's sources, was the CIA/Mossad-linked Khashoggi at the very time that Khashoggi was involved in Iran-Contra, an operation involving both U.S. and Israeli intelligence. British journalist Nigel Rosser reported in January 2001 in the Evening Standard that Epstein had claimed that he was also working for the CIA during this same time period. ..."
"... Since Epstein's arrest, records of Rosser's article have been scrubbed from British newspaper archives, including the Evening Standard 's own. However, MintPress independently confirmed with Bob Fitrakis, whom Rosser had interviewed for the article in question, that the article did allege that Epstein used to claim he worked for the CIA. In addition, other reports from the time period cited excerpts of Rosser's article, including the reference to Epstein's past claims of involvement with the CIA. ..."
"... Though Epstein denied past connections to the CIA at the time Rosser's article was published, it is worth mentioning that Robert Maxwell -- father of Ghislaine Maxwell and long-time Mossad operative -- also vehemently denied his now well-documented links to Israeli intelligence until his death. Furthermore, as will be shown later in this article, Epstein and his only known billionaire "client," Leslie Wexner, would later forge a business relationship with the CIA front company Southern Air Transport and play a major role in the airline's relocation to Columbus, Ohio in the mid-1990s. During that period, two prominent Ohio officials believed that both Epstein and Wexner were working with the CIA, according to Ohio-based journalist Bob Fitrakis. ..."
"... Furthermore, there is the additional fact that BCCI trafficked underage girls for sex as a means of obtaining favors from and gaining leverage over powerful individuals, something in which Epstein would later become deeply involved. As was shown in Part II of this series, several individuals who were running either sexual blackmail operations involving minors or child trafficking operations were connected to CIA front companies like BCCI, other organizations connected to the Iran-Contra scandal, and several individuals close to the Reagan White House. ..."
"... The CIA director at the time, Bill Casey, was a close friend of Roy Cohn, who also ran the sexual blackmail operation involving underage boys out of Manhattan's Plaza Hotel, described in Part I of this series. According to Cohn's long-time secretary Christine Seymour, Casey was one of Cohn's most frequent callers. ..."
"... [T]he CIA may have used B.C.C.I. as more than an undercover banker: U.S. agents collaborated with the black network in several operations, according to a B.C.C.I. black-network "officer" who is now a secret U.S. government witness. Sources have told investigators that B.C.C.I. worked closely with Israel's spy agencies and other Western intelligence groups as well, especially in arms deals ." (emphasis added) ..."
"... Later iterations of that arms deal were allegedly brokered with the involvement of Prince Charles of the British royal family, and corruption investigations into Al Yamamah were later shut down by the efforts of Tony Blair as well as Prince Andrew. Leese is said to have spoken of Epstein's "genius" and lack of morals when he introduced him to Steve Hoffenberg of Tower Financial, and soon after that introduction Hoffenberg hired Epstein. ..."
"... Two years after BCCI's fraud-driven collapse, Tower Financial imploded in 1993 in what is still considered to be one of the largest Ponzi schemes in American history. Hoffenberg later asserted in court that Epstein had been intimately involved in Tower's shady financial practices and had called Epstein the "architect of the scam." However, by the time Tower Financial had collapsed, Epstein was no longer working for the company. Despite Hoffenberg's testimony and abundant evidence regarding Epstein's role in the scheme, Epstein's name was mysteriously dropped from the case. ..."
"... It is likely that Epstein's conspicuous cultivation and support of prominent scientists was in fact camouflage to help cover his real role as a covert operative specializing in blackmail. Comments by some scientists who attended his soirees indicate that Epstein was scientifically an ignoramus and was unserious in scientific discussions. ..."
"... The Mena story was an open secret in Arkansas. Paul Greenberg (who bestowed the monicker "Slick Willie" upon The Boy Wonder) wrote extensively upon this subject. There have been rumors–never confirmed– that Clinton may have been recruited by Spook Inc. as early as his undergrad days at G-Town (it's still not clear how Clinton, a relatively unknown American college graduate, could gain entry into the USSR in the summer of '69 for a "vacation" at a time when our relations with that country were as low as they ever were). ..."
"... What con man does not claim to be a secret agent? ..."
"... Epstein also claimed to be a blackmailer, He promoted himself as freelance secret agent, acting for governments or malefactors whichever paid most, when he was trying to get a journalist to write a book about him in the eighties. Last year Epstein told a NYT journalist that he had compromising material on top tech magnates (this was probably Elon Musk) ..."
"... There was another interview around the same time in which Epstein "rambled" about the big tech people he knew to business reporters at his mansion. Every reporter who was around him decided he was full of it. ..."
"... Going on like this, Epstein would have been disposed of by his own organisation .. if it actually existed. The Mafia kill people for far less ..."
"... Wexner was one of five key managers of organized crime cash flows in the United States. many members of the so-called Mega Group, which Wexner co-founded, had direct ties to the Lansky crime syndicate. Meyer Lansky was a pioneer of sexual blackmail operations and was deeply connected to both U.S. intelligence and Israel's Mossad. ..."
"... I don't buy a word of this. Too much emphasis on sex trafficking, the meaningless description underage and the so-called victims. For some reason everyone believed the story that Epstein was some kind of pervert. Only children trust the Government when it says sex crime, WMD, ISIS or UFO. ..."
Far from being the work of a single political party, intelligence agency or country, the
power structure revealed by the network connected to Epstein is nothing less than a criminal
enterprise that is willing to use and abuse children in the pursuit of ever more power, wealth
and control.
On August 10th, and for several days after, speculation swirled after it was announced that
Jeffrey Epstein had been found dead in his cell. His cause of death has officially been ruled
suicide by hanging.
Epstein, the billionaire pedophile and sex trafficker with a myriad of connections to the
rich and powerful in the United States and several other countries, had told those close to him
that he had feared for his life prior to his sudden "suicide," the Washington Post
reported, while his defense lawyers claimed that he had planned to cooperate with federal
authorities.
Following the controversial conclusion by the New York Medical Examiner that Epstein's death
was a suicide -- a conclusion contested by Epstein's attornies as well as by independent
forensic pathologists, given the apparent evidence pointing towards strangulation -- corporate
media coverage of the Epstein case has slowed to a trickle, save for sensationalist stories
about his alleged co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell and new salacious details of his past. Gone
from corporate media are any hints of the larger scandal, revolving around the admission that
Epstein had "belonged to intelligence."
In this four-part series, " The Jeffrey Epstein Scandal:
Too Big to Fail ," MintPress has revealed that Epstein's activities -- a sexual
blackmail operation involving minors and connected to intelligence agencies -- was one of many
such operations that have taken place for decades, developing from the nexus forged between the
CIA, organized crime and Israeli intelligence shortly after World War II.
As Part
II of this series revealed, these sexual blackmail operations proliferated during the
Iran-Contra affair, which involved this same dark alliance between U.S./Israeli intelligence
and organized crime. Though this series has thus far largely focused on the ties of Republican
officials to those operations and associated crimes, the final installment of this series will
focus on Democratic politicians, namely the Clinton family, and their ties to this same network
as well as Jeffrey Epstein.
The Clintons' own involvement in Iran-Contra revolved around the covert activities at
Arkansas' Mena Airport, which involved the CIA front company Southern Air Transport and
occurred while Clinton was governor. Just a few years into the Clinton presidential
administration, Leslie Wexner and Jeffrey Epstein would play a major role in Southern Air
Transport's relocation to Columbus, Ohio, leading to concerns among top Ohio officials that
both men were not only working with the CIA, but that Wexner's company, The Limited, sought to
use the CIA-linked airline for smuggling.
During that same period of time, Epstein had already forged close ties to important Clinton
White House officials and prominent Clinton donors like Lynn Forester de Rothschild and made
several personal visits to the official presidential residence.
Some of these ties appear related to Epstein's shady financial activities, particularly
involving currency markets and offshore tax havens -- activities he began to perfect while
working for prominent Iran-Contra figures in the early 1980s, several of whom were tied to the
CIA-linked bank Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) and had known relationships
with Israeli intelligence, namely the Mossad. The nature of Epstein's work for these
individuals and other evidence strongly suggests that Epstein himself had a relationship with
BCCI after leaving Bear Stearns and prior to the bank's collapse in 1991.
Of particular importance are Epstein's relationship to the Clinton Foundation and the
alleged role of Epstein's Virgin Islands-based hedge fund and the Clinton Foundation in money
laundering activity, a relationship still under investigation by MintPress .
It is this tale of intrigue that fully reveals the extent to which this decades-old alliance
between organized crime, the CIA, and Israeli intelligence has corrupted and influenced
politicians of both political parties, both through the use of sexual blackmail and through
other means of coercion.
Far from being the work of a single intelligence agency or a single country, the power
structure revealed by this network connected to Epstein is nothing less than a criminal
enterprise that transcends nationality and is willing to use and abuse children in the pursuit
of ever more power, wealth and control. Existing for decades and willing to use any means
necessary to cover its tracks, this criminal racket has become so integrated into the levers of
power, in the United States and well beyond, that it is truly too big to fail.
When one thinks back to the now-famous Iran-Contra scandal, names like Ronald Reagan, Oliver
North and Barry Seal comes to mind, but former President Bill Clinton also played an outsized
role in the scandal -- using his home state of Arkansas, where he was then serving as governor,
as a sort of rallying point for the CIA's U.S.-side of the Central American operation.
In fact, during Clinton's reign as governor a small town called Mena, nestled in the Ozark
Mountains west of Arkansas' capital Little Rock, would be propelled into the national spotlight
as a hub for drug and arms smuggling and the training of CIA-backed far-right militias.
Under the close watch of the CIA, then led by William Casey, the Mena Intermountain Regional
Airport was used to stockpile
and deliver arms and ammunition to the Nicaraguan Contras. The arms were sometimes exchanged
for cocaine from South American cartels, which would then be sent back to Mena and used to fund
the covert CIA operation.
Though efforts have been made to dismiss Clinton's role in the scandal, his direct
intervention in the Contras' attempts to overthrow the Sandinista government of Nicaragua
suggests Clinton had some sort of personal stake in the efforts and was unlikely aloof to the
major smuggling operation taking place in his state while he had been governor. In fact, while
governor, Clinton split with many other state governments in
sending a contingency of the Arkansas National Guard to Honduras to train the Nicaraguan
Contras on how to overthrow their Sandinista government. Clinton would also discuss his
first-hand knowledge of the operation with now-Trump administration Attorney General William
Barr.
Much of this channeling of both weapons and drugs was carried out by notorious drug smuggler
and alleged CIA/DEA operative Barry Seal. According to the book Whiteout: the CIA,
Drugs and the Press by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair:
A federal investigation aided by the Arkansas State Police established that Barry Seal, a
drug dealer working for the Medellin cartel as well as with the C.I.A. and the D.E.A., had
his planes retrofitted at Mena for drug drops, trained pilots there and laundered his profits
partly through financial institutions in Arkansas. Seal, at this time was in close contact
with [Oliver] North, who acknowledged the relationship in his memoir. These were the years in
which North was constructing his covert supply lines for the contras."
Seal was known to use aircraft that belonged to the company Southern Air Transport and he
also employed flight crews that worked for that same company. Southern Air Transport, formerly
Air America, was once directly owned by the CIA and today is remembered for being a CIA front
during Iran-Contra. Less known is the relationship between the CIA-linked airline and Leslie
Wexner and his then-close associate Jeffrey Epstein, which will be discussed in detail later in
this report.
Seal seemed to always operate with much less than six degrees of separation from Clinton
while the latter served as governor. In his 1999 confessional expose, Cross-fire: Witness
in the Clinton Investigation, former Arkansas policeman turned personal driver
and security guard for Bill Clinton, L.D. Brown, recounts how Clinton encouraged him to seek
out a post at the CIA. Clinton allegedly went so far as to edit the essay Brown wrote for this
employment application. The essay topic was drug smuggling in Central America. Upon receiving
his application, the CIA put Brown in touch with none other than Barry Seal. Seal would later
be gunned down in 1986 while serving six-months probation for drug-smuggling charges.
Seal was not the only affiliate of Oliver North running a Contra-connected operation in
Arkansas. Terry Reed, who had worked for North since 1983, claimed to have been put in touch
with Seal by North and established a base just 10 miles north of Mena -- in Nella, Arkansas --
where "Nicaraguan Contras and other recruits from Latin American were trained in resupply
missions, night landings, precision paradrops and similar maneuvers," according to Cockburn and
St. Clair. Reed further asserted that drug money was being laundered through Arkansas financial
institutions.
After Clinton's half-brother Roger was busted for cocaine smuggling (Clinton would later
pardon him while president) the CIA sought to move Contra operations out of Arkansas, hoping to
put a damper on the increasingly public and sloppy Arkansas-based operation. According to Terry
Reed in his book Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA , co-written with John Cummings, a hushed
meeting was held in a bunker at Camp Robinson in North Little Rock, Arkansas. During the
meeting, William Barr, who represented himself as the emissary of then-CIA Director Bill Casey
told Clinton:
The deal we made was to launder our money through your bond business but what we didn't
plan on was you and your n****r here start taking yourselves seriously and purposely
shrinking our laundry."
Barr chastised Clinton for his sloppy handling of the delicate operation and his
half-brother's very public fall from grace. He would later tell Clinton,
according to Reed ,
Bill, you are Mr. Casey's fair-haired boy You and your state have been our greatest asset.
Mr. Casey wanted me to pass on to you that unless you fuck up and do something stupid, you're
No. 1 on the short list for a shot at the job that you've always wanted. You and guys like
you are the fathers of the new government. We are the new covenant."
Attempts to investigate Clinton's role in the Mena operations and more broadly in the
Iran-Contra affair were allegedly axed by Clinton's own confidantes, who consistently denied he
played a role in the scandal. According to the Wall Street Journal , former IRS
investigator William Duncan teamed with Arkansas State Police Investigator Russell Welch in
what became a decade-long battle to bring the matter to light. In fact, of the nine separate
state and federal probes into the affair, all failed.
Duncan would later say of the investigations, "[They] were interfered with and covered up,
and the justice system was subverted," and a 1992 memo from Duncan to high-ranking members of
the attorney general's staff notes that Duncan was instructed "to remove all files concerning
the Mena investigation from the attorney general's office." The attorney general, serving under
George H. W. Bush, at that time was William Barr, who is
currently attorney general under Trump.
Another Clinton connection to the CIA and the Iran-Contra affair runs through the family's
connection to Arkansas financier Jackson Stephens and the CIA-linked Bank of
Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), which critics nicknamed the "Bank of Crooks and
Criminals International." Stephens was among the richest people in Arkansas and was also a
major donor and backer of Ronald
Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill
Clinton . He also played a key role in the rise of
Walmart .
Jackson Stephens and other members of the Stephens family bankrolled
Bill Clinton's rise to political prominence , contributing large sums of money to both
Clinton's gubernatorial and his later presidential campaigns. In addition, Worthen Bank, which
was majority-owned by Stephens, provided Clinton's first presidential campaign a $3.5 million
line of credit. In addition, Stephens' many businesses were frequently represented by the Rose
Law Firm, where Hillary Clinton was a partner.
A redacted
FBI report from 1998 describes Stephens as having "lengthy and continuing ties to the
Clinton administration and associates" and also discusses allegations that Stephens has been
involved in the "illegal handling of campaign contributions to the Democratic National
Party."
BCCI had originally been founded by a group of bankers from Pakistan, though Newsweeklater reported
that CIA officials appeared to have been involved in the bank's founding and that BCCI founder
Agha Hasan Abedi had been encouraged by the CIA to found the bank after "the agency realized
that an international bank could provide valuable cover for intelligence operations." CIA
documents that later surfaced during congressional hearings on the bank's activities and
related scandals stated
that BCCI was directly involved in "money laundering, narco-financing, gunrunning and
holding large sums of money for terrorist groups."
Evidence in the case against BCCI shows
cocaine seized from a warehouse and suitcases full of cash to be laundered. Photo | FLMD
District Court
Though BCCI was known for its CIA links, Catherine Austin Fitts -- former Assistant
Secretary for Housing–Federal Housing Commissioner at HUD during the George H. W. Bush
administration, and investment banker with the firms Hamilton Securities Group and Dillon, Read
& Co. -- believes that those links went well beyond the CIA. Fitts -- who was placed on the
board of the BCCI subsidiary First American Bank following BCCI's collapse -- told
MintPress that, after reading through troves of documents regarding the bank's
activities prior to its implosion, it was clear to her that there was "no way" its clandestine
activities were carried on without the full knowledge of the Federal Reserve, specifically the
Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the White House.
BCCI also played a key role in the
Iran-Contra affair and accounts of the bank were used to send payoffs to individuals linked to
the scheme. Adnan Khashoggi, a key figure and intermediary in the scandal, used one BCCI
account to move more than $20 million related to illegal arms sales and BCCI created fake
documentation, including checks signed by Oliver North, allowing the sale to go forward. The
bank later, when its activities subsequently came under congressional scrutiny, claimed it had
no records of these transactions.
In addition, BCCI appears to have been involved in the sex trafficking of underage girls,
including girls that had not yet reached puberty. According to the report entitled " The BCCI Affair ," by
then-U.S. Senators John Kerry (D-MA) and Hank Brown (R-CO), BCCI officials were alleged to have
obtained leverage with powerful individuals, including prominent members of the ruling families
of the United Arab Emirates (UAE), by providing them with young virgins.
According to one U.S. investigator with substantial knowledge of BCCI's activities, some
BCCI officials have acknowledged that some of the females provided some members of the
Al-Nahyan family [one of the ruling families in the UAE] were young girls who had not yet
reached puberty, and in certain cases, were physically injured by the experience. The
official said that former BCCI officials had told him that BCCI also provided males to
homosexual VIPs."
BCCI was largely brought into the United States business community through the efforts of
Jackson Stephens and Bert Lance, former budget director for Jimmy Carter, who assisted with
BCCI's acquisition of First American Bank. The law firm
involved in this effort was Arkansas' Rose Law Firm and it involved several of the firm's
lawyers, including Hillary Rodham Clinton, Webster Hubbell and C.J. Giroir. Also involved in
the effort was Clark Clifford, former Secretary of Defense under Lyndon B. Johnson, and Kamal
Adham, former director general of Saudi intelligence.
One of the men added to the BCCI board after the acquisition of First American Bank was
Robert Keith Gray, whom Newsweek
described as often having "boasted of his close relationship with the CIA's William Casey;
Gray used to say that before taking on a foreign client, he would clear it with Casey." As was
discussed in Part
II of this series, Gray was also an expert in homosexual blackmail operations for the CIA
and was reported to have collaborated with Roy Cohn in those activities. Some of Gray's clients
at the powerful PR firm he led, Hill & Knowlton, included BCCI clients and Mossad-linked
individuals, such as Adnan Khashoggi and Marc Rich.
While the Rose Law Firm was assisting BCCI's entrance into the American financial system, it
also represented the Stephens-owned financial services company, Stephens Inc., as well as
the data-processing company Systematics Inc., which Stephens acquired in the late 1960s.
According to James Norman in his book The Oil Card: Global Economic Warfare in the 21st Century , Systematics was "a
primary vehicle or front company for the National Security Agency in the 1980s and early 1990s
to market and implant bugged software in the world's major money-center banks and
clearinghouses as part of the Reagan/Bush 'follow the money' effort to break the Soviets."
The late journalist Michael Ruppert
asserted that this "bugged software" was none other than the Promis software, which both
U.S. and Israeli intelligence had bugged in order to spy on intelligence and which had been
marketed in part by Robert Maxwell, father of Jeffrey Epstein's madam, Ghislaine Maxwell.
Ruppert cited Systematics as "a primary developer of Promis for financial intelligence use."
Promis had originally been leased by Inslaw Inc., a small software company founded by Bill
Hamilton, to the Department of Justice -- which later stole it from Inslaw, forcing it to
declare bankruptcy.
According to a 1995
document sent on behalf of Inslaw's founders to then-independent Counsel Ken Starr that
asked him to review Inslaw's case, Systematics had "covertly implanted [software] into the
computers of its bank customers" that allowed "allied intelligence agencies surreptitiously to
track and monitor the flow of money through the banking system" and had done so at "the behest
of the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA) and its partner in Israeli intelligence." Inslaw
also stated that the software was used by these same intelligence agencies in the "laundering
of money, especially drug profits."
Systematics also had a subsidiary in Israel that, according to a former Israeli intelligence
officer, was operated by
contractors for the Mossad and sold software to banks and telecommunications companies.
According to Richardson's letter, that Israeli subsidiary of Systematics also had a
Massachusetts-based front company, which was partially owned by a former U.S. intelligence
official.
Two partners in the Rose Law Firm who would later serve in the Clinton administration, Vince
Foster and Webster Hubbell, acquired
significant financial interests in Systematics through ownership in Alltel, which purchased
Systematics in the early 1990s. The Hamiltons also provide considerable evidence that Foster's
distress prior to his death in 1993 appears to have been related to concerns about litigation
involving Systematics and the on-going litigation over Promis' theft.
BCCI itself was known to employ the Promis software after its theft by the DOJ; and one of
its subsidiaries, First American Bank, also " filtered PROMIS money
" -- i.e., laundered the money generated from the sale of the stolen Promis software --
according to the late journalist Danny Casolaro.
Casolaro had been investigating an international crime syndicate he termed " the
Octopus " at the time of his death in 1991. Casolaro believed that this "Octopus" involved
powerful individuals in the private and public sectors as well as the criminal underworld and
that they were collectively responsible for some of the biggest scandals of the 1980s,
including Iran-Contra, BCCI and the theft of the Promis software.
Casolaro had told friends and family that he was close to concluding his investigation and
several people close to him had seen documents involving money transfers involving BCCI and the
World Bank to people involved in these scandals, such as Earl Brian and Adnan Khashoggi.
Casolaro went to Martinsburg, Virginia to meet with some sources to get the final piece of the
puzzle and "bring back the head of the Octopus." Two days after arriving in Martinsburg, Casolaro was found dead in his hotel room and his
briefcase full of his research notes and evidence was missing. His death was ruled a
suicide.
Crime scene photos show deep lacerations in Casolaro's arms
Many, including Casolaro's family, do not believe that Casolaro committed suicide. A week
before his death, Casolaro told his brother he had been receiving death threats and the manner
in which he died, deep slashes in his arms, was not consistent with Casolaro's well-known
squeamishness around even minor amounts of blood. Speculation only grew following the
FBI investigation , given that the FBI lied to Congress, pressured its own agents not to
question whether it was a suicide and lost 90 percent of its files related to Casolaro's death
-- among other glaring inconsistencies.
In a 1994
letter provided to MintPress by Inslaw Inc., Inslaw lawyer Charles Work told
then-Assistant Attorney General John Dwyer that one of Inslaw's confidential sources in
government had stated that Casolaro had been injected with a substance that deadened his nerves
from the neck down, explaining the apparent lack of struggle and that the substance used had
come from the U.S. Army inventory. The person who had arranged Casolaro's final meeting before
his death was a U.S. military intelligence officer named Joseph Cuellar.
The same year that Casolaro died, there were several other suspicious deaths involving
people directly connected to the Promis scandal or involved in Casolaro's investigation of "the
Octopus" -- including Alan Standorf , one of
Casolaro's sources;
Robert Maxwell , father of Ghislaine Maxwell, Mossad operative, and salesman of the bugged
Promis software; and
John Tower -- the former Texas senator who
assisted Maxwell in selling the bugged Promis software to the Los Alamos
laboratories.
While the role Arkansas played in Iran-Contra is one aspect of the scandal that is often
overlooked, so to is the key role played by Israeli intelligence-linked arms dealers and
smugglers who would later be connected to powerful individuals in the Mega Group and Jeffrey
Epstein, such as Marc Rich and Adnan Khashoggi.
One of the key players in the Iran-Contra affair was Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi,
uncle of the slain Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi. One lesser known fact
about Adnan Khashoggi is that, at the time of his Iran-Contra dealings, he was working for the
Israeli Mossad, according to former Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky.
Ostrovsky, in his #1 New York Times bestseller " By Way of Deception ," notes that
Khashoggi had been recruited by the Mossad years before and that his private jet had been
fitted in Israel. In relation to Iran-Contra, Ostrovsky claims that it was a $5 million
bridge loan that Khashoggi provided that helped to overcome the lack of trust between Israel
and Iran during the initial arms deals in the early 1980s, and thus his participation was
critical to the success of the scheme.
According to journalist Vicky Ward ,
Adnan Khashoggi was a client of Jeffrey Epstein's in the early 1980s, not long after Epstein's
departure from Bear Stearns in 1981. The reason Epstein left the bank remains murky. Though
some former Bear Stearns employees claim he was fired, others -- including Epstein himself --
claimed that he resigned of his own volition.
Ward suggests that Epstein may have left the bank owing to a Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) investigation into insider trading in a case that involved a tender offer
placed by the Seagrams corporation for St. Joe Minerals Corp. Seagrams owner Edgar Bronfman,
son of Meyer Lansky associate Samuel Bronfman and member of the Mega Group, had tipped off
several investors and bankers of the coming tender offer. Epstein resigned from Bear Stearns
the day after the SEC opened the case and later claimed he had left the company as a result of
a relatively minor "Reg D" violation and rumors that he had an "illicit affair with a
secretary."
The SEC never brought any charges against anyone at Bear Stearns for insider trading in
St. Joe, but its questioning seems to indicate that it was skeptical of Epstein's answers.
Some sources have wondered why, if he was such a big producer at Bear Stearns, he would have
given it up over a mere $2,500 fine."
Regardless of the exact reason for Epstein's sudden departure, it was immediately after he
left the bank that "the details [of Epstein's work history] recede into shadow. A few of the
handful of current friends who have known him since the early 1980s recall that he used to tell
them he was a "bounty hunter," recovering lost or stolen money for the government or for very
rich people. He has a license to carry a firearm."
Writing
in Salon , a former friend of Epstein's, Jesse Kornbluth, also stated that Epstein
had claimed to be a "bounty hunter" for the rich and powerful:
When we met in 1986, Epstein's double identity intrigued me -- he said he didn't just
manage money for clients with mega-fortunes, he was also a high-level bounty hunter .
Sometimes, he told me, he worked for governments to recover money looted by African
dictators. Other times those dictators hired him to help them hide their stolen money
." (emphasis added)
One of Epstein's clients after leaving Bear Stearns, per Ward's sources, was the
CIA/Mossad-linked Khashoggi at the very time that Khashoggi was involved in Iran-Contra, an
operation involving both U.S. and Israeli intelligence. British journalist Nigel Rosser
reported in January 2001 in the Evening Standard that Epstein had claimed that he was
also working for the CIA during this same time period.
Since Epstein's arrest, records of Rosser's article have been scrubbed from British
newspaper archives, including the Evening Standard 's own. However, MintPress
independently confirmed with Bob Fitrakis, whom Rosser had interviewed for the article in
question, that the article did allege that Epstein used to claim he worked for the CIA. In
addition, other reports from the time period cited excerpts of Rosser's article, including the
reference to Epstein's past claims of involvement with the CIA.
Specifically, Rosser's article had included the following passage:
He [Epstein] has a license to carry a concealed weapon, once claimed to have worked for
the CIA, although he now denies it – and owns properties all over America. Once he
arrived at the London home of a British arms dealer bringing a gift – a New York
police-issue pump-action riot gun. 'God knows how he got it into the country,' a friend
said."
Though Epstein denied past connections to the CIA at the time Rosser's article was
published, it is worth mentioning that Robert Maxwell -- father of Ghislaine Maxwell and
long-time Mossad operative -- also vehemently denied his now well-documented links to Israeli
intelligence until his death. Furthermore, as will be shown later in this article, Epstein and
his only known billionaire "client," Leslie Wexner, would later forge a business relationship
with the CIA front company Southern Air Transport and play a major role in the airline's
relocation to Columbus, Ohio in the mid-1990s. During that period, two prominent Ohio officials
believed that both Epstein and Wexner were working with the CIA, according to Ohio-based
journalist Bob Fitrakis.
Past claims and evidence of Epstein's involvement with the CIA, coupled with his time as a
"shadowy" financial fixer for double-asset Khashoggi, strongly suggest that, whatever Epstein
was doing for Khashoggi during this time, it likely involved BCCI. According to " The BCCI Affair "
report, Khashoggi "acted as the middleman for five Iranian arms deals for the United States,
financing a number of them through BCCI" and "served as the 'banker' for arms shipments as the
undercover scheme developed." The report continued:
Khashoggi and [another Iran-Contra arms dealer Manucher] Ghorbanifer performed a central
role for the U.S. government in connection with the Iran-Contra affair in operations that
involved the direct participation of CIA personnel [and both Khashoggi and Ghorbanifer]
banked at BCCI's offices in Monte Carlo and, for both, BCCI's services were essential as a
means of providing short-term credit for sales from the U.S. through Israel to Iran."
Saudi arms deale Adnan Khashoggi arrives at Manhatten Federal Court, New York,
April 4, 1990. Photo | AP
This connection is even more likely given the fact that Bear Stearns -- Epstein's previous
employer right up until he became a financial fixer for Khashoggi and other powerful people --
also worked directly with BCCI during this period. Indeed, Bear Stearns
served as a broker to BCCI, a fact that remained hidden until a lengthy court battle in the
U.K. concluded in 2011 and forced the government's "Sandstorm Report" about BCCI's activities
to unredact the names of Bear Stearns and other institutions, individuals and countries that
had done business with the CIA-linked bank.
Furthermore, there is the additional fact that BCCI trafficked underage girls for sex as a
means of obtaining favors from and gaining leverage over powerful individuals, something in
which Epstein would later become deeply involved. As was shown in Part
II of this series, several individuals who were running either sexual blackmail operations
involving minors or child trafficking operations were connected to CIA front companies like
BCCI, other organizations connected to the Iran-Contra scandal, and several individuals close
to the Reagan White House.
The CIA director at the time, Bill Casey, was a close friend of Roy Cohn, who also ran the
sexual blackmail operation involving underage boys out of Manhattan's Plaza Hotel, described in
Part
I of this series. According to Cohn's long-time secretary Christine Seymour, Casey was one
of Cohn's most frequent callers.
Another fact that further suggests that Epstein had connections to BCCI is that Epstein was
known to have been close to other arms dealers of the period and BCCI was frequently used
specifically for covert arms deals. After the bank's collapse in 1991, an article in
Time magazine entitled "BCCI: The Dirtiest Bank of All" noted the following:
[T]he CIA may have used B.C.C.I. as more than an undercover banker: U.S. agents
collaborated with the black network in several operations, according to a B.C.C.I.
black-network "officer" who is now a secret U.S. government witness. Sources have told
investigators that B.C.C.I. worked closely with Israel's spy agencies and other Western
intelligence groups as well, especially in arms deals ." (emphasis added)
One of the arms dealers that Epstein apparently knew quite well was the British arms dealer
Sir Douglas Leese. Leese was involved in brokering the first of a series of controversial
British arms deals that
involved Khashoggi , known as the Al Yamamah Deal and allegedly involving bribery of
members of the Saudi royal family and top Saudi officials. In addition to Khashoggi, several of
those officials and royal family members had deep ties to BCCI.
Later iterations of that arms deal were allegedly brokered with the involvement of Prince
Charles of the British royal family, and corruption investigations into Al Yamamah were later
shut down by the efforts of Tony Blair as well as Prince Andrew. Leese is said to
have spoken of Epstein's "genius" and lack of morals when he introduced him to Steve
Hoffenberg of Tower Financial, and soon after that introduction Hoffenberg hired Epstein.
Two years after BCCI's fraud-driven collapse, Tower Financial imploded in 1993 in what is
still considered to be one of the largest Ponzi schemes in American history. Hoffenberg
later asserted in court that Epstein had been intimately involved in Tower's shady
financial practices and had called Epstein the "architect of the scam." However, by the time
Tower Financial had collapsed, Epstein was no longer working for the company. Despite
Hoffenberg's testimony and abundant evidence regarding Epstein's role in the scheme, Epstein's
name was mysteriously dropped from the case.
Given that Epstein allegedly received his "sweetheart deal" in 2008 as a result of having
"belonged to intelligence," Epstein's activities in the 1980s and early 1990s suggest that his
ability to avoid charges in relation to the Tower Financial Ponzi scheme may have been for
similar reasons.
Though Hoffenberg claims that he met Epstein through Leese, Epstein himself claimed that
he had met the convicted fraudster through John Mitchell, former attorney general under Richard
Nixon.
As was noted in Part
II of this series, Mitchell was a "friend" of disgraced Washington lobbyist Craig Spence,
according to Spence before his fall from grace. Spence, for much of the 1980s, ran a sexual
blackmail operation in D.C. involving underage boys and had taken some of those "call boys" on
midnight tours of the White House that he said had been arranged by then-National Security
Adviser Donald Gregg. Spence, after his trafficking and exploitation of minors was exposed,
died under mysterious circumstances. His death was quickly labeled a suicide, not unlike
Jeffrey Epstein's.
While the state of Arkansas became a hub for CIA activity during the Reagan years and the
Iran-Contra scandal, another state appeared to take its place in the 1990s -- Ohio. Just as
Arkansas oligarch Jackson Stephens helped attract the CIA to his home state during Iran-Contra,
it was also an Ohio oligarch and his close associate that helped attract the CIA to the Buckeye
State. Those men were Leslie Wexner and Jeffrey Epstein, respectively.
In
Part III of this series, MintPress detailed Wexner's alleged ties to organized crime
and his links to the still unsolved homicide of Columbus, Ohio lawyer Arthur Shapiro. Shapiro,
who was representing Wexner's company "The Limited" at the time of his death, was set to
testify before a grand jury about tax evasion and his involvement with "questionable tax
shelters." Columbus police described the Shapiro murder as "a Mafia 'hit'" and a suppressed
police report implicated Wexner and his business associates as being involved in or benefiting
from Shapiro's death, and as having links to prominent New York-based crime syndicates.
However, Wexner and The Limited also appear to have had a relationship with the CIA. In
1995, Southern Air Transport (SAT) -- a well-known front company for the CIA --
relocated from Miami, Florida to Columbus, Ohio. First founded in the late 1940s, SAT from
1960 until 1973 was
directly owned by the CIA, which sought to use the company as a cover for covert
operations. After 1973, the company was placed in private hands, although all of its subsequent
owners would have CIA ties, including James Bastian, a former lawyer for the CIA, who owned SAT
at the time of its relocation to Ohio.
SAT was intimately involved in the Iran-Contra affair, having been used to funnel
weapons and drugs to and from the Nicaraguan Contras under the guise of delivering
"humanitarian aid," while also sending American weapons to Israel that were then sold to Iran
in violation of the U.S. arms embargo. In 1986 alone, SAT
transported from Texas to Israel 90 tons of TOW anti-tank missiles, which were then sold to
Iran by Israel and Mossad-linked intermediaries like Saudi arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi.
Even though the airline's CIA links were well known, Leslie Wexner's company, The Limited,
sought to coax SAT to relocate its headquarters from Miami, Florida to Columbus, Ohio, a move
that was realized in 1995. When Edmund James, president of James and Donohew Development
Services,
told the Columbus Dispatch in March 1995 that SAT was relocating to Columbus'
Rickenbacker airfield, he stated that "Southern Air's new presence at Rickenbacker begins in
April with two regularly scheduled 747 cargo flights a week from Hong Kong," citing SAT
President William Langton. "By fall, that could increase to four a week. Negotiations are
underway for flights out of Rickenbacker to the Far East Much of the Hong Kong-to-Rickenbacker
cargo will be for The Limited," Wexner's clothing company. "This is a big story for central
Ohio. It's huge, actually," James said at the time.
The day following the press conference, Brian Clancy, working as a cargo analyst with
MergeGlobal Inc.,
told the Journal of Commerce that the reason for SAT's relocation to Ohio was
largely the result of the lucrative Hong Kong-to-Columbus route that SAT would run for Wexner's
company. Clancy specifically stated that the fact that "[The] Limited Inc., the nation's
largest retailer, is based in Columbus undoubtedly contributed in large part to Southern Air's
decision."
According to documents obtained by journalist Bob Fitrakis from the
Rickenbacker Port Authority, Ohio's government also tried to sweeten the deal to bring SAT to
Columbus in order to please powerful Ohio businessmen like Wexner. Orchestrated by Governor
George Voinovich's then-Chief of Staff Paul Mifsud, the Rickenbacker Port Authority and the
Ohio Department of Development created a package of several financial incentives, funded by
Ohio taxpayers, to lure the airline to relocate to Ohio. The Journal of Commercedescribed the
"generous package of incentives from the state of Ohio" as "including a 75 percent credit
against its corporate tax liability for the next 10 years, a $5 million low-interest loan, and
a $400,000 job-training grant."In 1996, then-SAT spokesman David Sweet had told Fitrakis that the CIA-linked airline had
only moved to Columbus because "the deal [put together by the development department] was too
good to turn down."
Though SAT had promised Ohio's government that it would create 300 jobs in three years, it
quickly laid off numerous workers and failed to construct the maintenance facility it had
promised, even though it had already accepted $3.5 million in taxpayer funds for that and other
projects. As the company's financial problems mounted, Ohio's government declined to recoup the
millions in dollars it loaned the company, even after it was alleged that $32 million in the
bank account of Mary Bastian, the wife of SAT's owner and former CIA lawyer James Bastian,
were actually company funds . On October 1, 1998, SAT filed for bankruptcy. It was the very
same day that the CIA's Inspector General had published a comprehensive report on the airline's
illicit involvement in drug trafficking.
Furthermore, Fitrakis noted that in addition to Wexner the other main figures who were key in securing
SAT's relocation to Ohio were Alan D. Fiers Jr., a former chief of the CIA Central American
Task Force, and retired Air Force Major General Richard Secord, head of air logistics for SAT's
covert action in Laos between 1966 and 1968, while the company was still known as Air America.
Secord was also the air logistics coordinator in the illegal Contra resupply network for Oliver
North during Iran-Contra. Fiers was one of the key individuals involved in Iran-Contra who was
later pardoned by George H.W. Bush with the assistance of then-Attorney General Bill Barr. Barr
-- currently serving as attorney general in the Trump administration, and top of the chain of
DOJ command in the investigation of Epstein's death in prison -- has refused to recuse himself
from the investigation into Epstein's network and his recent death.
Despite the involvement of these CIA-linked men, as well as the organized crime-linked
Leslie Wexner, the then-president of SAT
told the Columbus Dispatch that the airline was "no longer connected to the
CIA."
Notably, It was during this same time that Epstein exerted substantial control over Wexner's
finances; and, according to Fitrakis and his extensive reporting on Wexner from this period, it
was Epstein who orchestrated logistics for Wexner's business operations, including The Limited.
As was revealed in the Arthur Shapiro murder file and in ties between SAT and The Limited, much
of The Limited's logistics involved figures and companies connected to organized crime and U.S.
intelligence. It is also important to note that SAT was well-known for being a CIA front
company prior to the efforts of Wexner et al. to bring the airline to Columbus, and that, a few
years prior, Epstein himself had previously worked for intelligence-linked figures also
involved in Iran-Contra, such as Adnan Khashoggi.
In addition, during this time period, Epstein had already begun to live in the now infamous
New York penthouse that had first been purchased by Wexner in 1989. Wexner had apparently
installed CCTV and recording equipment in an odd bathroom in the home after his purchase, and
never lived in the home, as was noted in
Part III of this series.
In an exclusive interview, Bob Fitrakis told MintPress that Epstein and Wexner's
involvement with SAT's relocation to Ohio had caused suspicion among some prominent state and
local officials that the two were working with U.S. intelligence. Fitrakis specifically stated
that then-Ohio Inspector General David Strutz and then-Sheriff of Franklin County Earl Smith
had personally told him that they believed that both Epstein and Wexner had ties to the CIA.
These claims further corroborate what was first reported by Nigel Rosser in the Evening
Standard that Epstein had claimed to have worked for the CIA in the past.
Fitrakis also told MintPress that Strutz had referred to SAT's route between Hong
Kong and Columbus on behalf of Wexner's company The Limited as "the Meyer Lansky run," as he
believed that Wexner's association with SAT was related to his ties to elements of organized
crime that were connected to the Lansky-created National Crime Syndicate. In addition,
Catherine Austin Fitts -- the former investment banker and government official, who has
extensively investigated the intersection of organized crime, black markets, Wall Street and
the government in the U.S. economy -- was told by an ex-CIA employee that Wexner was one of
five key managers of organized crime cash flows in the United States.
As this series has noted in previous reports, Meyer Lansky was a pioneer of sexual blackmail
operations and was deeply connected to both U.S. intelligence and Israel's Mossad. Furthermore,
many members of the so-called Mega Group, which Wexner co-founded, had direct ties to the
Lansky crime syndicate.
Another shadowy figure with connections to the Mega Group, Mossad, U.S. intelligence and
organized crime is the "fugitive financier" Marc Rich, whose pardon during the last days of the
Clinton White House is both well-known and still mired in controversy years after the fact.
Marc Rich was a commodities trader and hedge fund manager best known for founding the
commodity trading and mining giant Glencore and for doing business with numerous dictatorships,
often in violation of sanctions. He worked particularly closely with Israel and, according to
Haaretz :
In the years after the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the ensuing global Arab oil embargo, a
period when nobody wanted to sell oil to Israel, for almost 20 years Rich was the main source
of the country's oil and energy needs."
It was that trading on Israel's behalf that would ultimately lead to Rich being charged in
1983 for violating the U.S. oil embargo on Iran by selling Iranian oil to Israel. Rich was also
charged with tax evasion, wire fraud, racketeering and several other crimes.
Haaretz
also noted that Rich's businesses were "a source of funding for secret financial
arrangements" and that "his worldwide offices, according to several reliable sources,
frequently served Mossad agents, with his consent." Rich had more direct ties to the Mossad as
well. For instance, his foundation -- the Rich Foundation -- was run by the former Mossad agent
Avner Azulay. Rich was also friendly with prominent Israel politicians, including former Prime
Ministers Menachem Begin and Ehud Barak, and was
a frequent provider of "services" for Israeli intelligence, services he freely
volunteered.
Marc Rich, right, is pictured with Israel's Shimon Peres in a photo from Mark
Daneil Ammann's "The King of Oil."
According to Rich's biographer, Daniel Ammann, Rich also fed information to U.S.
intelligence but declined to give specifics. "He did not want to tell with whom he cooperated
within the U.S. authorities or which branch of the U.S. government he supplied with
intelligence," Ammann said in an interview with the Daily
Beast .
One clue as to the nature of Rich's relationship to U.S. intelligence is his apparent ties
to BCCI. "The BCCI Affair" report mentions Rich as a person to investigate in relation to the
bank and states :
BCCI lending to Rich in the 1980s amounted to tens of millions of dollars. Moreover,
Rich's commodities firms were used by BCCI in connection with BCCI's involv[ement] in U.S.
guarantee programs through the Department of Agriculture. The nature and extent of Rich's
relationship with BCCI requires further investigation."
Rich was also deeply tied to the Mega Group, as he was one of the main donors to the
Birthright Israel charity along with Mega Group co-founder Charles Bronfman and Mega Group
member Michael Steinhardt. Steinhardt was particularly close to Rich, first meeting the
commodities trader in the 1970s and
then managing $3 million for Rich, Rich's then-wife Denise, and Rich's father-in-law from
the early 1980s to the mid-1990s through his hedge fund. In the late 1990s, Steinhardt would
enlist other Mega Group members, such as Edgar Bronfman, in the effort to settle the criminal
charges against Rich, which eventually came to pass with Clinton's controversial pardon in
2001. Steinhardt claimed to have
come up with the idea of a presidential pardon for Rich in late 2000.
Rich's pardon was controversial for several reasons, and many mainstream outlets asserted
that it "reeked of payoff." As
the New York Post noted in 2016, in the run-up to the presidential pardon the
financier's ex-wife Denise had donated $450,000 to the fledgling Clinton Library and "over $1
million to Democratic campaigns in the Clinton era." In addition, Rich had hired high-powered
lawyers with links to powerful individuals in both the Democratic and Republican parties as
well as the Clinton White House, including Jack Quinn, who has previously served as general
counsel to the Clinton administration and as former chief of staff to Vice President Al
Gore.
However, per
Clinton's own words and other supporting evidence, the main reason behind the Rich pardon
was the heavy lobbying from Israeli intelligence, Israeli politicians and members of the Mega
Group like Steinhardt, with the donations from Denise Rich and Quinn's access to the president
likely sweetening the deal.
Among the most ardent
lobbyists for Rich's pardon were then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, former Prime
Minister Shimon Peres, then-Mayor of Jerusalem Ehud Olmert, then-former Foreign Minister Shlomo
Ben-Ami and former Director of the Mossad Shabtai Shavit. According to Haaretz , Barak was so adamant that Clinton pardon Marc Rich that he was heard
shouting at the president on at least one occasion. Former adviser to Barak, Eldad Yaniv,
claimed that Barak had shouted that the pardon was "important Not only from the financial
aspect, but also because he helped the Mossad in more than one instance."
The Israel lobbying effort had considerable help from Mega Group member Michael Steinhardt
as well as Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), which was at the time heavily funded
by Mega Group members, including Ronald Lauder and Edgar Bronfman.
There has been speculation for years that Clinton's decision to pardon Rich may have been
the result of "leverage" or blackmail that Israel had acquired on the then-president's
activities. As was noted in
Part III of this report, the Mossad-linked "Mega" spy scandal broke in 1997, whereby
Israeli intelligence had been targeting Clinton's effort to broker a peace agreement between
Israel and Palestine and had sought to go to "Mega," likely a reference to the Mega Group, to
obtain a sensitive document.
In addition, Israel is known to have acquired phone conversations between Clinton and Monica
Lewinsky before their affair was made public. Author Daniel Halper -- relying on on-the-record
interviews with former officials and hundreds of pages of documents compiled in the event that
Lewinsky took legal action against Clinton -- determined
that Benjamin Netanyahu told Clinton that he had obtained recordings of the sexually-tinged
phone conversations during the Wye Plantation talks between Israel and Palestine in 1998.
Netanyahu attempted to use this information to get Clinton to pardon convicted Israeli spy
Jonathan Pollard. Clinton considered pardoning Pollard but decided against it after CIA
Director George Tenet threatened to resign if the pardon was given.
Investigative journalist and author Gordon Thomas had
made similar claims years prior and asserted that the Mossad had obtained some 30 hours of
phone-sex conversations between Lewinsky and Clinton and used them as leverage. In addition,
a
report in Insight magazine in May 2000 claimed that Israeli intelligence had
"penetrated four White House telephone lines and was able to relay real-time conversations on
those lines from a remote site outside the White House directly to Israel for listening and
recording."
Those phone taps apparently went well beyond the White House, as revealed by a December 2001
investigative report by Carl Cameron for FOX News . According to
Cameron's report :
[Israeli telecommunications company Amdocs] helped Bell Atlantic install new telephone
lines in the White House in 1997 [and] a senior-level employee of Amdocs had a separate T1
data phone line installed from his base outside of St. Louis that was connected directly to
Israel
[I]nvestigators are looking into whether the owner of the T1 line had a 'real time'
capacity to intercept phone calls from both the White House and other government offices
around Washington, and sustained the line for some time, sources said. Sources familiar with
the investigation say FBI agents on the case sought an arrest warrant for the St. Louis
employee but [Clinton] Justice Department officials quashed it."
[Both Amdocs and Verint Inc. (formerly Comverse Infosys)] are based in Israel –
having arisen to prominence from that country's cornering of the information technology
market – and are heavily funded by the Israeli government, with connections to the
Israeli military and Israeli intelligence
The companies' operations, sources suggest, have been infiltrated by freelance spies
exploiting encrypted trapdoors in Verint/Amdocs technology and gathering data on Americans
for transfer to Israeli intelligence and other willing customers (particularly organized
crime)."
Given the extent of phone tapping of the U.S. government by Israeli intelligence-linked
companies and Netanyahu's previous use of intercepted phone calls to pressure Clinton to pardon
Jonathan Pollard, it is entirely reasonable to speculate that some other trove of intercepted
communications could have been used to push Clinton to pardon Rich in the final hours of his
presidency.
Also notable is the fact that several figures who heavily lobbied Clinton over the Rich
pardon had ties to Epstein, who also had ties to Israeli intelligence and Israeli
intelligence-linked tech companies, as discussed in
Part III of this series. For example, Ehud Barak, a close friend and business associate of
Epstein, and Shimon Peres, who introduced Barak to Epstein, were the major players in convincing Clinton to
pardon Marc Rich.
Furthermore, as will be shown in a subsequent section of this report, Jeffrey Epstein had
developed ties with the Clinton administration beginning in 1993 and those ties expanded,
particularly in 1996, when Epstein's intelligence-linked sexual blackmail operation was
underway. Clinton would later fly on Epstein's infamous private jet, nicknamed the "Lolita
Express," and Epstein would later donate to the Clinton Foundation and claim to have played
a key role in the creation of the Clinton Global Initiative.
In addition to the role of figures close to Epstein in securing Rich's pardon, Epstein
himself appeared to share some level of connection with Rich's former business partners. For
instance, Felix Posen -- who ran Rich's London operations for years and
whom Forbes described as "the architect of Rich's immensely profitable but suddenly
very controversial business with the Soviet Union" -- appears in
Epstein's book of contacts . In addition, Epstein's offshore structured investment vehicle
(SIV), Liquid Funding, has the same attorney and director as several Glencore entities :
Alex Erskine of the law firm
Appleby.
The significance of that connection, however, is unclear, given that Erskine was connected to a total of
274 offshore entities at the time of the "Paradise Papers" leak in 2014. Catherine Austin Fitts
told MintPress that it could suggest that Epstein's Liquid Funding -- 40 percent of
which
had been owned by Bear Stearns , and which may have received
a "secret" bail-out from the Federal Reserve -- is part of the same shadow economy
"syndicate" as Glencore.
This possibility merits further investigation, given that Glencore is partially
owned by British financier Nathaniel Rothschild, whose father, Jacob Rothschild, is on the
board of advisers of Genie Energy, which includes Michael Steinhardt as well as several alleged
associates of Epstein, such as Bill Richardson and Larry Summers. In addition, Nathaniel
Rothschild's cousin by marriage, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, is a long-time associate of
Jeffrey Epstein with considerable ties to the New York City "Roy Cohn machine." Marc Rich had
long-standing ties to the Rothschild family, going back to
the early 1970s when he began commodity trading at Philipp Brothers.
After Epstein's arrests first in 2007 and then again last month, numerous media reports
emerged detailing the links between Epstein and Clinton, with most asserting that they had met
not long after Clinton left office in 2001 and, as recently mentioned, issued the controversial
pardon of Marc Rich.
Those reports claimed that the Epstein-Clinton relationship had been facilitated by
Epstein's long-time girlfriend and alleged madam Ghislaine Maxwell. However, documents obtained
from the Clinton presidential library have revealed that the ties between Epstein and Clinton
date back years earlier and were facilitated by powerful individuals who have largely evaded
scrutiny in connection with the Epstein case.
One major player who has been largely overlooked in bringing Epstein and the Clintons
together is Lynn Forester de Rothschild. Notably, Forester de Rothschild has long been
connected to neoconservative Reagan era officials -- the Lewis Rosenstiel/Roy Cohn network
described in Parts 1 and 2 of this series, as well as the Mega Group, which was detailed in
Part 3 of this series.
Lynn Forester de Rothschild became involved in the world of Democratic Party politics in the
late 1970s when she
worked on the 1976 campaign of hawkish Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY) alongside
now-notorious neoconservatives like
Elliott Abrams , who would go on to play an important role in the Iran-Contra affair during
the Reagan era and later serve in the State Department under Trump. She was also introduced to
her second husband, Evelyn de Rothschild, by Henry Kissinger at a Bilderberg conference.
Several of the individuals connected to the Mega Group and the Mossad-linked media mogul Robert
Maxwell -- including Mark Palmer, Max Fisher and John Lehman -- were one-time aides or advisers
to Henry Kissinger.
Before marrying into the Rothschild family in 2000, Lynn
had previously been married to Andrew Stein, a major figure in New York Democratic
politics, with whom she had two sons. Andrew's brother, James Finkelstein, married Cathy Frank,
the granddaughter of Lewis Rosenstiel, the mob-linked businessman who ran a sexual blackmail
operation exploiting underage boys, as was discussed in Part 1 of this series. Rosenstiel's
protege Roy Cohn
was the lawyer for Cathy Frank and James Finkelstein and it was at their behest that Cohn
attempted to trick a nearly comatose Rosenstiel to into naming Cohn, Frank and Finkelstein the
executors and trustees of his estate, valued at $75 million (more than $334 million in today's
dollars).
According to the
New Yorker , Lynn Forester de Rothschild requested "financial help" from none other
than Jeffrey Epstein in 1993 during her divorce from Andrew Stein.
As far as Forester de Rothschild's ties to the Mega Group go, she is currently on the
board of directors of Estee Lauder companies, which was founded and is still owned by the
family of Ronald Lauder -- a member of the Mega Group, a former Reagan official, a family
friend of Roy Cohn, and the alleged source of Jeffrey Epstein's now-infamous Austrian passport.
In addition, Forester de Rothschild also partnered with Matthew
Bronfman -- son of Mega Group member Edgar Bronfman and grandson of Samuel Bronfman, who had
close ties to Meyer Lansky -- in creating the investment advisory firm Bronfman E.L. Rothschild
LP.
It is unclear when Lynn Forester de Rothschild first met Jeffrey Epstein, but she was one of
his leading advocates and had the ear of then-President Bill Clinton in the early 1990s,
speaking to Clinton specifically about Epstein during her "fifteen seconds of access" with the
president and also introducing Epstein to lawyer Alan Dershowitz in 1996.
Living History by
Hilary Clinton Book Party Hosted Lynn Forester and Evelyn De Rothschild pose with Bill and
Hilary Clinton at the Kensington Palace in London. Photo | Alan Davidson
Forester de Rothschild is a long-time associate of the Clintons and has been a major donor
to both Bill and Hillary Clinton since 1992. Their ties were so close that Forester de
Rothschild spent the first night of her honeymoon at the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House
while Clinton was president. Furthermore, a leaked email between Forester de Rothschild and
Hillary Clinton saw Clinton
request "penance" from Forester de Rothschild for asking Tony Blair to accompany Clinton on
official business while she was secretary of state, preventing Blair from making a planned
social visit to Forester de Rothschild's home in Aspen, Colorado. Humbly requesting forgiveness
is not something Hillary Clinton is known for, given that her former bodyguard once said she
could "make Richard Nixon look like Mahatma Gandhi."
In 1995, Forester de Rothschild, then a member of Clinton's National Information
Infrastructure Advisory Council, wrote the following to then-President Clinton:
Dear Mr. President: It was a pleasure to see you recently at Senator Kennedy's house.
There was too much to discuss and too little time. Using my fifteen seconds of access to
discuss Jeffrey Epstein and currency stabilization, I neglected to talk to you about a topic
near and dear to my heart. Namely, affirmative action and the future."
Forester de Rothschild then states that she had been asked to prepare a memo on behalf of
George Stephanopoulos, former Clinton communications director and currently a broadcast
journalist with ABC News . Stephanopoulos attended a
dinner party hosted by Epstein at his now infamous Manhattan townhouse in 2010 after
Epstein's release from prison for soliciting sex from a minor.
While it is unknown what Forester de Rothschild discussed with Clinton regarding Epstein and
currency stabilization, a potential lead may lie in the links of both Forester de Rothschild
and Epstein to Deutsche Bank. Journalist Vicky Ward reported in 2003 that
Epstein boasted of "skill at playing the currency markets 'with very large sums of money'" and
he appears to have done much of this through his long-standing relationship with Deutsche
Bank.
[Epstein] appears to have been doing business and trading currencies through Deutsche Bank
until just a few months ago, according to two people familiar with his business activities.
But as the possibility of federal charges loomed, the bank ended its client relationship with
Mr. Epstein. It is not clear what the value of those accounts was at the time they were
closed."
In the case of Forester de Rothschild, she served as an advisor
to the Deutsche Bank Microfinance Consortium for several years and is currently a board member
of the Alfred Herrhausen Society of International Dialogue of Deutsche Bank.
The same year that Forester de Rothschild made the above-noted comments to Bill Clinton
about Jeffrey Epstein, Epstein attended
another Clinton fundraiser , hosted by Ron Perelman at his personal home, that was very
exclusive, as the guest list included only 14 people.
Even before Forester de Rothschild's 1995 meeting with Clinton, Epstein was already an
established Clinton donor. Records obtained
by the Daily Beast revealed that Epstein had donated $10,000 to the White House
Historical Association and attended a Clinton donor reception alongside Ghislaine Maxwell as
early as 1993.
The Daily Beast suggests that Bill Clinton's long-time friend from his college days,
A. Paul Prosperi, was the facilitator of that early relationship, as Prosperi had a
decades-long relationship with Epstein and even visited Epstein at least 20 times while he was
in jail in 2008. Prosperi was intimately involved with the 1993 fundraiser for the White House
Historical Association noted above.
The relationship between Epstein and Clinton would continue well after Clinton left office
in 2001, a fact well-documented by Bill Clinton's now-infamous flights on Epstein's (recently
sold) private jet -- often referred to as the "Lolita Express." Clinton flew on the Lolita
Express no less than
26 times in the early 2000s according to flight logs. On some of those flights, Clinton was
accompanied by his Secret Service detail but he was unaccompanied on other flights.
Arguably the most infamous flight taken by Clinton on Epstein's jet was
a lengthy trip to Africa, where actor Kevin Spacey, who has also been accused of
raping minors ; Ghislaine Maxwell; and Ron Burkle, a billionaire friend of Clinton's who
has
been accused of soliciting the services of "super-high-end call girls," were also present.
Clinton specifically requested that Epstein make his jet available for the trip well in
advance, with Doug Band as the intermediary. President Donald Trump, also a friend of Epstein,
is said to have flown on the plane but appears
only once on flight logs.
In addition to flights, an Epstein-run foundation
gave $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation according to the 2006 filing tax return of Epstein's
former charity, the C.O.U.Q. Foundation. Notably, Epstein's lawyers, Alan Dershowitz among
them,
claimed in 2007 that Epstein had been "part of the original group that conceived the
Clinton Global Initiative, which is described as a project 'bringing together a community of
global leaders to devise and implement innovative solutions to some of the world's most
pressing challenges.'"
Before the associations between Epstein and the Clinton White House in the early 1990s were
made public, Ghislaine Maxwell was thought to
have been the bridge between Epstein and the Clinton family because of her close
relationship to the family. However, the close relationship between Maxwell and the Clintons
appears to have developed in the 2000s, with Politico
reporting that it began after Bill Clinton left office. Clinton associate Doug Band was
also reportedly friendly to Maxwell, appearing at an exclusive dinner party she hosted at her
residence in New York in 2005. Maxwell later became particularly close to Chelsea Clinton,
vacationing with Chelsea in 2009 and attending her wedding a year later. Maxwell was also
associated with the Clinton Global Initiative at least up until 2013.
Other close Clinton associates and officials in the early 1990s also had notable
relationships with Jeffrey Epstein, including Mark Middleton, who was a special assistant to
Clinton Chief of Staff Mack McClarty beginning in 1993, and met with Epstein on
at least three occasions in the White House during the early Clinton years. In addition,
White House social secretary under Clinton, Ann Stock,
appears in Epstein's "little black book" as does Doug
Band , once referred to by New
York Magazine as "Bill Clinton's bag carrier, body man, fixer, and all-purpose
gatekeeper." Band also appears several times in the flight logs of Epstein's private jet.
Epstein was also
associated with both Bill Richardson, former ambassador to the UN and former secretary of
energy under Clinton, and Larry Summers, secretary of the treasury under Clinton. Both
Richardson and Summers sit on the advisory board of controversial energy company Genie Energy,
alongside CIA director under Clinton, James Woolsey; Roy Cohn associate and media mogul, Rupert
Murdoch; Mega Group member Michael Steinhardt; and Lord Jacob Rothschild. Genie Energy is
controversial primarily for its exclusive rights to drill in the Israeli-occupied Golan
Heights. Bill Richardson also has ties to Lynn Forester de Rothschild as she was on the
Secretary of Energy's Advisory Board while
Richardson was secretary of energy.
Bill Richardson appears to be among the Clinton era officials closest to Jeffrey Epstein,
having
personally visited Epstein's New Mexico ranch and been the recipient of Epstein donations
of $50,000 to his 2002 and 2006 gubernatorial campaigns. Richardson gave Epstein's donation in
2006 to charity after allegations against Epstein were made public. Richardson was also accused
in recently released court documents of engaging in sex with Epstein's underage victims, an
allegation that he has denied.
In 1990, Danny Casolaro began his fateful one-year investigation of "the Octopus," an
investigation that played no small role in his untimely death. Shortly after he was found
lifeless in a hotel bathtub, Casolaro's friend Lynn Knowles was threatened and told the following : "What
Danny Casolaro was investigating is a business Anyone who asks too many questions will end up
dead."
Nearly thirty years later, that same "Octopus" and its "business" remains with us and has
become ever more wrapped around the levers of power -- particularly in the worlds of
government, finance and intelligence.
This MintPress investigative series has endeavored to show the nature of this network
and how the world of "the Octopus" is the same world in which Jeffrey Epstein and his
predecessors -- Craig Spence, Edwin Wilson and Roy Cohn among them -- operated and profited. It
is a world where all that matters is the constant drive to accumulate ever more wealth and ever
more power and to keep the racket going at all costs.
While this network has long been able to ensure its success through the use of sexual
blackmail, often acquired by the unconscionable exploitation of children, it has also been a
driving force behind many other ills that plague our world and it goes far beyond human and
child trafficking. Indeed, many of the figures in this same sordid web have played a major role
in the illicit drug and weapons trades, the expansion of for-profit prisons, and the endless
wars that have claimed an untold number of lives across the world, all the while enriching many
of these same individuals.
the network connected to Epstein is nothing less than a criminal enterprise that is
willing to use and abuse children in the pursuit of ever more power, wealth and
control.
Another aspect of this Mossad honey pot op being run by Epstein is this: How many of
those teenage girls, due to being plied by alcohol and drugs so they could perform for dirty
old men, how many of them broke down mentally and either committed suicide or were killed off
to hide the evidence?
My guess is that there's an underwater burial spot near Epstein's Orgy Island or maybe
they're buried under yards and yards of concrete, thanks to Epstein buying and moving that
concrete truck to that island.
As for the Rose Law firm in Arkansas, at the same time Hillary was working there, one of
her co-workers was Johnathan Pollard, the Israeli spy that did a tremendous amount of damage
to our intelligence apparatus, even getting spies killed who he helped expose.
Hillary's Secrets
Most progressives tend to think of the sordid topic of Vince Foster's death as the
exclusive domain of the Rush Limbaugh right wing radio circuit. But did you know that
Vince Foster, Hillary Clinton, and Jonathan Pollard were all simultaneously partners at
Rose Law Firm? Yes, that Jonathan Pollard, the unrepentant spy for Israel, arrested and
sentenced to life in 1986 for espionage . Did you know that Vince Foster was under CIA
scrutiny for the exact same crime at the time of his "suicide" in 1993?
Why is it that many of these kind of incidents always involve our friend and
special ally, Israel?
Spectacular job of reporting, that the large majority of Americans will never see, as the MSM
is too busy serving the needs of the CIA and Israel, and not interested in reporting actual
news.
Whitney, is it more likely that Epstein was killed by the Clintons or Trump? It would be
helpful to have a short paragraph giving the thrust of your thinking.
What we have not been told yet regarding the Epstein scandal is exactly what political and
monetary favors were provided to whom as a result of this sick, sadistic, satanic cult of
predators.
The motive must have been for political favors, and not merely sums of cash, would be my
guess. Yes, Epstein benefitted from the cash, but if Epstein was acting on behalf of the
Mossad, it was apparently for policy control.
So who were the individuals that were threatenning politicians with exposure for not
enacting, or for enacting specific policies, and precisely which policies and businesses
would be financially rewarded is what has not yet been disclosed and what I think that
everyone would like to know.
With Epstein dead, we don't know if we will ever find out. Obviously, many people in the
surveillance state know exactly who these individual policy threatenners were, and which
policies were demanded and have remained silent on these issues.
It is likely that Epstein's conspicuous cultivation and support of prominent scientists was
in fact camouflage to help cover his real role as a covert operative specializing in
blackmail. Comments by some scientists who attended his soirees indicate that Epstein was
scientifically an ignoramus and was unserious in scientific discussions.
Around '83, I was living Beaufort Gardens, Knightsbridge. Only a few steps away from the big
building occupied by the BCCI at 171-175 Brompton Road. It was purpose-built for the bank. I
was without a job. Enjoying myself the way one used to be able to do in one of the smartest
areas of London.
My friends and I could not help noticing the smart Mercedes saloons gliding into the
underground parking lot of the BCCI every morning. The guys driving seemed to be all
Pakistanis. I passed on foot past their imposing building several times every day for almost
a year. But I never saw a customer entering into their banking hall. I was bewildered. My
finances were non-existent and I envied these bankers. I just could not work out what sort of
scam was going on. It was all so obvious to anyone remotely streetwise.
The Mena story was an open secret in Arkansas. Paul Greenberg (who bestowed the monicker
"Slick Willie" upon The Boy Wonder) wrote extensively upon this subject. There have been
rumors–never confirmed– that Clinton may have been recruited by Spook Inc. as
early as his undergrad days at G-Town (it's still not clear how Clinton, a relatively unknown
American college graduate, could gain entry into the USSR in the summer of '69 for a
"vacation" at a time when our relations with that country were as low as they ever were).
Netanyahu's son says Barak has a drinking problem.
Epstein used to claim he worked for the CIA
What con man does not claim to be a secret agent?
Gone from corporate media are any hints of the larger scandal, revolving around the
admission that Epstein had "belonged to intelligence."
Hearsay, and the person supposed to have said it refused to discuss it, probably because
it was a lie intended to explain why he gave Epstein a soft plea deal, and he fears being
required to testify about it on oath.
Epstein also claimed to be a blackmailer, He promoted himself as freelance secret agent,
acting for governments or malefactors whichever paid most, when he was trying to get a
journalist to write a book about him in the eighties. Last year Epstein told a NYT journalist
that he had compromising material on top tech magnates (this was probably Elon Musk)
The Day Jeffrey Epstein Told Me He Had Dirt on Powerful People https://www.nytimes.com ›
2019/08/12 › business › jeffrey-epstein-interview
12 Aug 2019 – I went to Mr. Epstein's Manhattan mansion to talk about Tesla. 16,
2018, I visited Jeffrey Epstein at his cavernous Manhattan mansion. . .
There was another interview around the same time in which Epstein "rambled" about the big
tech people he knew to business reporters at his mansion. Every reporter who was around him
decided he was full of it.
Going on like this, Epstein would have been disposed of by his own organisation .. if it
actually existed. The Mafia kill people for far less
Far from being the work of a single intelligence agency or a single country, the power
structure revealed by this network connected to Epstein is nothing less than a criminal
enterprise that transcends nationality and is willing to use and abuse children in the
pursuit of ever more power, wealth and control. Existing for decades and willing to use any
means necessary to cover its tracks
@BannedHipster The "deciders" of the US foreign and internal politics:
Wexner was one of five key managers of organized crime cash flows in the United States.
many members of the so-called Mega Group, which Wexner co-founded, had direct ties to the
Lansky crime syndicate. Meyer Lansky was a pioneer of sexual blackmail operations and was
deeply connected to both U.S. intelligence and Israel's Mossad.
Criminal, ignorant, deviant. The face of the US highest echelons of power.
The tawdry sleaziness of both Clintons has been apparent for many years to anyone who would
spend ten minutes to check. Yet the media have glossed over all that and promoted Hilary for
president. She has millions of fans and has been relentlessly promoted as the second coming,
making one wonder as to how stupid are Americans anyway? There's a connection between
mafia-like criminality, intelligence services and the supposed legitimate aboveground
government. There's plenty of money to be had for all playing the game with the bulk of the
American people being the cash cow that can be milked.
They'll never give up living like
kings and queens; anybody threatening that gets suicided or otherwise dies young. They'll
take us all to the brink of Armageddon with other countries rather than lose their positions.
Some commenters have theorized Epstein is alive and living incognito elsewhere. This is
doubtful.
It's like the mafia: when someone becomes a liability he's got to go. They're not
going to take any chances. Epstein became the weak link and so had to be shut up permanently.
I don't buy a word of this. Too much emphasis on sex trafficking, the meaningless description
underage and the so-called victims. For some reason everyone believed the story that Epstein
was some kind of pervert. Only children trust the Government when it says sex crime, WMD,
ISIS or UFO.
Christians burned people at the stake. I suppose lots of children in the USA
would support the Government if they decided to start burning people at the stake for sex.
Think of the children!
"... oligarchic greed; a military dedicated to protecting the wealth of oligarchs; and, wars over resources. Granted Bill Clinton began the current charade about 'humanitarian wars' but it was Bush II and Obama who turned our focus into resource wars and the hegemons (Malignant Overlords) who decided it was time to take it all. ..."
Long ago (1968) after returning from Vietnam with a bullet hole in my leg (my 90 wonder, post-ROTC officer shot me when he
panicked) I wondered off to a down-at-the-heel cow college. There I took a class and C Wright Mills 'The Power Elite' was required
reading.
I had just finished 'War is a fraud' and read an article by Paul Ehrlich an then 'The Population Bomb' shortly thereafter.
The three books created an interesting fusion in my mind:
More or less after the year 2000 the world would be plagued by resource wars;
The primary role of the military is to enforce what capitalists want; and
Behind the alleged scenes of our form of government hovered oligarchs who would demand more and more.
I recently found a paper I had written long ago. It wasn't very well written, but even then the handwriting was on the wall:
oligarchic greed; a military dedicated to protecting the wealth of oligarchs; and, wars over resources. Granted Bill Clinton
began the current charade about 'humanitarian wars' but it was Bush II and Obama who turned our focus into resource wars and the
hegemons (Malignant Overlords) who decided it was time to take it all.
I guess the point of all of this is (except for the details) Ehrlich, Mills and Butler warned us. As did Huxley and Orwell
... we were just too damned dumb (or distracted) to see it.
Maybe with the Queen of Chaos, the above will result in either annihilation or in a severe reduction in the numbers of people
... (hopefully including all of the oligarchic class) and the chance to start over?
Nah ... we'll just fuck it up again ... as a species we refuse to learn. Sigh ...
"... By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One, an associate professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and co-founder of Bank Whistleblowers United. Originally published at New Economic Perspectives ..."
Posted on
December 18, 2019 by Yves Smith Yves here. What Black calls
the New Democrats have more recently been called Blue Dogs and even (gah) frontliners, but
whatever you want to call them, they are corporate stooges loyal to bad economic ideas, most
notably deficit hawkery and austerity.
By Bill Black, the author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One, an associate
professor of economics and law at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, and co-founder of
Bank Whistleblowers United. Originally published at
New Economic Perspectives
On December 5, 2019, Lawrence O'Donnell made an impassioned attack on Pete Buttigieg on his
" The
Last Word " program on MSNBC. Buttigieg's statements criticizing the Democratic Party as
historically soft on deficits enraged O'Donnell. The context was Buttigieg's effort to signal
to New Hampshire voters that he was the most conservative Democratic candidate for the
presidential nomination. Nothing signals 'responsible' so well to 'New Democrats' and the media
as a candidate screaming 'deficits' in a crowded meeting room in a small New Hampshire
town.
O'Donnell correctly pointed out that Buttigieg's claims about Democrats and deficits are
'Republican lies.' The truth is that New Democrats have been the only group in America
dedicated to inflicting austerity on our Nation. Republicans only pretend to care about
deficits when Democrats have power. Buttigieg knows this, but his political interests in
portraying himself as a stalwart emerging leader of the New Democrats caused him to position
himself (falsely) as unique among New Democrats in his dedication to inflict austerity.
O'Donnell (largely) correctly pointed out that New Democrats had been fighting federal
deficits for Buttigieg's entire life. O'Donnell stressed the New Democrats actions in 1993,
when Buttigieg was eleven. O'Donnell lauded the New Democrats for pushing austerity even when
they knew doing so was likely to cause Democrats to lose elections.
O'Donnell's dominant message, measured by both length and passion, was the crippling price
the Democrats paid for the New Democrats' pushing for austerity in 1993. He made clear it was
not a "one-off" – Democrats paid that price again when President Obama, a self-described
New Democrat, pushed to inflict austerity on the Nation in 2010.
O'Donnell describes the New Democrats (Bill Clinton and Al Gore) as knowingly taking a
"grave political risk" in 1993 in voting in favor of austerity. The risk was that Democrats,
not simply New Democrats, would lose scores of seats – and control of the House and
Senate. O'Donnell stressed that no Republicans voted for the New Democrat's 1993 austerity
program. O'Donnell explained the initial political results of austerity. "The Democrats lost
the House because of that vote for the first time in 40 years." He then explained they also
lost the Senate.
O'Donnell repeatedly explained that the New Democrats knew that their decision to inflict
austerity on Americans would likely produce this political disaster – and "bravely" did
so because of their belief that inflicting austerity on Americans was essential. He noted that
he "watched with pride" this exercise of political suicide.
O'Donnell then cited President Obama's austerity efforts – during the weak recovery
from the Great Financial Crisis (GFC). At a time when the need to provide stimulus, not inflict
austerity, was obvious, Obama embraced what again proved the politically suicidal option.
As fate would have it, the death of Paul Volcker days after O'Donnell's takedown of
Buttigieg extended O'Donnell's argument further back in time – to before Buttigieg's
birth. In 1979, President Carter (a Democrat) appointed Volcker to Chair the Federal Reserve.
Volcker soon unleashed powerful monetary austerity, raising interest rates to unprecedented
levels for the United States. Volcker's obituary stressed
the politically suicidal nature of inflicting austerity – and the Democrats' pride in
knowingly losing elections because of their embrace of it.
The harsh Fed policy no doubt contributed to Mr. Carter's re-election defeat at the hands
of Ronald Reagan; he had to campaign when interest rates were at their peak, and before the
inflation fever had begun to break. Mr. Carter, in his memoirs, would offer a typically
understated assessment: "Our trepidation about Volcker's appointment was later
justified."
***
"Paul was as stubborn as he was tall," Mr. Carter said in a statement on Monday morning,
"and although some of his policies as Fed chairman were politically costly, they were the
right thing to do.
O'Donnell's denunciation of Buttigieg for adopting dishonest Republican talking points about
Democrats and deficits did not discuss several essential points. The first two points emerge
from answering this question: what was the cost to the Nation – not the loss of
Democratic seats – of the New Democrats' intransigent insistence on inflicting austerity?
Shakespeare explained famously that "mercy" was "twice blest," because it blesses both the
giver and the receiver. The quality of austerity, however, is typically at least thrice damned.
It is not a "gentle rain from heaven," but a sandstorm from hell that batters the public and
punishes the politicians who unleash the whirlwind. It is at least thrice damned because it
causes three grave forms of harm on the public.
Inflicting austerity on the United States government has three likely consequences for the
public. It is likely to cause or extend a recession. It forces Democrats into an unending
series of "Sophie's choice[s]s." We cannot adopt any new program of consequence without budget
'scoring' – requiring new taxes or cutting other vital federal programs. Under austerity,
Democrats must shrink existing overall federal spending. By extending existing recessions or
leading to new ones, austerity causes economic harms that increase social and political
breakdowns that can lead to the election of fanatics and corrupt fake-populists. The political
parties that refuse to inflict austerity (at least when they are in power) will be the
political winners.
Republican fiscal policies combine "wedge" offerings to fire up the worst of their base and
massive tax breaks for the elites that fund their campaigns – leading to a recurrent
cycle in which the New Democrats champion policies that cause the public to identify Democrats
as the party most likely to raise taxes and cut vital federal programs. Republican political
power and 'wedge' legislation and policies cause enormous harm, particularly to the poor and
minorities. The larger the Republican deficits, the greater the New Democrats' urgency to
inflict austerity – and embrace political suicide. It is a self-reinforcing cycle
producing recurrent political disaster for Democrats.
O'Donnell does not address two other critical points. First, MSNBC's top commentators
endlessly warn Democrats that they must nominate the presidential candidate most likely to
defeat President Trump. MSNBC's commentators implore us not to focus on policy differences
among the candidates. Their message is relentless realpolitik, particularly, you should never
vote for the candidate whose policies you believe are far superior to the candidate the MSNBC
commentators think is most electable. MSNBC and the New Democrats claim they share the same
prime directive – Democratic Party electoral victories are the only imperative.
O'Donnell's anti-Buttigieg rant reveals the truth about MSNBC and the New Democrats' real
prime directive – inflicting austerity even when doing so is economically irrational and
politically suicidal is their sole imperative. The obvious questions, which O'Donnell never
asked or attempted to answer, are why he and his MSNBC colleagues push the false prime
directive (winning must be the sole paramount goal) as gospel while praising the New Democrats
for repeatedly causing the Democratic Party to commit political suicide through inflicting
austerity on our Nation. Logically, the only possible answer to that question is that O'Donnell
and the New Democrats must view inflicting austerity as being of transcendent importance. It
outweighs everything. Inflicting austerity is the New Democrats and MSNBC's sole prime
directive. They are not simply willing to lose so many contests that they lose control of the
presidency, the House, and the Senate – they are "proud" to do so when the reason for
those losses is 'we committed political suicide to fight to inflict austerity.' The related
questions are whether MSNBC and the New Democrats are actually blind to the contradiction
between the real and phony prime directives and why they think viewers and voters will be too
dumb to spot the obvious contradiction. Why do New Democrats and MSNBC insist on hiding their
real prime directive?
A related question arises from this bizarre prime directive to inflict austerity even when
it is politically suicidal. Why did New Democrats and MSNBC choose inflicting austerity as
their holy grail? What is it about inflicting austerity that makes New Democrats so "proud" to
cause the Democratic Party to commit political suicide and deliver control of the House,
Senate, and Presidency to the likes of Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell, and
Donald Trump? Preventing Bush's invasion of Iraq, global climate disruption, and Trump's
election would all make sense as overriding priorities. Those are things worthy of losing a
House seat or even the entire House.
Inflicting austerity typically harms America and our people. A federal budget deficit is not
bad. A federal budget surplus is not good. Clinton and Gore's budget surpluses were not good
for America. They were likely harmful, as recessions soon followed our prior budget surpluses
throughout our history. In each of the cases O'Donnell lauded, the New Democrats' insistence on
inflicting austerity did not simply prove politically suicidal for the Democratic Party –
austerity was a terrible economic policy that caused harm. How did inflicting austerity become
the overriding priority of New Democrats, swamping all other policies? In 1993, when Clinton
and Gore made O'Donnell "proud" by inflicting austerity, the inflation rate was three percent.
That rate of inflation was trivially higher than what the Fed would adopt as its inflation
target (2%) – the preferred rate of inflation. Even under neoclassical economic nostrums,
there was no need, much less a compelling need, to inflict austerity.
In 2010, when Obama first sought to inflict austerity on us, the rate of inflation was 2.3
percent and the unemployment rate was 9.6 percent. The economic illiteracy of his austerity
horrified even neoclassical economists. Fortunately, the Tea Party Republicans pushed so
aggressively in the "Grand Bargain" negotiations with Obama that the tentative deal he reached
with congressional Republicans collapsed. Otherwise, Obama's infliction of austerity would have
ended the already weak recovery, plunged the Nation back into a Great Recession, and caused him
and scores of congressional Democrats to lose their elections in 2012.
O'Donnell's presentation, implicitly, makes it clear that he thinks austerity is so
obviously desirable, and the budget deficits of a fully sovereign nation so obviously the
gravest conceivable threat that he need provide neither logic nor evidence to support the New
Democrat's politically suicidal and economically illiterate austerity prime directive.
O'Donnell's cheerleading for the austerity prime directive was never supported, but it has
become facially indefensible over the last quarter-century. Trump's tax reduction scheme for
the wealthiest was outrageous on multiple grounds, but O'Donnell can observe the present
unemployment and inflation rates. Unemployment is at 3.5% and the inflation rate for 2018 was
1.9% -- less than the Fed's target rate. Inflation is the only logical bugaboo about federal
budget deficits, so O'Donnell and Buttigieg's feverish fear that federal deficits are about to
cause a catastrophe is beyond bizarre. The bond markets confirm that there is no expectation of
material inflation.
The New Democrats remain transfixed by their 'virtue' and 'bravery' in losing control of all
three branches of government by insisting on inflicting economically illiterate and politically
suicidal austerity assaults on the voters – raising taxes and cutting vital services.
They refuse to act on the real emergencies we face such as global climate disruption based on
the economically illiterate fantasy that 'we cannot afford' to prevent the worsening
catastrophe. The 'New Democrats' and their media enablers demand that we nominate candidates
dedicated to enacting politically suicidal deficit hysteria policies and adopting tepid
anti-environment policies that are suicidal towards the lives of our children and
grandchildren. The most remarkable aspect of this insanity, however, is that the hucksters
pitch their embrace of their prime directive as defining the concept of "responsible." Indeed,
it is so obviously 'responsible' that O'Donnell and Buttigieg feel neither logic nor facts are
necessary to prove the virtues of austerity. They omit the fact that austerity proponents'
warnings and promises have repeatedly proved false and outright harmful as well as politically
suicidal.
Could it be that the New Democrats are not stupid or irrational at all but know what they
are doing and happily play their role in the permanent professional wrestling spectacle as
the hapless patsies who keep losing to the real tough guy? After all, they get paid
handsomely in any case.
Not only did President Carter appoint Volcker, but he also vetoed a bill to raise the
national debt ceiling. Thankfully Congress, run by a very different set of Democrats at the
time, over-rode his veto.
"Austerity" is basically the only policy Team Blue has undertaken without outside
pressure. As bad as it is, it's the one thing they can point to over the last 25 years as
something they did without mass mobilization or court cases embarrassing them into not being
totally heinous.
Then little Mayo Pete is trying to deny Team Blue their only accomplishment.
"... In a previous post I have compared the Clintons and their followers to be the 21st Century's version of Typhoid Mary. Anybody who works with the Clinton's is invariably infected with corruption. ..."
Watching the House impeachment live on TV reminds me of what the 19th century writer,
historian and political observer Lord Acton said: "Never underestimate the influence of
stupidity on history." This exercise in political sado-masochism however, must traced back to
Hillary Clinton and the Clintonista hold on the Democratic Party. It began when Hillary
started crying sour grapes about her loss in the 2016 election.
In a previous post I have
compared the Clintons and their followers to be the 21st Century's version of Typhoid Mary.
Anybody who works with the Clinton's is invariably infected with corruption.
My apologies if this has been posted before, but here is a news conference broadcast by
Interfax a few days ago detailing a joint French-Ukrainian journalistic investigation into a
huge money laundering scheme using various shadow banking organizations in Austria and
Switzerland, benefiting Clinton friendly Ukrainian oligarchs and of course the Clinton
Foundation.
The link is short enough to not require re-formatting:
Forgive me for the somewhat redundant post, and again I hope this is not a waste of anyone's
time, but this is the source of the Interfax report I posted just above currently at #56. It
is relevant to the Ukrainegate impeachment fiasco.
The U.S. and lapdog EU/UK media will not touch this with a 10 foot pole.
KYIV. Dec 17 (Interfax-Ukraine) – Ukraine and the United States should investigate
the transfer of $29 million by businessman Victor Pinchuk from Ukraine to the Clinton
Foundation, Ukrainian Member of Parliament (independent) Andriy Derkach has said. According
to him, the investigation should check and establish how the Pinchuk Foundation's
activities were funded; it, among other projects, made a contribution of $29 million to the
Clinton Foundation. "Yesterday, Ukrainian law enforcement agencies registered criminal
proceeding number 12019000000001138. As part of this proceeding, I provided facts that
should be verified and established by the investigation. Establishing these facts will also
help the American side to conduct its own investigation and establish the origin of the
money received by [Hillary] Clinton," Derkach said at a press conferences at
Interfax-Ukraine in Kyiv on Tuesday, December 17.
According to him, it was the independent French online publication Mediapart that first
drew attention to the money withdrawal scheme from Ukraine and Pinchuk's financing of the
Clinton Foundation.
"The general scheme is as follows. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) lent money to
Ukraine in 2015. The same year, Victor Pinchuk's Credit Dnepr [Bank] received UAH 357
million in a National Bank stabilization loan from the IMF's disbursement. Delta Bank was
given a total of UAH 5.110 billion in loans. The banks siphoned the money through Austria's
Meinl Bank into offshore accounts, and further into [the accounts of] the Pinchuk
Foundation. The money siphoning scam was confirmed by a May 2016 ruling by [Kyiv's]
Pechersky court. The total damage from this scam involving other banks is estimated at $800
million. The Pinchuk Foundation transferred $29 million to the Foundation of Clinton, a
future U.S. presidential candidate from the Democratic Party," Derkach said.
And behind Brennan we can can see the Nobel Peace Price winner.
Notable quotes:
"... A major role in directing the plot has fallen to Obama's consigliere John Brennan, the current director of the CIA. ..."
"... One part of the still ongoing deligitimization campaign was the FBI investigation of alleged Russian connections of four members of the Trump election campaign. ..."
"... The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and on everyone they communicated with. ..."
"... The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later 'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were no more than unconfirmed rumors. ..."
"... That the dossier was mere dreck was quite obvious to any sober person who read it when it was first published ..."
"... That summer, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, flew to the US to personally brief CIA chief John Brennan. The matter was deemed so important that it was handled at "director level", face-to-face between the two agency chiefs. ..."
"... (This is a Moon of Alabama fundraiser week. Please consider to support our work .) ..."
"... Occam's razor: CIA-MI6, with approval of US Deep State (Clintons, Bush, McCain, Brennan, Mueller, etc.), meddled to elect Trump and pointed fingers at Russia to initiate a new McCarthyism. ..."
"... "Sergey Lavrov: In my opinion, Congress sounds rather obsessed with destroying our relations. It continues pursuing the policy started by the Obama administration. As I mentioned, we are used to this kind of attack. We know how to respond to them. I assure you that neither Nord Stream-2 nor Turkish Stream will be halted." ..."
"... ... the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by Obama's team and was designed for Clinton to escalate ... ..."
"... It's Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed of August 2014 that provides the answer. In this Op-Ed, Kissinger calls for a restored US Empire that is essentially Trump's MAGA. Kissinger is writing immediately after the Donbas rebels have won. The Russians refused to heed Kissinger's advice (to back down) and it has become apparent that Russia's joining the West is no longer an inevitability as the US elite had assumed. ..."
"... Good chance Steele had little to do with writing the Dossier. "Simpson-Ohr Dossier", anyone? Steele was needed as a credible looking intelligence officer with Russia ties and a past working relationship with US Intel, as cover to sell to FBI, FISA Court, and the public (meeting with Isikoff, Yahoo News story). ..."
"... Glenn Simpson and wife Mary Jacoby had written articles for the WSJ in 2007 and 2008 with a script and language similar to the Dossier. Devin Nunes seems to believe this scenario, and it is discussed in detail in books by Dan Bongino and Lee Smith, among others. ..."
"... physchoh @ 60; The difference, at least in my mind, is that, the "Russia did it" meme, is the weakest of all cases against DJT. Corbyn, on the other hand, may actually be hurt by the bogus charges. IMO, what this shows is coordination between the elites to bring down a progressive in the UK, who fancies public control over major finances instead of private concerns. ..."
"... So Horowitz was technically correct when he did not find bias. What he might have been reluctant to spell out is that he did find malice. ..."
When Hillary Clinton was defeated in the U.S. presidential election the relevant powers
launched a campaign to delegitimize the President elect Donald Trump.
The ultimate aim of the cabal is to kick him out of office and have a reliable
replacement, like the Vice-President elect Pence, take over. Should that not be possible
it is hoped that the delegitimization will make it impossible for Trump to change major
policy trajectories especially in foreign policy. A main issue here is the reorientation of
the U.S. military complex and its NATO proxies from the war of terror towards a direct
confrontation with main powers like Russia and China.
...
A major role in directing the plot has fallen to Obama's consigliere John Brennan, the
current director of the CIA.
One part of the still ongoing deligitimization campaign was the FBI investigation of alleged
Russian connections of four members of the Trump election campaign.
Horowitz finds that the FBI was within the law when it opened the investigation but that the
FBI's applications to the FISA court, which decides if the FBI can spy on someone's
communications, were based on lies and utterly flawed.
Your host unfortunately lacked the time so far to read more than the executive summary. But
others have pointed out some essential findings.
If the report released Monday by Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz
constitutes a "clearing" of the FBI, never clear me of anything. ...
Much of the press is concentrating on Horowitz's conclusion that there was no evidence of
"political bias or improper motivation" in the FBI's probe of Donald Trump's Russia contacts,
an investigation Horowitz says the bureau had "authorized purpose" to conduct.
...
However, Horowitz describes at great length an FBI whose "serious" procedural problems and
omissions of "significant information" in pursuit of surveillance authority all fell in the
direction of expanding the unprecedented investigation of a presidential candidate (later, a
president).
...
There are too many to list in one column, but the Horowitz report show years of breathless
headlines were wrong. Some key points:
The so-called "Steele dossier" was, actually, crucial to the FBI's decision to seek secret
surveillance of Page. ...
...
The "Steele dossier" was "Internet rumor," and corroboration for the pee tape story was
"zero." ...
Appendix 1 identifies the total violations by the FBI of the so-called Woods Procedures, the
process by which the bureau verifies information and assures the FISA court its evidence is
true.
The Appendix identifies a total of 51 Woods procedure violations from the FISA application
the FBI submitted to the court authorizing surveillance of former Trump campaign aide Carter
Page starting in October 2016.
A whopping nine of those violations fell into the category called: "Supporting document
shows that the factual assertion is inaccurate."
For those who don't speak IG parlance, it means the FBI made nine false assertions to the
FISA court. In short, what the bureau said was contradicted by the evidence in its official
file.
The FBI agents and lawyers intentionally lied to the court. Their violations were not
mistakes. All 51 of them were in favor of further spying on members of the Trump campaign and
on everyone they communicated with.
The FBI has used the Steele dossier to gain further FISA application even after it had
talked with Steele's 'primary source' (who probably was the later
'buzzed' Sergei Skripal ) and after it had learned that the allegations in the dossier were
no more than unconfirmed rumors.
The anonymous former British operator hears from an anonymous compatriot that two anonymous
sources, asserted to have access to inner Russian circles, claimed to have heard somewhere
that something happened in the Kremlin.
They assert that Trump was supported and directed by Putin himself five years ago while
even a year ago no one would have bet a penny on Trump gaining any political significant
position or even the presidency.
It is now claimed that the FBI is exculpated because the Horowitz report did not find
"political bias or improper motivation". But that omits the fact that at least four high
ranking people in the FBI and Justice Department who were involved in the case were found to be
politically
biased and were removed from their positions.
It also omits that the scope of Horowitz's investigation was limited to the Justice
Department. He was not able to investigate the CIA and its former director John Brennan who was
alleging Russia-Trump connections months before the FBI investigation started:
Contrary to a general impression that the FBI launched the Trump-Russia conspiracy probe,
Brennan pushed it to the bureau – breaking with CIA tradition by intruding into
domestic politics: the 2016 presidential election. He also supplied suggestive but ultimately
false information to counterintelligence investigators and other U.S. officials.
The current CIA director Gina Haspel was CIA station chief in London during that time and
while several of the entrapment attempts of Trump campaign staff by the FBI investigation
happened. Horowitz spoke with neither of them.
The current Horowitz Report, read alongside his previous report on how the FBI played inside
the 2016 election vis-a-vis Clinton, should leave no doubt that the Bureau tried to influence
the election of a president and then delegitimize him when he won. It wasn't the Russians; it
was us.
That is correct, but the whole conspiracy was even deeper. It was not the FBI which
initiated the case.
My hunch is still that the FBI investigation was a case of parallel construction which is often
used to build a legitimate case after a suspicion was found by illegitimate means. In this case
it was John Brennan who in early 2016 contacted the head of the British GCHQ electronic
interception service and asked him to spy on the Trump campaign. GHCQ then claimed that
something was found that was deemed
suspicious :
That summer, GCHQ's then head, Robert Hannigan, flew to the US to personally brief CIA chief
John Brennan. The matter was deemed so important that it was handled at "director level",
face-to-face between the two agency chiefs.
The FBI was tipped off on the issue and on July 31 2016 started an investigation to
construct a parallel legal case. It send out British and U.S. agents to entrap Trump campaign
members. It used the obviously fake Steele dossier to gain FISA court judgments that allowed it
to spy on the campaign. Downing Street
was informed throughout the whole affair. A day after Trump's inauguration the UK's then
Prime Minister Theresa May
fired GHCQ chief Robert Hannigan.
One still open question is to what extend then President Barack Obama was involved in the
affair.
There is another ongoing investigation by U.S. Prosecutor John Durham. That investigation is
not limited to the Justice Department but will involve all agencies and domestic as well as
foreign sources. Durham has the legal rights to declassify whatever is needed and he can indict
persons should he find that they committed a crime. His report will hopefully go much deeper
than the already horrendous stuff Horowitz delivered.
(This is a Moon of Alabama fundraiser week. Please consider to support our
work .)
Posted by b on December 11, 2019 at 16:16 UTC |
Permalink
Anyone taking bets on Durham/Barr making indictments in this mess? My guess is a whole lot of
horse trading is going on behind the scenes now, as in, "I'll trade you a censure for all
potential indictments going down the memory hole."
Typical dog and pony show which will change nothing relating to interventionist foreign
policy and the new cold war with Russia. Too many saw benefits from the corruption in Ukraine
to dig deep there; the Bidens were just the most blatant, Lindsey Graham and others from both
parties were involved so don't expect much from the Senate hearings. The bipartisan major
goals are a fait accompli; universal acceptance that Russia worked to undermine our elections
(and to destroy our "Democracy") and are thus an enemy we must fight, and it's universally
accepted by all that we MUST provide Ukraine with Javelin missiles and other lethal aid to
fight "Russian Aggression" (with little mention that even Obama balked at that reckless
option). All of these proceedings are great distractions, but the weapons of war will not be
diminished.
Unfortuneately, few will question the findings of these investigations or consider the
possibility that the investigations themselves are misdirection/cover-up.
IMO the Lavrov-Pompeo
presser is notable mostly for Lavrov's discussion of Russiagate (about 6 minutes in).
Lavrov tells us that the Russian's repeatedly sought to clarify their noninterference by
publishing correspondence - which the Trump Administration didn't respond to. And he actual
mentions McCarthyism!
Wait, wot?
Yeah, during the worst of the Russiagate accusations, Trump wouldn't do things that
would've helped to prove that Russiagate was a farce!!
So, during the election, Trump called on Putin to publish Hillary's emails (the very act
of making such a request is likely illegal because at the time it was known that her emails
contained highly classified info) but he wouldn't accept Russia's publication of
exculpatory info about Russiagate?!?!
This would cause cognitive dissonance galore in an Americans that hear it - so one can
be sure that it will not be reported.
Occam's razor: CIA-MI6, with approval of US Deep State (Clintons, Bush, McCain, Brennan,
Mueller, etc.), meddled to elect Trump and pointed fingers at Russia to initiate a new
McCarthyism.
Meanwhile in bizarroland (aka USA), Barr says Russiagate is a fantasy based on FBI "bad
faith" - yet Pompeo still presses on with the "Russia meddled" bullshit.
thanks b... i like your example in the comment - ''those who thought otherwise should
question their judgment''.. good example!
i am a bit concerned like @ 2 casey, that most of this is going to go down the memory hole
and there will be that made in america stamp on it - ''no accountability''... i wish i was
wrong, but getting worked up at the idea anyone is going to be held accountable for any
actions of the usa, or the insiders playing the usa, is clearly a fools game at this point..
all i mostly see is the needed collapse and waiting for that to happen..
Thanks for that, there are definitely cracks in the armor and we should promote that
narrative as you do in your link. Tulsi Gabbard has also expanded the awareness, hopefully
she will make the upcoming debates despite strong efforts to silence her. I'll try more to
focus on the positive!
@ 6 jr.. there is a press release on all what was said
here for anyone interested..
lavrov quote and etc. etc.. "We suggested to our colleagues that in order to dispel all
suspicions that are baseless, let us publish this closed-channel correspondence starting from
October 2016 till November 2017 so it would all become very clear to many people. However,
regrettably, this administration refused to do so. But I'd like to repeat once again we are
prepared to do that, and to publish the correspondence that took place through that channel
would clear many matters up, I believe. Nevertheless, we hope that the turbulence that
appeared out of thin air will die down, just like in 1950s McCarthyism came to naught, and
there'll be an opportunity to go back to a more constructive cooperation."
I continue to believe that the FBI and Horowitz perjured themselves
in the FISA report. To correct a mistake in a previous post I made, I
believe they lied when the claimed the Steele Dossier was not a
predicate for opening crossfire hurricane. How can the Steele dossier
not be instrumental in the opening of the investigation when bruce ohr's
wife nellie ohr was working at fusion gps when bruce ohr met with
steele
to discuss the dirty dossier.
In other words, the FBI
was concocting Operation Crossfire Hurricane prior to the time they had
any knowledge of the phony Papadopoulus predicate that the russians were proferring
the clinton emails to the trump campaign.
The FISA report claim that Operation Crossfire
Hurricane was predicated solely on the Papadopolous allegations is therefore a lie. There
was, in fact, no real predicate for Operation Crossfire Hurricane. The predications
cited were all fictions and inventions fabricated in a conspiracy between MI6(the FFC or
friendly foreign country cited in the Horowitz report), the
DOJ and the FBI. Operation Crossfire Hurricane was a massive Psyop from its inception.
What major publications have picked up this info from the State Dept PR? Which of them are
questioning why Trump didn't agree to let the Russians publish the exonerating information?
And how many of those are linking this strange fact to other strange facts and thus raising
troubling questions about the 2016 election?
<> <> <> <> <> <>
It's not just that Trump refused to publish exculpatory material. Anyone that's been
reading my comments (and/or my blog) knows that Trump also:
- hired Manafort - whose work for pro-Russian candidates in Ukraine had drawn the ire of
CIA - despite Manafort's having no recent experience with US elections;
- helped Pelosi to be elected Speaker of the House by inviting her to attend a White
House meeting about his border wall (along with Chuck Schumer) prior to the House vote to
elect a Speaker.
- initiated Ukrainegate by talking with Ukraine's President about investigating an
announced candidate - he didn't have to do this(!) he could've let subordinates work
behind the scenes .
And then there's a set of suspicious activity that is difficult to explain, such as: ...
- Kissinger's having called for MAGA in August 2014 (Trump announced his campaign 10
months later and he was the ONLY MAGA candidate and the ONLY populist in the Republican
primary) ;
- London as a nexus for the US 2016 campaign (Cambridge Analytica; GPS Fusion;
Halper, etc.) ;
- Hillary's making mistakes in the 2016 campaign that no seasoned politician would
make;
- the settling of scores via entrapments of Flynn, Manafort, and Wikileaks/Assange
(painted as a hostile intelligence agency and Russian agent).
All of these and more support the conclusion that CIA-MI6 elected MAGA Trump and initiated
Russiagate.
The anonymous former British operator hears from an anonymous asserted compatriot what two
anonymous sources, asserted to have access to inner Russian circles, claim to have heard
somewhere that something happened in the Kremlin. <-- Perhaps it is too much to add that
the entire conversation happen in a pub, like an eyewitness account of a trout caught by an
angler that was larger than a tiger shark [the trout was so large, not the angler].
I am a great fan of Dmitri Orlov and have just read a large portion of his linked
post.
What I do not see Orlov doing is taking into account--in his takedown of "scientific"
models---evidence of global warming/change such as *actual* observations of *actual, current*
phenomena that are being measured today, such as the condition of the world's coral reefs;
the rate of melting of permafrost and release of methane gas; the melting of Greenland (and
other) glaciers and release of fresh water into the oceans; acidification of oceans; and
quite a lot of evidence for sea level rise, such as saltwater intrusion into freshwater
swamps, aquifers, etc.
More can be gleaned by the manner in which BigLie Media spin the investigation's results. At
The Hill , Jonathon Turley makes that clear in the first paragraph:
"The analysis of the report by Justice Department inspector general Michael Horowitz
greatly depends, as is often the case, on which cable news channel you watch. Indeed, many
people might be excused for concluding that Horowitz spent 476 pages to primarily conclude
one thing, which is that the Justice Department acted within its guidelines in starting its
investigation into the 2016 campaign of President Trump."
The further he goes the worse it gets for the Ds. And he's 100% correct about the biases
present in reporting about the Report.
Remarks made by Lavrov at the presser were likely done prior to anyone from Russia's
delegation having digested any of the Report. What I found important was the following
revelation by Lavrov:
"Let me remind you that at the time of the first statements on this topic, which was on
the eve of the 2016 US presidential election, we used the communications channel that linked
back then Moscow and the Obama administration in Washington to ask our US partners on
numerous occasions whether these allegations that emerged in October 2016 and persisted until
Donald Trump's inauguration could be addressed. The reply never came. There was no
response whatsoever to all our proposals when we said: look, if you suspect us, let's sit
down and talk, just put your facts on the table. All this continued after President Trump's
inauguration and the appointment of a new administration. We proposed releasing the
correspondence through this closed communications channel for the period from October 2016
until January 2017 in order to dispel all this groundless suspicion. This would have
clarified the situation for many. Unfortunately, this time it was the current administration
that refused to do so. Let me reiterate that we are ready to disclose to the public the
exchanges we had through this channel . I think that this would set many things straight.
Nevertheless we expect the turbulence that appeared out of thin air to calm down little by
little, just as McCarthyism waned in the 1950s, so that we can place our cooperation on a
more constructive footing." [My Emphasis]
Lavrov on Mueller Report: "It contains no confirmation of any collusion." End of story.
But we do have all this compiled evidence within our communications we're ready to publish is
the USA
agrees.
The Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR) organization has yet to publish anything
about the report. However, Matt Taibbi often writes for that outlet, so his reporting at
Rolling Stone ought to be seen as a proxy FAIR report.
Now that we know Carter Page was working for the CIA as an informant in 2016, is it
reasonable to speculate that Page was planted in the Trump campaign by the CIA?
The Inspector General of the Department of Justice, Micheal Horowitz's report on the move to
delegitimize the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency is clear proof of the massive rot
that lies at the heart of the US' political system. If this matter is whitewashed over by the
MSM, then one more step will have been taken to a violent and bloody revolution in the US of
A.
By now Steele's credibility is zero. Time to revisit Steele's involvement with the debunked
"Russia bought the soccer World Champion games", the Litvinenko polonium poisening and the
Skripal novichok poisening. The timing of the Skripal matter deserves some scrutiny in
relation to Skripal possibly being Steele's source for the infamous Trump dossier. There
might be a motive hidden there.
Thank you for posting Lavrov's words. Between those words and the IG report the kabuki
farce is revealed. Why was Trump ignoring the Russian offer you might ask. Because it suited
him to have this nonsense dominate the news cycle, you might conclude. Trump and Comey and
Brennan deserve each other.
just like 9-11... this is an inside job... does anyone really think the truth is going to
come to light in any of it?? i'm still with @ 2 caseys view...
Thanks for your reply! Yes, agreed, and I'd add Obama and Clinton.
Lavrov also held another presser at the conclusion of his visit that provides additional
info not covered in the first. The following is one I thought important:
"Question: The day before, US Congress agreed on a draft military budget, which includes
possible sanctions against Nord Stream-2 and Turkish Stream. Have you covered this topic? The
Congress sounds very determined. How seriously will the new restrictions affect the
completion of our projects?
"Sergey Lavrov: In my opinion, Congress sounds rather obsessed with destroying our
relations. It continues pursuing the policy started by the Obama administration. As I
mentioned, we are used to this kind of attack. We know how to respond to them. I assure you
that neither Nord Stream-2 nor Turkish Stream will be halted."
I must emphatically agree with Lavrov's opinion and was very pleased he answered
forthrightly. What seems quite clear is the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by
Obama's team and was designed for Clinton to escalate, with bipartisan Congressional backing.
That she lost didn't stop the anti-Russian wheel from being turned. So, logic tells us to
discover the reason for Obama to alter policy. Over the years I've written here why I think
that was done--to continue the #1 policy goal of attaining Full Spectrum Dominance over the
planet and its people regardless of its impossibility given the Sino-Russo Alliance made
reality by that policy goal. That a supermajority in Congress remain deluded is clearly a
huge problem, and those continuing to vote for the War Budget need to be removed.
b posted, in part;"When Hillary Clinton was defeated in the U.S. presidential election the
relevant powers launched a campaign to delegitimize the President elect Donald Trump."
It doesn't take HRC and her resident scum-bag sycophants to deligitimize DJT, his sorry
life-style, and his past record do that quite nicely, IMO.
Are you aware of any means by which a member of congress or of a congressional committee can
be impeached or otherwise censured for the misconduct of official duties? That would at least
be Schiff...
Posted by: Paul Damascene | Dec 11 2019 21:24 utc |
32
@ 31 john.. i didn't know i had to read the orlov article to say what i did to you!! your
post @11 never make any internet link to orlov... what am i missing? does this mean i can
only speak with you after i have read another orlov article? lol...
"It doesn't take HRC and her resident scum-bag sycophants to deligitimize DJT, his sorry
life-style, and his past record do that quite nicely, IMO."--ben @28
Ah, but that would be legitimate deligitimization, like attacking his actual policies.
Those are rocks that would break the Democrats' own windows as well as Trump's.
1. Senate Foreign Relations Comm passed Turkey sanctions bill
2. Pentagon Chief warned Turkey moving away NATO
3. U.S. lawmakers introduce legislation to curb Turkey's nuclear weapon obtainment"
Finally, the pretense of being nice to Turkey has come to an end. It will now intensify
its looking East, and pursue its national interests. IMO, the Eastern Med's energy issues
will now become a major headache.
karlof @ 29: The head Dems know their pushing the " Russia did it"meme is weak, but the
PTB
insist on it, to keep the MIC funds flowing.
The "no-brainer" charges should be; "Obstruction" and "Emoluments" violations. Charges the
public can grasp.
What happens if you, or any average person, ignores a summons to appear? They are
arrested.
Funneling govt. funds for personal gain is a violation of law, if you are POTUS.
These are violations average Americans can grasp, not the current circus of he said, she
said, going on in D.C. lately.
Guess my point is, this hearings are built to fail, because most of our so-called
leaders
like things the way they are. The rape of the workings classes will continue.
Yes. The impeachment process is the same as for Trump. Censuring is much easier but doubt
it will occur as too many are deserving. We're seeing the reason Congressional elections are
held every two years--vote 'em out if they're no good!
... the current anti-Russian idiocy was started by Obama's team and was designed for
Clinton to escalate ...
I don't agree that the baton would be passed to Clinton. The Deep State uses the two-party
system as a device. It's not tied to partisan concerns. If the Deep State and the
establishment really wanted Clinton elected, they would've made that happen. Few expected
Trump to win and few would've been outraged if he had lost. Yet he won. Against all odds. Furthermore, Clinton wasn't the MAGA candidate as called for by Kissinger - Trump was. And
he was from the beginning of his candidacy.
Russiagate was based on suspicions of a populist that was compromised by Russia.
Hillary has too much baggage to play populist or nationalist - including Bill's involvement
with Epstein.
Also, you're forgetting the set ups of Manafort, Flynn, and Wikileaks/Assange - which were
important parts of Russiagate and also a convenient way of settling scores. These set-ups
required the Russiagate-tainted candidate (Trump) to win.
And Trump's beating Hillary makes him the classic come-from-behind hero - giving Trump a
certain legitimacy that an establishment candidate wouldn't have. That's important when
contemplating taking the country to war in the near future.
It's strange to me that people can think that Hillary was the 'chosen candidate', and be
OK with that but find a possible selection of a different candidate (Trump, as it turns out)
to be outrageous and inconceivable.
=
... with bipartisan Congressional backing . That she lost didn't stop the
anti-Russian wheel from being turned.
Since the Deep State and the Establishment desired an effort to restore the Empire, they
would turn to whomever could most effectively accomplish that task.
Once again: It didn't have to be Hillary that was selected. In fact, for many reasons
(that I've previously expressed) Hillary would have been a poor choice.
=
So, logic tells us to discover the reason for Obama to alter policy. Over the years I've
written here why I think that was done--to continue the #1 policy goal of attaining Full
Spectrum Dominance over the planet and its people ...
FSD is US Mil policy, not a political goal. It states that US Mil will strive to have
superiority in weapons and capability in every sphere of combat.
Politically, FSD is just one of several means to an end. IMO that end is the maintenance
and expansion of the Anglo-Zionist Empire (aka New World Order).
Also, your dominance theory doesn't answer the question of WHY NOW? (more on that
below)
... regardless of its impossibility given the Sino-Russo Alliance ...
Firstly, US Deep State believes that it is possible. And I personally don't buy the notion
that Russia and China are fated to prevail. If that were obvious, then the moa bar would have
no patrons.
Secondly (and again), WHY NOW? The Sino-Russo Alliance was long in the making. Why did USA
suddenly take note?
It's
Kissinger's WSJ Op-Ed of August 2014 that provides the answer. In this Op-Ed, Kissinger
calls for a restored US Empire that is essentially Trump's MAGA. Kissinger is writing
immediately after the Donbas rebels have won. The Russians refused to heed Kissinger's advice
(to back down) and it has become apparent that Russia's joining the West is no longer an
inevitability as the US elite had assumed.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
I've written many times of Kissinger's Op-Ed and of indications that the Deep State
selected MAGA Trump to be President while also initiating a new McCarthyism. Why is it STILL
so difficult to believe a theory that makes so much sense?
Yes, the status quo is very generous to the Current Oligarchy and its tools, but not so
for the vast public majority which is clamoring for change. IMO, much can be learned from the
UK election tomorrow, of which there's been very little discussion here despite its
importance. I suggest following the very important developments from the past few days at
Criag Murray's Twitter and
at
his website , the linked article being a scoop of sorts.
Also harder to follow but important as well are ballot initiatives within the states.
This site
has current listing . I just looked over those for California where there are a few good
ones, but the threshold for signatures is getting higher, close to one million are now needed
in CA.
Lavrov's comments about the offers to open up normally closed communications really only
highlight two obvious issues:
The previous US Administration had no interest in shutting off the oxygen to the "Trump =
Moscow's Man" campaign; and
The current US Administration cannot afford to be perceived as receiving help in this matter
from the country he is alleged to be beholden to for his election.
With only 9% approval, it ought to be easy to toss out most Congresscritters, excepting
that part of the Senate not up for reelection.
You'd think so, but somehow the numbers pretty much reverse when these same people
consider their own rep, and the incumbency reelection rate is shockingly high (haven't
looked recently but IIRC it has hovered around 90% for decades). Apparently it is amazingly
easy to convince the masses that their guy is the one good apple in the bunch.
Jon Schwartz
reminds me why I don't stop and peruse magazine stands anymore. Seeing the words and this
picture would've sparked lots of unpleasant language:
"The best part of Michelle Obama explaining she shares the same values as George W. Bush
is she was being interviewed on network TV by Bush's daughter. There's nothing more American
than our ruling class making us watch them discuss how great they all are."
And the escalation wasn't rigged for Clinton to initiate--yeah, sure, whatever the rabbit
says.
Until there is some comparison of how the FISA court usually works, none of this chatter
means a thing. Violations of Woods procedures and assertions not supported by documents are
SOP. The FISA court is always a joke.
Delgeitimizing Trump, reversing the election, all simple-minded drviel, as only nitwits
see Trump as anything but the loser.
Skripal knows something that US-UK either 1) don't want the Russians to know OR 2) don't
want ANYONE to know.
What could that be? 1) That Steele dossier is bullshit? We know that. 2) That Steele
dossier was meant to be bullshit ? Well, that raises a whole host of questions,
doesn't it?
Good chance Steele had little to do with writing the Dossier. "Simpson-Ohr Dossier", anyone?
Steele was needed as a credible looking intelligence officer with Russia ties and a past
working relationship with US Intel, as cover to sell to FBI, FISA Court, and the public
(meeting with Isikoff, Yahoo News story).
Glenn Simpson and wife Mary Jacoby had written
articles for the WSJ in 2007 and 2008 with a script and language similar to the Dossier.
Devin Nunes seems to believe this scenario, and it is discussed in detail in books by Dan Bongino and Lee Smith, among others.
The Afghanistan report outlines a *massive fraud*. $14 billion/month, 90% of the world's
opium, no "progress", oh, and lying to Congress for two decades.
physchoh @ 60; The difference, at least in my mind, is that, the "Russia did it" meme, is the
weakest of all cases against DJT. Corbyn, on the other hand, may actually be hurt by the
bogus charges. IMO, what this shows is coordination between the elites to bring down a progressive in the
UK, who fancies public control over major finances instead of private concerns.
Fox News, now: Biden blames staff, says nobody 'warned' him son's Ukraine job could raise
conflict. In a TV comedy Seinfeld, one of the main characters, George, is a compulsive liar with a
knack of getting in trouble. Sometimes he has a job. Final scene of one of those jobs:
Boss: "You have been seen after hours making sex with the cleaning lady on the top of your
desk."
George (after a measured look at his boss): "If I was only told that this kind of things
is being frown upon..." [and she had cleaned the desk both before AND after!]
I have theory about why Horowitz did not bias in the FBI. The
definition of bias is to harbor a deeply negative feeling that
clouds one's judgement about a person or subject. However, the
conspirators' judgement was not clouded in this case. Their
negative feelings focused their intent to destroy the object of
their feeling. The precise term for this is malice.
So Horowitz
was technically correct when he did not find bias. What he might
have been reluctant to spell out is that he did find malice.
Re Really?? | Dec 11 2019 18:31 utc | 14 and AshenLight | Dec 11 2019 19:36 utc | 19
I agree with you. Orlov is a brilliant, insightful analyst, who is also very funny. But he
is off the mark with his dismissal of global warming and also with his endorsement of nuclear
power. The immense amounts of waste from uranium mining all the way to hundreds of thousands
of tons of high-level waste in spent fuel pools pose a huge threat to current and future
generations . . . like the next 3000 generations of humans (and all other forms of life) that
will have to deal with this. Mankind has never built anything that has lasted a fraction of
the 100,000 years required for the isolation of high-level wastes from the biosphere. Take a
look at Into
Eternity which is a great documentary on the disposal of nuclear waste in Finland.
Orlov's analysis is superficial, unfortunately, in these areas.
They poisoned with the USA with Russophobia for decades to come, and that really increases
the risk of nuclear confrontation, which would wipe out all this jerks, but also mass of innocent
people.
Notable quotes:
"... The only way to prevent it, IMHO, is having a Western public shifting just 5 % of their "breads and circuses" paradigm to that issue. Just 5. Not holding my breath I am afraid. ..."
"... Which proves the main point of mine: access to information means shit in the real world of power play. Sheeple didn't care then; they care even less now (better distractions). ..."
Sooner or later you'll have this, IMHO: Reaction time 7 minutes . You know,
decision-making time to say "launch" or not. The decision-maker in the White House, Downing
Street and Elysees Palace either a geriatric or one of this new multiracial breed. Just think
about those people
Add to that the level of overall expertise by the crews manning those systems, its
maintenance etc. Add increased automation of some parts of the launch process with
hardware/software as it's produced now (you know, quality control etc.).
It will take a miracle not to have that launch sooner or later. Not big, say .80 KT. What
happens after that is anybody's guess. Mine, taking the second point from the fourth
paragraph .a big bang.
The only way to prevent it, IMHO, is having a Western public shifting just 5 % of
their "breads and circuses" paradigm to that issue. Just 5.
Not holding my breath I am afraid.
@peterAUS The rational actor false supposition has it that the biologics can't be used
because they don't recognize friend from foe.
Rational actors? Where? Anthrax via the US mail.
One rational actor point of view is that you have to be able to respond to anything.
Anything. In a measured or escalating response. Of course biologics are being actively
pursued to the hilt. Just like you point out about Marburg.
But, the view from above is that general panic in the population cannot be allowed, and so
all biologics have to be down played. "of course we would never do anything like that, it
would be insane to endanger all of humanity". Just like nukes. So professors pontificate
misdirection, and pundits punt.
So don't expect real disclosure, or honest analysis. "We only want the fear that results
in more appropriations. Not the fear that sinks programs." Don't generate new Church
commissions. Hence the fine line. some fear yes, other fears, no.
Well Washington D.C.
Hahahahaha sorry, couldn't resist.
So don't expect real disclosure, or honest analysis.
I don't.
But I also probably forgot more about nuclear war than most of readers here will ever
know. And chemical, when you think about it; had a kit with atropine on me all the time in
all exercises. We didn't practice much that "biologics" stuff, though. We knew why, then.
Same reason for today. Call it a "stoic option" to own inevitable demise.
Now, there is a big difference between the age of those protests I mentioned and today.
The Internet. The access to information people, then, simply didn't have.
Which proves the main point of mine: access to information means shit in the real
world of power play. Sheeple didn't care then; they care even less now (better
distractions).
Well, they will care, I am sure. For about ..say in the USA ..several hours, on
average.
We here where I am typing from will care for "how to survive the aftermath" .. for two
months.Tops.
WSJ columnist today raises an old obscure issue today about the Clinton emails and Comey's
calculated exoneration of Clinton's culpability.
This story reopens the claim Comey had a report there was an email exchange between
Loretta Lynch and Clinton claiming Lynch promised her the DOJ would go easy on Clinton. Comey
claimed when confronted with this memo, Lynch merely smiled like the Cheshire cat and nothing
more was done.
This memo was later discredited as an alleged planted Russian hoax. Yet the memo story is
again put in lead position on the opinion pages of the WSJ this very morning. Why was that?
Not clear, but does the author think this alleged Lynch-Clinton campaign exchange will be
part of the upcoming Horowitz report?
(WSJ: 11/27/19 - Holman Jenkins, Jr. - "Who will turn over the 2016 rocks")
Bill Clinton destroyed the USA economy and middle class like no president has ever done.
Bush II and Obama exacerbated the destruction by the hundred folds.
I believe Hedges statement that "the true correctives to society were social movements
that never achieved formal political power" is perhaps one of the most important things for
each of us to understand.
I watched this with interest and curiosity and growing skepticism although he makes some
killer points and cites some extremely disturbing facts; above all he accepts and
uncritically so the American narrative of history.
The message from democrats is "hey we're not bigots". Most people (repubs+dems) aren't. If
they keep calling on that for energy the Dems will forever continue to lose. If they don't
come back to the working class they might as well just call themselves conservatives.
Those of us who seek the truth can't stop looking under every stone. The truth will set
you free but you must share it with those who are ready to hear it and hide it from those who
can hurt you for exposing it. MT
"A Society that looses the capacity for the sacred cannibalizes itself until it dies
because it exploits the natural world as well as human beings to the point of collapse."
I believe Hedges statement that "the true correctives to society were social movements
that never achieved formal political power" is perhaps one of the most important things for
each of us to understand.
I watched this with interest and curiosity and growing skepticism although he makes some
killer points and cites some extremely disturbing facts; above all he accepts and
uncritically so the American narrative of history. The Progressive movement, for example,
(written into American history as being far more important that it ever really was,) unlike
Socialism or Communism was primarily just a literary and a trendy intellectually movement
that attempted, (unconvincingly,) to persuade poor, exploited and abused Americans that non
of those other political movements, (reactive and grass-roots,) were needed here and that
capitalism could and might of itself, cure itself; it conceded little, promised much and
unlike either Communism or Socialism delivered fuck all. Personally I remain unconvinced also
by, "climate science," (which he takes as given,) and which seems to to me to depend far too
much on faith and self important repeatedly insisting that it's true backed by lurid and
hysterical propaganda and not nearly enough on rational scientific argument, personally I
can't make head nor tail of the science behind it ? (it may well be true, or not; I can't
tell.) But above all and stripped of it his pretensions his argument is just typical theist,
(of any flavor you like,) end of times claptrap all the other systems have failed, (China for
example somewhat gives the lie to death of Communism by the way and so on,) the end is neigh
and all that is left to do is for people to turn to character out of first century fairly
story. I wish him luck with that.
The message from democrats is "hey we're not bigots". Most people (repubs+dems) aren't. If
they keep calling on that for energy the Dems will forever continue to lose. If they don't
come back to the working class they might as well just call themselves conservatives.
I have always loved Chris Hedges, but ever since becoming fully awake it pains me to see
how he will take gigantic detours of imagination to never mention Israel, AIPAC or Zionism,
and their complete takeover of the US. What a shame.
The continued growth of unproductive debt against the low or nonexistent growth of GDP is
the recipe for collapse, for the whole world economic system.
I agree with Chris about the tragedy of the Liberal Church. Making good through identity
politics however, is every bit as heretical and tragic as Evangelical Republican corrupted
church think, in my humble, Christian opinion.
The death of the present western hemisphere governments and "democratic" institutions must
die right now for humanity to be saved from the zombies that rule it. 'Cannibalization" of
oikonomia was my idea, as well as of William Engdahl. l am glad hearing Hedges to adopt the
expression of truth. ( November 2019. from Phthia , Hellas ).
ass="comment-renderer-text-content expanded"> Gosh , especially that last conclusion
,was terrific so I want to paste the whole of that Auden poem here:- September 1, 1939 W. H.
Auden - 1907-1973
... ... ...
I sit in one of the dives
On Fifty-second Street
Uncertain and afraid
As the clever hopes expire
Of a low dishonest decade:
Waves of anger and fear
Circulate over the bright
And darkened lands of the earth,
Obsessing our private lives;
The unmentionable odour of death
Offends the September night.
However, my first try did not go quite so well - mixed results.
I entered: Epstein did not commit suicide
The project outputted this:
"The news of his death brought back memories of Epstein's death at the hands of a
27-year-old lawyer in 1998, when Michael Milken, who was then a top hedge fund manager, was
convicted of insider trading and sentenced to 18 months in prison.
Milken, who was convicted of trading on information that the hedge fund firm Galleon Group
would acquire an Italian airline and put it on a stock exchange, was also said to have paid
Epstein $450,000 to have sex with an underage girl.
Epstein has never been charged in the case.
The scandal has also caused many to question whether the Clintons' political career might
have been ruined had they lived in Washington D.C. and Epstein was their friend."
The book is very graphic and discusses Epstein's sexual encounters with many of the
young girls that he had brought to America.
According to the book, the girls were given drugs and alcohol and then abused by
Epstein's friend and masseuse Ghislaine Maxwell.
Of course, Bill Clinton never had Epstein locked up and there's no book called "Lolita"
about Epstein -- this is the AI making things up. But the text is quite convincing until you
start fact-checking it, isn't it? Also, the example shows that the AI is not propagandistic.
It's the way you choose the starting words that produces pro-Empire or pro-truth results.
"... Obama orchestrated the destruction of a political rival and he will get away scott free .because he's an oppressed and downtrodden dindu. ..."
"... But in fact Obama too is CIA nomenklatura, with the same depth of dynastic ties as GW Bush, albeit not at the same lofty level. ..."
"... This past election was CIA office politics, nothing more. Russigate is simply CIA eminence Hillary, the Queen of Mena, ratfucking a bumptious queue-jumper. She outranks Trump, who was merely a junior money-launderer for the CIA agents who looted the Soviet Union. It was her turn to take the figurehead head-of-state sinecure. She and Bill earned it with their lucrative Clinton Foundation covert-ops slush fund. ..."
"... And has been since the early 1950s when the Allen Dulles-Frank Wisner-James Jesus Angleton crew got rolling. They managed to thoroughly penetrate federal and state bureaucracies, the court systems, major corporations, the financial sector, and the mockingbird media. ..."
"... Clapper revealed that the preparers of the ICA were "handpicked analysts" from only the FBI, CIA, and NSA. He explained rather unconvincingly during an interview on May 28, 2017, that "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique," adding later that "It's in their DNA." ..."
The entire FISA court process has been exposed as an insane sham.
"The Secret Team" just took the absurdity of the process and raised it to the next
level–injecting it into a political campaign.
It would be wonderful if they could fill a jail with every empty suit who touched those
warrants–but I would be stunned if even one of them gets paraded around in the orange
jump-suit they so richly deserve. Read More Replies:
@Moi
Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All
Comments
Looking on at this affair from outside the USA, it is clear that the power and influence of
the USA is waning a lot faster than most people expected.
The replacement of the US military by mercenaries who are called other names was a first
step. The sanctioning and punishing of allies for stepping out of line is the second step.
BTW, it is notable how Japan and Australia are very keen to stay in line but the Europeans
less so.
I suspect the third step will be to encourage a collapse of the Euro – so as to make
wealthy Europeans shift their money to the USA in a panic.
It seems to me that the US public will be the last to learn of what is really happening.
Even on this website there are sometimes letters or articles that mention 9/11 as a
"terrorist" or "Saudi" act. How can one take anything such a person writes seriously?
The control of media and the internet seems to be the last part of the collapse. They will
hang on to that to the very last moment.
John Brennan's CIA Trump Task Force
Could it become Obamagate?
Perhaps, but what is the point? All this bullshit is engineered to make dumbass Americans
think justice is being served. Nothing will come of it no one will go to prison.
As if Trump weren't part and parcel of the Deep State.
His actions in Syria, Bolivia, Hong Kong, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, etc. all prove
incontrovertibly that he is (and has always been) a member in fine standing of the Deep
State. If he is a Manchurian Candidate, he is the true puppet of the Deep State, not the
people or of Russia.
Exactly. I voted for Trump, but, as long ago as mid April 2017, I determined that he was a
Deep Stater his actions are just too obvious to ignore.
The Magic Negro cannot be touched and that is why nothing will be done about the biggest crime in the history of our nation
Obama orchestrated the destruction of a political rival and he will get away scott free .because he's an oppressed and downtrodden dindu.
There is considerable evidence that the American system of government may have been
victimized by an illegal covert operation organized and executed by the U.S.
Which one are you referring to, Iran 1953, Kennedy assassination 1963, Gulf of Tonkin 1964
or the other dozens of examples?
"And this was not a CIA-only operation. Personnel from the FBI also were assigned to the
Task Force "
This just in: both the CIA and FBI are unconstitutional, agencies.Get rid of them -and all
of the other unconstitutional alphabet-soup agencies[FDA,EPA,SEC etc.etc.etc.]. No
downsizing-trash them all- NOW!
This also just in: "Because they are all ultimately funded via both direct and indirect
theft [taxes], and counterfeiting [via central bank monopolies], all governments are
essentially, at their very cores, 100% corrupt criminal scams which cannot be
"reformed","improved", simply because of their innate, unchangeble criminal nature."
onebornfree
"Taking the State wherever found, striking into its history at any point, one sees no way
to differentiate the activities of its founders, administrators and beneficiaries from those
of a professional-criminal class." Albert J. Nock
@Alfred
Your point about 9/11 can't be made forcefully enough. We're going straight to hell unless
Israel and its American confederates are brought to justice, these wars ended, and order
restored. Clapper, Comey, Brennan, Mueller, Chertoff and the whole traitorous bunch are
probably guilty as principals but almost certainly they're at least complicit as accessories
before and after the fact. So naturally all we hear about is Russiagate.
The evidence overwhelmingly implicates Israel and not Saudi Arabia as you point out. That
Building 7 was brought down by explosives has been proved beyond doubt by Architects &
Engineers for 911 Truth, and as Dr. Alan Sobrosky put it, if Building 7 was brought down by
explosives, so too were the Twin Towers. The official NIST reports and all related government
narratives are preposterous. They're fairytales for fools inasmuch as the official mechanisms
rely on a suspension of the laws of physics more fanciful than Jack and the Beanstalk. The
story of the nineteen Arabs who couldn't handle Cessna 150s magically flying jetliners into
precise targets is more absurd than fairytale tropes about flying carpets.
Yet for Conservatism Inc and Fox News, which both claim to oppose the Deep State and its
narratives, there's no standard of evidence so low or preposterous that these cucks won't
cling to it to cover up what they must now know is Israel's guilt. We can assume it's
precisely because they're aware of Israel's guilt that they rule out the overwhelmingly
conclusive circumstantial evidence pointing to Israel on the grounds such evidence is
"anti-Semitic" and consequently false on apriori grounds. Moreover, any expert investigator
qualified in the relevant field who uncovers and presents evidence implicating Israel is cast
as the actual terrorist. It should go without saying they've reversed a millennium in the
development of Western thought regarding the connection between evidence and conclusion, and
they've done so for the basest of reasons. At least Conservatism Inc is being daily exposed
for the controlled opposition and worthless club of preppy snots it's always been.
Brilliant Article.
The question is when deep state will finally admit that Globalism after all that sacrifice
and evildoing are just sour grapes. As fox said in Ezops tale.
"the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven
to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique," adding
later that "It's in their DNA."
Right, along with drinking vodka and eating borscht.
The one nation that did interfere in the 2016 election, and has inserted themselves
into other elections to get their candidate elected, Israel remains untouched by this (((Deep
State))).
There's plenty of evidence for the Zionists and Israeli-Firsters corrupting the election
process for their fav nation, Israel, but the Operation Mockingbird asshats in the MSM won't
go near that, not if they want to keep their cushy job, 5th Avenue penthouse and that
chauffeured limo.
Anytime AIPAC comes to town, Congress gets into a fight with each other, trying to be the
one that shows the most slavish loyalty to the nation that has attacked the USA numerous
times, spies constantly on us, stealing our military, business and industrial secrets, had a
hand in both murdering JFK, RFK and masterminded the 9/11 FF, and has an overwheling presence
on the FED, yet most Americans don't know that, because the MSM keeps reporting lies,
distortions and half-truths, and always presenting a boogeyman to hate, sometimes Russia,
most times Muslims.
But fear not, that will soon come to an end, for when those TBTF Wall Street
banks–in collusion with the FED–again crash the stock market and drag the economy
down with their greed, that coming crash will make the one of 1929 seem like a picnic.
When that happens, what's left won't be of any interest to Israel to steal or manipulate.
The Deep State murdered Kennedy.
He planned on destroying the Fed and the CIA.
The Deep State required a president that COLLABORATED, like LBJ.
Then they figured, "why not put our guy in?'
Thus Bush 1.
Then Clinton (Bush 1 was his 'mentor') a pervert stooge.
Then Bush 2, a gaymail stooge.
Then Obomber, the gay Kenyan C_A stooge.
Then America says 'Enough', rejects the Witch and elects Trump.
Now the Deep State wants to kill America.
I think it's time for America to kill its' Deep State.
It is, after all, self-defense. Besides, hasn't this gone on long enough?
The alternative is to end up as the modern parallel of Rome.
Clapper, Brennan and Comey " may not have operated on their own." Duh!
You just remember, a donkey won't carry a heavy burden unless it's fed regularly. Find out
who owns the beast and you will have the culprit!
Phil, you should offer your services to the Trump defense/attack team*. Just stay away from
Giuliani (grin). Good article and salvo against Brennan and the rest who deserve all the pain
thay can get.
*Hey money is good especially around Christmas time. (Grin)
This certainly explains the incessant attacks on Trump by the deep state.
You have no concept of a charade being perpetrated on the American people. You don't find
it a little strange that Trump keeps hiring the Deep State denizens he purports to be
fighting? You are incapable of detecting the friend/foe, psychological tactic used to
deceive?
@Anonymous
That's it. Your hearsay trumps thousands of eyewitnesses and conversations of the victims on
flight 93 and in the pentagon.. You must be a first responder too. Talk about easily
influenced–you are why the old media gets away with their corruption. Some anonymous
source writes, says it on TV, and the lemmings follow.
@Biff
As we write, Obama probably is banging away some groupie in a DC mansion basement while the
gorrila is frying chicken upstairs for Oprah.
And Bubba, most likely, is watching porn in the garage in Westchester and the wicked witch
is massaging mrs. Wiener.
But it's Dubya worth looking into because he is out in the cowshed, buck naked save the
cowboy boots and the ten-gallon hat, whipping himself silly for the "mission
accomplished!"
Or, Obama and the police agencies investigated a known organized crime stooge when it became
apparent the GOP could offer no other candidate. Ironically, this was the original intent of
the creation of the FBI.
Don't play into the "victim trump" brand, he needs no help with it.
Thanks much for the most comprehensive précis yet of this bungled CIA putsch. The
articles in sequence teasingly open Gina's kimono, giving us horripilating glimpses of her
bushy penetralia. The question of Obama's involvement is the next step. CIA bots have been
pushing a partisan perspective for some time. Those darn Democrats!
But in fact Obama too is CIA nomenklatura, with the same depth of dynastic ties as GW
Bush, albeit not at the same lofty level. Just look at the oppo research, the best of which
comes from sanitized glimpses of the errands candidates run for CIA. Obama's other passport
is not Kenyan but Indonesian. It facilitated the youngster's schooling during Mom's year of
living dangerously in Indonesia. Obama's dad and stepdad were CIA skins on the wall. Grandma
was not in fact a drunk – she laundered the money for forcible overthrow and genocide
in Indonesia at her bank job in Hawaii. Grandpa was a "furniture salesman," like Bibi,
travelling around Asia under the hoariest old chestnut of NOC cover.
Young Barack was groomed as carefully as Bush minor. His only real job was BIC, a sheepish
front perennially stuffed to bursting with NOCs. While he was still wet behind the ears he
sported at falconry with a future head of state of Pakistan, for chrissakes, at a time when
nobody could get in there. And he got out without getting his head sawed off. How? The
youthful promise of this sullen stoner was somewhat obscure at that time. His GF was the
Aussie daughter of Mike Barry's opposite number. And the Mockingbird unison of ecstatic
acclaim when he rose to public prominence out of nowhere is the proof. His empty suit belings
to CIA.
This past election was CIA office politics, nothing more. Russigate is simply CIA eminence
Hillary, the Queen of Mena, ratfucking a bumptious queue-jumper. She outranks Trump, who was
merely a junior money-launderer for the CIA agents who looted the Soviet Union. It was her
turn to take the figurehead head-of-state sinecure. She and Bill earned it with their
lucrative Clinton Foundation covert-ops slush fund.
@Rabbi
Zaius They sense the rumblings of White solidarity among "the forgotten men and women" of
Trump's base and they do not cotton to this one little bit. Solidarity is forbidden to
Whites. It is only for the coalition of the fringes, all of those groups whose alienation can
be stoked to weaponize them against the descendants of those who founded and built the United
States.
@Dave
Sullivan The FISA warrants had nothing to do with organized crime.
On second thought, that is not correct.
They _were_ organized crime.
(It is not necessary to defend Trump to understand this. FISA warrants based on known fake
"evidence" are a stunning abuse of power–even within the slime-pit of DC.)
Anyone at all familiar with Brennan knows that he was and remains the driver of the
conspiracy to destroy first candidate, then President -Elect, and then POTUS Trump.
The same cannot be said of Comey and Clapper (especially).
It literally makes me sick to my stomach whenever I think about what it says about this
great republic that seditious filth like him rose to such a powerful position. It's rather
obvious he was willing to do anything including, I would submit, gift Russia and God Knows
Who Else anything they wanted in return for helping him destroy our constitutional
republic.
As I'm sure most here know, long before his 2016 election malefactions he had brazenly
engaged in spying on Congress and, most despicably, had debased President Obama and the
Office of the President through NYT revelations that every week Obama picked from his list of
drone assassination targets.
. . . and it inevitably leads to the question "What did Obama know?"
Yes, though more important than that was what Obama was told (by Brennan) and what real
options did he have as president given that Brennan had him by the short hairs.
I've long considered anyone's efforts to prematurely direct liability to President Obama
as a bald attempt to protect Brennan. That worked for the purposes of a general, earlier on,
cover up. It won't at this stage because it isn't even a close call when it comes to
Democrats, elected and rank and file, choosing between the first black president and Brennan,
the American Beria.
And has been since the early 1950s when the Allen Dulles-Frank Wisner-James Jesus Angleton
crew got rolling. They managed to thoroughly penetrate federal and state bureaucracies, the
court systems, major corporations, the financial sector, and the mockingbird media.
So Phil, was there any cooperation/communication between the Trump Task Force and the DNC
dirt-diggers in Ukraine (Ali Chalupa et al), or were they completely independent actions?
it was plausible to maintain that [the Russians] would have hoped that a weakened
Clinton would be less able to implement the anti-Russian agenda that she had been
promoting.
Not sure I follow this line of reasoning. If the Russians had tried unsuccessfully to
throw the election to Trump and Hellary won anyway, how exactly would that leave her
"weakened"? And wouldn't she have that much more reason to go after Russia?
My theory is that Hellary and her deep-swamp creatures only messed with Trump because they
were certain he was going lose. And if they could then plausibly claim after the
election that the Russians had interfered (albeit unsuccessfull) in the election, Hell-bitch
could've used that as a pretext for well, I don't know. War? More sanctions? Inducting
Ukraine into NATO? Invading Syria?
Clapper revealed that the preparers of the ICA were "handpicked analysts" from only the
FBI, CIA, and NSA. He explained rather unconvincingly during an interview on May 28, 2017,
that "the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically
driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique,"
adding later that "It's in their DNA."
I had no idea Clapper was into HBD. Damn, he's biased!
@NPleeze
There is a theater play going on, unending series, each episode catching some other
superficial drift. A-l-l actors in the public view, their dialogues and declamations are
scripted. Trump´s also. He is not the major character, just a single, temporary one.
All media opinion pieces, what is news, are prompt readings. Rectal extraction is close.
Why is this possible? The public is beyond understanding. The ones who do, at least part
of what is going on, being closer to some sectors of society where a whiff of the smell of
power is perceived at clouded times, are interested. The middle classes are scraping and
grabbing and bickering for the scraps of the table of the powerful. It takes them most of
their career to even get to under the table. They are happy dogs, and scraps comparing to
scraps makes them a diverse world of nothings.
It is hard work to come up with alternative policies, not rail into historical models
proven wrong as to long term interests and goals of society. A path not to venture into,
against instinct.
That makes for a fine world, while it lasts, and is upended by another cycle. The empty
drum feeling in the head of most is stuffed with images and sound-bites that makes for a life
behind a velvet curtain(Apple´s i-phone).
There is very little cognitive difference between the individuals at the top and the
glorious bottom undesirables, they both like the sniff of the glue.
Donald Trump's election (which was not supposed to be allowed to happen) forced into public
view, the existence of a Deep State that's been in existence for more than 75 years. Although
not widely recognized as such, JFK'S election accomplished the same thing, but to an even
greater extent. Leaving me puzzled as to why Trump has been allowed to remain in office as
long as he has without the Deep State subjecting him to a similar fate.
With one logical
explanation being that, at this point in time, it would become obvious, even to the brain
dead, who's actually in control of the US government.
A controversial whistleblower who allegedly reported second-hand on President
Donald Trump's
private conversation with the Ukrainian President
Volodymyr
Zelensky visited the Obama White House on numerous occasions, according to Obama era visitor logs obtained by Judicial Watch.
Last week
Real Clear Investigation's first reported the whistleblower's name. It is allegedly CIA officer Eric Ciaramella. His name, however,
has been floating around Washington D.C. since the leak of Trump's phone call. It was considered an 'open secret' until reporter
Paul Sperry published his article. Ciaramella has never openly stated that he is the whistleblower and most news outlets are not
reporting his name publicly.
He was detailed to the National Security Counsel during the Obama Administration in 2015 and was allegedly sent back to the CIA
in 2017, after a number of people within the Trump White House suspected him of leaking information to the press, according to several
sources that spoke with SaraACarter.com .
Further, the detailed visitor logs reveal that a Ukrainian expert
Alexandra Chalupa , a contractor that was hired by the Democratic National Committee during the 2016 election, visited the White
House 27 times.
Chalupa allegedly coordinated with the Ukrainians to investigate then candidate Trump and his former campaign manager Paul Manafort.
Manafort was forced out of his short tenure as campaign manager for Trump when stories circulated regarding business dealings with
Ukrainian officials. Manafort was later investigated and convicted by a jury on much lesser charges then originally set forth by
Robert Mueller's Special Counsel investigation. He was given 47 months in prison for basically failing to pay appropriate taxes and
committing bank fraud.
Both Ciaramella and Chalupa are of interest to Republican's investigating the what some conservatives have described as the second
Trump 'witch-hunt.' And many have called for the whistleblower to testify to Congress.
They are absolutely correct and within the law. There is so much information and evidence that reveals that this was no ordinary
whistleblower complaint but one that may have been based on highly partisan actions targeting Trump.
Here's just one example : Ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes said its impossible to have a fair impeachment
inquiry without the testimony of the alleged whistleblower because he is a 'fact foundational witness' who had met with Intelligence
Committee Chairman
Adam
Schiff, D-CA, previously. Schiff had originally denied that he had any contact with his committee and then had to walk back his
statements when it was revealed that the whistleblower had met with the Democrats prior to filing his complaint to the Intelligence
Inspector General about the President.
Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton, said the visitor logs reveal that there is much lawmakers or the American public don't know
about what happened during the 2016 presidential elections and moreover it raises very significant questions about the apparent partisan
nature of the whistleblower.
"Judicial Watch's analysis of Obama White House visitor logs raises additional questions about the Obama administration, Ukraine
and the related impeachment scheme targeting President Trump," said Fitton, in a press release Friday.
"Both Mr. Ciaramella and Ms. Chalupa should be questioned about the meetings documented in these visitor logs."
Read Below From Judicial Watch
The White House visitor logs revealed the following individuals met with Eric Ciaramella while he was detailed to the Obama White
House:
Daria Kaleniuk: Co-founder and executive director of the Soros-funded Anticorruption Action Center (AntAC) in Ukraine. She
visited on December 9, 2015
The Hill
reported that in April 2016, during the U.S. presidential race, the U.S. Embassy under Obama in Kiev, "took the rare step of
trying to press the Ukrainian government to back off its investigation of both the U.S. aid and (AntAC)."
Gina Lentine: Now a senior program officer at Freedom House, she was formerly the Eurasia program coordinator at Soros funded
Open Society Foundations. She visited on March 16, 2016.
Rachel Goldbrenner: Now an NYU law professor, she was at that time an advisor to then-Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha
Power. She visited on both January 15, 2016 and August 8, 2016.
Orly Keiner: A foreign affairs officer at the State Department who is a Russia specialist. She is also the wife of State Department
Legal Advisor James P. Bair. She visited on both March 4, 2016 and June 20, 2015.
Nazar Kholodnitzky: The lead anti-corruption prosecutor in Ukraine. He visited on January 19, 2016.
On March 7, 2019, The Associated Press reported
that the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch called for him to be fired.
Michael Kimmage: Professor of History at Catholic University of America, at the time was with the State Department's policy
planning staff where specialized in Russia and Ukraine issues. He is a fellow at the German Marshall Fund. He was also one of
the signatories to the Transatlantic Democracy Working Group Statement of Principles. He visited on October 26, 2015.
James Melville: Then-recently confirmed as Obama's Ambassador to Estonia, visited on September 9, 2015.
On June 29, 2018, Foreign Policy
reported that Melville resigned in protest of Trump.
Victoria Nuland: who at the time was assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian Affairs met with Ciaramella on
June 17, 2016.
(Judicial Watch has previously uncovered
documents revealing Nuland had an extensive involvement with Clinton-funded
dossier . Judicial Watch also released
documents revealing that Nuland was involved in the Obama State Department's "urgent" gathering of classified Russia investigation
information and disseminating it to members of Congress within hours of Trump taking office.)
Artem Sytnyk: the Ukrainian Anti-Corruption Bureau director visited on January 19, 2016.
On October 7, 2019, the Daily Wire
reported leaked tapes show Sytnyk confirming that the Ukrainians helped the Clinton campaign.
The White House visitor logs revealed the following individuals met with Alexandra Chalupa, then a DNC contractor:
Charles Kupchan: From 2014 to 2017, Kupchan served as special assistant to the president and senior director for European
affairs on the staff of the National Security Council (NSC) in the Barack Obama administration. That meeting was on November 9,
2015.
Alexandra Sopko: who at the time was a special assistant and policy advisor to the director of the Office of Intergovernmental
Affairs, which was run by Valerie Jarrett. Also listed for that meeting is Alexa Kissinger, a special assistant to Jarrett. That
meeting was on June 2, 2015.
Asher Mayerson: who at the time was a policy advisor to the Office of Public Engagement under Jarrett had five visits with
Chalupa including December 18, 2015, January 11, 2016, February 22, 2016, May 13, 2016, and June 14, 2016.
Mayerson was previously an intern at the Center for American Progress. After leaving the Obama administration, he went to work
for the City of Chicago Treasurer's office.
Mayerson met with Chalupa and Amanda Stone, who was the White House deputy director of technology, on January 11, 2016.
On May 4, 2016, Chalupa emailed DNC official Luis
Miranda to inform him that she had spoken to investigative journalists about Paul Manafort in Ukraine.
"... There is a collection of Democratic and Republican politicians and think tanks funded by various corporations and governments and bureaucrats in the government agencies mostly all devoted to the Empire, but also willing to stab each other in the back to obtain power. They don't necessarily agree on policy details. ..."
"... They don't oppose Trump because Trump is antiwar. Trump isn't antiwar. Or rather, he is antiwar for three minutes here and there and then he advocates for war crimes. ..."
"... He is a fairly major war criminal based on his policies in Yemen. But they don't oppose him for that either or they would have been upset by Obama. They oppose Trump because he is incompetent, unpredictable and easily manipulated. And worst of all, he doesn't play the game right, where we pretend we intervene out of noble humanitarian motives. This idiot actually say he wants to keep Syrian oil fields and Syria's oil fields aren't significant to anyone outside Syria. ..."
"... Our policies are influenced in rather negative ways by various foreign countries, but would be embarrassed to go to the extremes one regularly sees from liberals talking about Russian influence ..."
" In a sense, the current NeoMcCartyism (Russophobia, Sinophobia) epidemic in the USA can
partially be viewed as a yet another sign of the crisis of neoliberalism: a desperate attempt
to patch the cracks in the neoliberal façade using scapegoating -- creation of an
external enemy to project the problems of the neoliberal society.
I would add another, pretty subjective measure of failure: the degradation of the elite.
When you look at Hillary, Trump, Biden, Warren, Harris, etc, you instantly understand what I
am talking about. They all look like the second-rate, if not the third rate politicians.
Also, the Epstein case was pretty symbolic."
I had decided to stay on the sidelines for the most part after making a few earlier
comments, but I liked this summary, except I would give Warren more credit. She is flawed like
most politicians, but she has made some of the right enemies within the Democratic Party.
On Trump and " the Deep State", there is no unified Deep State. There is a collection of
Democratic and Republican politicians and think tanks funded by various corporations and
governments and bureaucrats in the government agencies mostly all devoted to the Empire, but
also willing to stab each other in the back to obtain power. They don't necessarily agree on
policy details.
They don't oppose Trump because Trump is antiwar. Trump isn't antiwar. Or rather, he is
antiwar for three minutes here and there and then he advocates for war crimes.
He is a fairly major war criminal based on his policies in Yemen. But they don't oppose
him for that either or they would have been upset by Obama. They oppose Trump because he is
incompetent, unpredictable and easily manipulated. And worst of all, he doesn't play the game
right, where we pretend we intervene out of noble humanitarian motives. This idiot actually say
he wants to keep Syrian oil fields and Syria's oil fields aren't significant to anyone outside
Syria.
But yes, scapegoating is a big thing with liberals now. It's pathetic. Our policies are
influenced in rather negative ways by various foreign countries, but would be embarrassed to go
to the extremes one regularly sees from liberals talking about Russian influence .
For the most part, if we have a horrible political culture nearly all the blame for that is
homegrown.
Donald 11.07.19 at 4:40 am (no link)
Sigh. Various typos above. Here is one --
Our policies are influenced in rather negative ways by various foreign countries, but
would be embarrassed to go to the extremes one regularly sees from liberals talking about
Russian influence.
--
I meant to say I would be embarrassed to go to the extremes one regularly sees from
liberals talking about Russian influence.
Because it is primarily based on a critique of social democracy, neoliberalism places much
more weight on economic freedom than on personal freedom or civil liberties, reversing the
emphasis of classical liberalism. Indeed, it is fair to say that on matters of personal
freedom, neoliberalism is basically agnostic, encompassing a range of views from repressive
traditionalism to libertarianism.
In terms of economic policy, neoliberalism is constrained by the need to compete with the
achievements of social democracy. Hence, it is inconsistent with the kind of dogmatic
libertarianism that would leave the poor to starvation or private charity, and would leave
education to parents. Neoliberalism seeks to cut back the role of the state as much as possible
while maintaining public guarantees of access to basic health, education and income
security.
The core of the neoliberal program is
(i) to remove the state altogether from 'non-core' functions such as the provision of
infrastructure services
(ii) to minimise the state role in core functions (health, education, income security) through
contracting out, voucher schemes and so on
(iii) to reject redistribution of income except insofar as it is implied by the provision of a
basic 'safety net'.
With this definition, a reasonably pure form of neoliberalism (except for some subsidies to
favored businesses) is embodied in the program of the US Republican Party, and particularly the
Contract with America proposed by Gingrich in 1994. The ACT Party in New Zealand also takes a
fairly clear neoliberal stance, as do the more ideologically consistent elements of the British
Conservative Party and the Australian Liberal Party.
My claim that neoliberalism has failed therefore uses several different meanings of the term
'failure'. In Europe, apart from Britain, neoliberalism has mostly failed in sense (i). The EU
is inherently social democratic in its structure and attempts by poltical groups in some
Eastern European countries (notably the Czech Republic and Estonia) to pursue a free market
line have failed in the light of the superior attractions of the EU. It is true that the
European social democracies have given some ground, notably with respect to privatisation, but
no genuinely neoliberal party has arisen or seems likely to. The political right has moved back
to the older and more fertile ground of law and order and xenophobia.
In Britain, neoliberalism has failed in sense (ii). The Conservative party is hovering on
the edge of extinction and, as I have arged previously, the 'New Labour' government has shifted
steadily away from neoliberalism and towards a mildly modernised form of social democracy. The
same is true in New Zealand, where the advocates of neoliberalism, once dominant, are now
completely marginalised.
Although the Australian government started out with a clearly neoliberal framework it has
gradually dropped it in favor of the kind of law and order/xenophobia/militarist position that
characterises the traditional right. The repeated resort to ad hoc levies as fixes for
industry-specific problems is indicative of a government that has lost its economic bearings.
Moreover, the Liberals look like being in semi-permanent opposition in most of the states and
the Howard government is unlikely to survive the end of the housing bubble (although given the
quality of Federal Labor, anything could happen).
Finally, in the US, neoliberalism remains the dominant ideology but is increasingly failing
in sense (iii). Three years ago, American pundits could seriously predict a never-ending
economic boom. The combination of continued prosperity and 'the end of welfare as we know it'
seemed to be on the verge of eliminating crime and unemployment. Now the most charitable
assessment of US economic performance is 'better than average' and even this cannot be
sustained of the current recession/stagnation drags on much longer. The basic problem is that,
given high levels of inequality, very strong economic performance is required to match the
levels of economic security and social services delivered under social democracy even with
mediocre growth outcomes.
(i) to remove the state altogether from 'non-core' functions such as the provision of
infrastructure services
I respectfully disagree. My feeling is that neoliberals are statists "par excellence" and
use the state to enforce the neoliberal ideology on population "from above", using coercion,
if necessary Although they prefer soft methods (Wolin's "inverted totalitarism" captures this
difference)
Neoliberal revolutions are almost always revolutions from above (often using support of
domestic or foreign intelligence agencies), a coup d'état either via internal fifth
column (Simon Johnson's "The Quiet Coup" model -- like happened in the USA and GB ) or via
external interference (color revolution model like in Russia, Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova,
Argentina, Brazil, etc)
In essence, neoliberalism can be viewed as "Trotskyism for the rich" with the same
hegemonic drive toward global dominance (the "World Revolution" in Trotskyism terms) and
substitution of Marxists slogan "proletarians of all countries unite" with more realistic and
devious "Financial oligarchy of all countries unite." Unfortunately for classic
neoliberalism, the latter proved to be unsustainable, as contradictions between various
groups of financial oligarchy are too great, and the quest for capturing the foreign markets
pits them against each other.
After "Triumphal march of neoliberal over the globe" (which ended in 2000 with the
rejection of neoliberal model in Russia) neoliberalism repositioned itself as a "secular
religion" (only complete idiot after 2007 can believe in its key postulates and, in
particular, neoclassic economics with all its mathiness). The capture of the university
education and MSM, like for Bolsheviks before them, were two high priority tasks and they
were essentially complete at the end of Clinton administration.
Like Bolsheviks before them, after coming to power, neoliberal junta quickly moves to
capture key positions in government institutions, in case of the USA -- Treasury, FED
(Greenspan), the Department of State (neocons), and economic departments at universities
(Friedman, Greg Mankiw, Summers, Bernanke, DeJong, Krugman, etc) , in a typical ruthless
Trotskyites/Bolsheviks fashion.
While initially it strived just to completely eliminate New Deal regulations to get the
economy boost and restore the power of financial oligarchy, later neoliberalism morphed into
supported by the state "secular religion" (much like Marxism in the USSR) in which those who
do not want to became "high priest of the cult ("soldies of of the Party" in USSR terms), or,
at lease, pretend to believe in this ideology are ostracized, send to the periphery (the
State Department), and (in universities) deprived of any funding. Much like was the case (in
a more brutal form) under Bolshevism.
Now classic neoliberalism tried to defend itself against the ascendance of "national
neoliberalism" using dirty methods like Ukrainegate, using the full power of captured by them
state institutions, including, but not limited to, intelligence agencies.
Please note that, historically, neoliberalism ascendance started with the coup in Chile,
in which repressions were of the scale typical for a fascist regime, including mass killings
of opponents. That's where Friedman Chicago boys cut their teeth.
Also neocon scum (Cheney, Wolfowitz, and company) got in high level government positions
only under Reagan and quickly switched the USA foreign policy in completely imperial
direction, although the process started under Carter (Carter Doctrine, creation of political
Islam to fight Soviets, etc.). The State Department remains a neocon viper nest since this
period. And they recently managed to sting Trump (Taylor and Volker testimonies are nice
examples here)
"... "To any rational person," says Nunes, "it looks like they were scheming to produce a get-out-of-jail-free card -- for the president and anyone else in the White House. They were playing Monopoly while the others were playing with fire. Now the Obama White House was in the clear -- sure, they had no idea what Comey and Brennan and McCabe and Strzok and the rest were up to." ..."
"... Meanwhile, Obama added his voice to the Trump-Russia echo chamber as news stories alleging Trump's illicit relationship with the Kremlin multiplied in the transition period. He said he hoped "that the president-elect also is willing to stand up to Russia." ..."
"... After refusing to act while the Russian election meddling was actually occurring, Obama responded in December. He ordered the closing of Russian diplomatic facilities and the expulsion of thirty- five Russian diplomats. The response was tepid. The Russians had hacked the State Department in 2014 and the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2015. And now Obama was responding only on his way out. ..."
"... Even Obama partisans thought it was weak. "The punishment did not fit the crime," said Michael McFaul, Obama's former ambassador to Russia. "The Kremlin should have paid a much higher price for that attack." ..."
"... But the administration wasn't retaliating against Russia for interfering in a US election; the action was directed at Trump. Obama was leaving the president-elect with a minor foreign policy crisis in order to box him in. Any criticism of Obama's response, never mind an attempt to reverse it, would only further fuel press reports that Trump was collaborating with the Russians. ..."
"... Obama's biggest move against Trump was to order CIA director John Brennan to conduct a full review of all intelligence relating to Russia and the 2016 elections. He requested it on December 6 and wanted it ready by the time he left office on January 20. But the sitting president already knew what the intelligence community assessment (ICA) was going to say, because Brennan had told him months before. ..."
"... Brennan's handpicked team of CIA, FBI, and NSA analysts had started analyzing Russian election interference in late July. In August, Brennan had briefed Harry Reid on the dossier and may have briefed Obama on it, too. Earlier in August, Brennan sent a "bombshell" report to Obama's desk. ..."
AFTER DONALD TRUMP was elected forty-fifth president of the United States, the operation designed to undermine his campaign transformed.
It became an instrument to bring down the commander in chief. The coup started almost immediately after the polls closed.
Hillary Clinton's communications team decided within twenty-four hours of her concession speech to message that the election was
illegitimate, that Russia had interfered to help Trump.
Obama was working against Trump until the hour he left office. His national security advisor, Susan Rice, commemorated it with
an email to herself on January 20, moments before Trump's inauguration. She wrote to memorialize a meeting in the White House two
weeks before.
On January 5, following a briefing by IC leadership on Russian hacking during the 2016 Presidential election, President Obama
had a brief follow-on conversation with FBI Director Jim Comey and Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in the Oval Office. Vice
President Biden and I were also present.
President Obama began the conversation by stressing his continued commitment to ensuring that every aspect of this issue is
handled by the Intelligence and law enforcement communities "by the book." The President stressed that he is not asking about,
initiating or instructing anything from a law enforcement perspective. He reiterated that our law enforcement team needs to proceed
as it normally would by the book.
From a national security perspective, however, President Obama said he wants to be sure that, as we engage with the incoming
team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia. . . .
The President asked Comey to inform him if anything changes in the next few weeks that should affect how we share classified
information with the incoming team. Comey said he would.
The repetition of "by the book" gave away the game -- for there was nothing normal about any of it.
Rice wrote an email to herself. It commemorated a conversation from two weeks before. The conversation was about the FBI's investigation
of the man who was about to move into the White House -- an investigation from which Obama was careful to distance himself. During
the conversation, the outgoing president instructed his top aides to collect information ("ascertain") regarding the incoming administration's
relationship with Russia.
"To any rational person," says Nunes, "it looks like they were scheming to produce a get-out-of-jail-free card -- for the
president and anyone else in the White House. They were playing Monopoly while the others were playing with fire. Now the Obama White
House was in the clear -- sure, they had no idea what Comey and Brennan and McCabe and Strzok and the rest were up to."
Boxing Trump in on Russia
Meanwhile, Obama added his voice to the Trump-Russia echo chamber as news stories alleging Trump's illicit relationship with
the Kremlin multiplied in the transition period. He said he hoped "that the president-elect also is willing to stand up to Russia."
The outgoing president was in Germany with Chancellor Angela Merkel to discuss everything from NATO to Vladimir Putin. Obama said
that he'd "delivered a clear and forceful message" to the Russian president about "meddling with elections . . . and we will respond
appropriately if and when we see this happening."
After refusing to act while the Russian election meddling was actually occurring, Obama responded in December. He ordered
the closing of Russian diplomatic facilities and the expulsion of thirty- five Russian diplomats. The response was tepid. The Russians
had hacked the State Department in 2014 and the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 2015. And now Obama was responding only on his way out.
Even Obama partisans thought it was weak. "The punishment did not fit the crime," said Michael McFaul, Obama's former ambassador
to Russia. "The Kremlin should have paid a much higher price for that attack."
But the administration wasn't retaliating against Russia for interfering in a US election; the action was directed at Trump.
Obama was leaving the president-elect with a minor foreign policy crisis in order to box him in. Any criticism of Obama's response,
never mind an attempt to reverse it, would only further fuel press reports that Trump was collaborating with the Russians.
Spreading Intelligence to Spring Leaks
In the administration's last days, it disseminated intelligence throughout the government, including the White House, Capitol
Hill, and the intelligence community (IC). Intelligence was classified at the lowest possible levels to ensure a wide readership.
The White House was paving the way for a campaign of leaks to disorient the incoming Trump team.
The effort, including the intended result of leaks, was publicly acknowledged in March 2017 by Evelyn Farkas, a former deputy
assistant secretary of defense in the Obama administration.
Obama's biggest move against Trump was to order CIA director John Brennan to conduct a full review of all intelligence relating
to Russia and the 2016 elections. He requested it on December 6 and wanted it ready by the time he left office on January 20. But
the sitting president already knew what the intelligence community assessment (ICA) was going to say, because Brennan had told him
months before.
Brennan's handpicked team of CIA, FBI, and NSA analysts had started analyzing Russian election interference in late July.
In August, Brennan had briefed Harry Reid on the dossier and may have briefed Obama on it, too. Earlier in August, Brennan sent a
"bombshell" report to Obama's desk.
When Brennan reassembled his select team in December, it was to have them reproduce their August findings: Putin, according to
Brennan, was boosting the GOP candidate. And that's why only three days after Obama ordered the assessment in December, the Washington
Post could already reveal what the intelligence community had found.
"The CIA," reported the December 9 edition of the Post , "has concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened in
the 2016 election to help Donald Trump win the presidency, rather than just to undermine confidence in the U.S. electoral system."
The story was the first of many apparently sourced to leaks of classified information that were given to the Post team
of Adam Entous, Ellen Nakashima, and Greg Miller. The reporters' sources weren't whistle-blowers shedding light on government corruption
-- rather, they were senior US officials abusing government resources to prosecute a campaign against the newly elected commander
in chief. The article was the earliest public evidence that the coup was under way. The floodgates were open, as the IC pushed more
stories through the press to delegitimize the president-elect.
A Wave of Leak-Sourced Stories All Saying the Same Thing
The same day, a New York Times article by David E. Sanger and Scott Shane echoed the Post 's piece. According to
senior administration officials, "American intelligence agencies have concluded with 'high confidence' that Russia acted covertly
in the latter stages of the presidential campaign to harm Hillary Clinton's chances and promote Donald J. Trump."
A December 14 NBC News story by William M. Arkin, Ken Dilanian, and Cynthia McFadden reported that "Russian President Vladimir
Putin became personally involved in the covert Russian campaign to interfere in the U.S. presidential election, senior U.S. intelligence
officials told NBC News."
The ICA that Obama ordered gave political operatives, the press, and his intelligence chiefs a second shot at Trump. They'd used
the Steele Dossier to feed the echo chamber and obtain surveillance powers to spy on the Trump campaign. The dossier, however, had
come up short. Trump had won.
But now, on his way out of the White House, Obama instructed Brennan to stamp the CIA's imprimatur on the anti-Trump operation.
As Fusion GPS's smear campaign had been the source of the preelection press campaign, the ICA was the basis of the postelection media
frenzy. It was tailored to disrupt the peaceful transition of power and throw the United States into chaos.
Because Trump hadn't been elected by the US public, according to the ICA, but had been tapped by Putin, he was illegitimate. Therefore,
the extraconstitutional and illegal tactics employed by anti-Trump officials were legitimate. The ultimate goal was to remove Trump
from office.
"If it weren't for President Obama," said James Clapper, "we might not have done the intelligence community assessment . . . that
set off a whole sequence of events which are still unfolding today."
Nunes agrees. "The ICA," he says, "was Obama's dossier."
Changing the Intelligence Assessment
Nunes is sitting in his office in the Longworth House Office Building along with his communications director, Jack Langer, a forty-six-year-old
former book editor and historian with a PhD from Duke University.
"The social media attacks on Devin began shortly after the election," Langer remembers. "They're all hinting at some vast conspiracy
involving Russia that the chairman of the Intelligence Committee is part of. And we have no idea what they're talking about."
Nunes points out that his warnings about Russia fell on deaf ears for years. "And all of a sudden I'm a Russian agent," says the
congressman.
Now Langer and Nunes see that the attacks were first launched because the congressman had been named to Trump's transition team.
"I put forward [Mike] Pompeo for CIA director," says Nunes. "He came from our committee."
The attacks on Nunes picked up after the December 9 Washington Post article. The assessment provided there was not what
the HPSCI chairman had been told. The assessment had been altered, and Nunes asked for an explanation. "We got briefed about the
election around Thanksgiving," he says. "And it's just the usual stuff, nothing abnormal. They told us what everyone already knew:
'Hey, the Russians are bad actors, and they're always playing games, and here's what they did.'"
By providing that briefing, the IC had made a mistake. When it later changed the assessment, the November briefing was evidence
that Obama's spy chiefs were up to no good. "I bet they'd like to have that back," says Nunes. "They briefed us before they could
get their new story straight."
'They Kept Everyone Else Away from It'
Nunes acknowledges that he was caught off guard by many things back then. "We still thought these guys were on the up and up,"
he says. "But if we knew, we'd have nailed them by mid-December, when they changed their assessment. 'Wait, you guys are saying this
now, but you said something else just a few weeks ago. What's going on?'"
After the Post story, Nunes wanted an explanation. "We expressed deep concern, both publicly and privately," says Langer.
"We demanded our own briefing to try to determine whether that Post story was true or false. They refused to brief us. They
said, 'We're not going to be doing that until we finish the ICA.'"
Nunes says the fact that the IC conducted an assessment like that was itself unusual. "I don't know how many times they'd done
that in the past, if ever," he says. "But if the IC is operating properly, when someone says what can you tell me on X or Y or Z,
they have it ready to pull up quickly. The tradecraft is reliable, and the intelligence products are reliable." That was not the
case with the ICA. There were problems with how the assessment had been put together.
"If you really were going to do something like an assessment from the intelligence community, then you'd get input from all our
seventeen agencies," says Nunes. "They did the opposite. It was only FBI, CIA, NSA, and DNI. They siloed it, just like they had with
Crossfire Hurricane. They kept everyone else away from it so they didn't have to read them in."
'Manipulation of Intelligence for Political Purposes'
Nunes released several statements in the middle of December. The HPSCI majority, read a December 14 statement, wanted senior Obama
intelligence officials "to clarify press reports that the CIA has a new assessment that it has not shared with us. The Committee
is deeply concerned that intransigence in sharing intelligence with Congress can enable the manipulation of intelligence for political
purposes."
After the statements warned of political foul play in the IC's assessments, the social media attacks on Nunes became more regular.
"They were constant," says Langer.
Anti-Trump operatives recognized that Nunes was going to be a problem. The HPSCI chair had previously called out the IC for politicizing
intelligence. "They said that we had defeated Al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria," says Nunes, "and I knew that wasn't true. Then they withheld
the Osama bin Laden documents to conceal that Al Qaeda worked with Iran, because the administration was protecting the Iran deal.
So when I saw them changing this assessment of the 2016 election in midstream, I knew it was the same old trick: they were politicizing
intelligence."
The speed with which Brennan's handpicked analysts produced the ICA and then got a version of it declassified for public consumption
was another sign that something wasn't right. "All throughout Obama's two terms, his IC chiefs aren't paying attention to Russian
actions," says Nunes. "We give them more money for Russia, which they don't use. But now they know so much about Putin that they
manage to produce a comprehensive assessment of Russian intentions and actions regarding election interference in a month -- at Christmastime,
when everything slows down. And then they produce a declassified version in a manner of weeks. None of this is believable."
Three different versions of the ICA were produced: an unclassified version, a top secret one, and another highly compartmentalized
version. According to a January 11, 2017, Washington Post story by Greg Miller, Ellen Nakashima, and Karen DeYoung, an annex
summarizing the dossier was attached to the versions that were not declassified.
'Designed to Have a Political Effect'
The FBI had been working from Steele's reports for more than half a year. Including the dossier along with the ICA would provide
Comey with ammunition to take on the president-elect. Both he and Brennan were manipulating intelligence for political purposes.
"A lot of the ICA is reasonable," says Nunes. "But those parts become irrelevant due to the problematic parts, which undermine
the entire document. It was designed to have a political effect; that was the ICA's sole purpose."
The assessment's methodological flaws are not difficult to spot. Manufacturing the politicized findings that Obama sought meant
not only abandoning protocol but also subverting basic logic. Two of the ICA's central findings are that:
Putin and the Russian government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.
Putin and the Russian government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary
Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him.
To know preferences and intentions would require sources targeting Putin's inner circles -- either human sources or electronic
surveillance. As Nunes had previously noted, however, US intelligence on Putin's decision-making process was inadequate.
But even if there had been extensive collection on precisely that issue, it would be difficult to know what was true. For instance,
the closest you can get to Putin's inner circle is Putin himself. But even capturing him on an intercept saying he wanted to elect
Trump might prove inconclusive. It is difficult to judge intentions because it is not possible to see into the minds of other people.
How would you know that Putin was speaking truthfully? How would you know that the Russian president didn't know his communications
were under US surveillance and wasn't trying to deceive his audience?
Quality control of information is one of the tasks of counterintelligence -- to discern how you know what you know and whether
that information is trustworthy. There was no quality control for the Trump-Russia intelligence. For instance, Crossfire Hurricane
lead agent Peter Strzok was the FBI's deputy assistant director of counterintelligence. Instead of weeding out flawed intelligence
on Russia, the Crossfire Hurricane team was feeding Steele's reports into intelligence products. Yet the ICA claimed to have "high
confidence" in its assessment that "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President- elect Trump." What
was the basis of that judgment?
According to the ICA:
Putin most likely wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her since 2011 for inciting mass protests
against his regime in late 2011 and early 2012, and because he holds a grudge for comments he almost certainly saw as disparaging
him.
"Most likely" and "almost certainly" are rhetorical hedges that show the assessment could not have been made in "high confidence."
Putin may have held a grudge against Clinton, but there is no way of knowing it.
The supporting evidence deteriorates more the farther the ICA purports to reach into Putin's mind.
Beginning in June, Putin's public comments about the US presidential race avoided directly praising President-elect Trump,
probably because Kremlin officials thought that any praise from Putin personally would backfire in the United States.
This is absurd. Part of the evidence that Putin supported Trump is that he avoided praising Trump. It is difficult enough to determine
intentions by what someone says. Yet the ICA claims to have discerned Putin's intentions by what he did not say.
There is no introductory philosophy class in logic where reasoning like that would pass muster. Yet Brennan's handpicked group
used it as the basis of its assessment that Putin had helped Trump.
Moscow also saw the election of President-elect Trump as a way to achieve an international counterterrorism coalition against
the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.
This may be an accurate description of how Putin saw Trump. But Trump's predecessor also wanted to coordinate anti- ISIS operations
with Moscow. On this view, Trump would have represented a continuation of Obama's ISIS policy. Why would this make Trump's victory
suspicious to Obama's intelligence chiefs?
Curious Inaccuracies about Russia's RT Network
The ICA also pointed to documentary evidence of Putin's intentions: English-language media owned by the Russian government, the
news site Sputnik, and the RT network, were critical of Clinton.
State-owned Russian media made increasingly favorable comments about President-elect Trump as the 2016 US general and primary
election campaigns progressed while consistently offering negative coverage of Secretary Clinton.
Curiously, just days before the election, the informant the US government sent after the Trump campaign praised the Democratic
candidate in an interview with Sputnik. "Clinton would be best for US-UK relations and for relations with the European Union," Stefan
Halper told the Kremlin-directed media outlet. "Clinton is well-known, deeply experienced, and predictable. US-UK relations will
remain steady regardless of the winner although Clinton will be less disruptive over time."
The ICA includes a seven-page appendix devoted to RT, the central node, according to the document, of the Kremlin's effort to
"influence politics, fuel discontent in [ sic ] US."
Adam Schiff appeared on RT in July 2013. He argued for "making the FISA court much more transparent, so the American people can
understand what's being done in their name in the name of national security, so that we can have a more informed debate over the
balance between privacy and security."
RT's editor in chief, Margarita Simonyan, is a master propagandist, according to the ICA. The document fails to mention that Simonyan
heads another Moscow-owned media initiative, Russia Beyond the Headlines , a news supplement inserted into dozens of the West's
leading newspapers, including the New York Times . Russia Beyond the Headlines has been delivered to millions of American
homes over the last decade. By contrast, RT's US market share is so small that it doesn't qualify for the Nielsen ratings. Virtually
no one in the United States watches it.
Taking the logic of Brennan's handpicked team seriously would mean that the publishers of the New York Times played a major
role in a coordinated Russian effort to elect Donald Trump.
'It Was an Operation to Bring Down Trump'
Nunes realized even then the purpose of Obama's dossier. "Devin figured out in December what was going on," says Langer. "It was
an operation to bring down Trump."
There was no evidence that any Trump associate had done anything improper regarding the Russians, and Nunes was losing patience.
"We had serious things the committee wanted to do," he says. "With Trump elected, we could do some big stuff, like with China."
Still, it was important for HPSCI to maintain control of the Russia investigation. Otherwise, Democrats and Never Trump Republicans
were likely to get their wish to convene a bipartisan commission to investigate Russian interference -- with the purpose of turning
it on Trump.
"Before they started floating the idea of a special counsel, the big idea was a special commission like the 9/11 Commission,"
says Langer. It was outgoing secretary of state John Kerry who first came forward with the proposal.
The point was to change the power dynamic. "In a normal committee," says Langer, "the majority has the power, and that happened
to be us. They wanted to strip our power and make it fifty-fifty."
"Bipartisan" was a euphemism for "anti-Trump." "It would have been a complete joke," says Nunes. "A combination of partisan hacks
from the left and people who hated Trump on the right."
Democrats led by Schiff and Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer were joined by the late John McCain, the most active of the Never
Trump Republicans. After the election, the Arizona senator had instructed his aide David Kramer to deliver a copy of the Steele Dossier
to Comey.
"God only knows who they'd have populated that committee with," says Nunes. "Anyone they could control. It would have been a freak
show."
Speaker of the House Paul Ryan defended HPSCI's independence. On the Senate side, Intelligence Committee chairman Richard Burr
had only one move. To deflect demands for an independent commission, he effectively ceded control of the Senate investigation to
his vice chair, Democrat Mark Warner.
No Evidence of Collusion Years Later
Still, Nunes believed that all the talk of Trump and Russia was a waste of time. "They kept promising us evidence of collusion,
week after week, and they came up with nothing."
Nunes's disdain for the ICA forced the Crossfire Hurricane team's hand. "Right around the time that they came out with the ICA,
they kept saying that we were waiting on something to show us, something important that was coming in," he says. "They said it was
some significant figure who they couldn't quite track down yet."
But the FBI knew exactly where its missing link was, the piece of evidence that they thought would convince hardened skeptics
like Nunes that collusion was real. They didn't have to chase him down, because he was sitting at home in Chicago. He submitted to
a voluntary interview January 27 and without a lawyer because he had no idea what the FBI had in store for him.
The Crossfire Hurricane team was figuring how they were going to set up the Trump adviser they'd used to open up the investigation
in July 2016: George Papadopoulos. Lee Smith is the media columnist at Tablet.
"... If Biden is innocent of corruption, why does it look like he's not? What does that say about the nature of corruption itself in the entire DC establishment? ..."
"... One scenario that Neuburger hasn't considered: perhaps the Democrats are trying impeachment now because they are out of ammo and getting scared about 2020. Rather than lose the election, they are attempting a pre-emptive strike. ..."
"... Or is it a pre-emptive defensive strike by the CIA/Blob? With Trump seeming to ask Ukraine about Crowdstrike, and Barr asking for help from Australia on the Mueller investigation origins (as well as investigating the way the dossier was used), Trump and Barr might be trying to turn TrumpRussia into a counterattack on their establishment enemies, just in time for the election. Buckle up, indeed. ..."
"... The CIA credentials of the "whistleblower" are somehow too convenient, too familiar. The Dems are already more or less in bed with the CIA/Blob, so it is as if they are acting more to aid a "messenger" ..."
"... The intelligence community is rife with dissension and conflict; not over their need to service the multi-national firms and their congressional sycophants they really represent, but rather the speed at which they need to react to challenges coming from our limited free flow of information that contradicts their "stories" and propaganda. ..."
"... Yup, but this is still mislabeled "whistleblowing", which would be such if he/she were ratting on the CIA. ..."
"... I assumed that the much delayed Mueller report finally came out when it did and with the conclusion it did because the CIA was finally convinced that it had Trump sufficiently cowed. The July 27 phone call made it clear to them that it didn't. ..."
"... And Pelosi, when asked by the CIA to jump, immediately responded, "How high?" ..."
"... There are several plausible explanations. If you consider Pelosi's motivations, you have to look no further than her constituency, the donor class. ..."
"... Indeed, we might as well argue that Obama should have been impeached for turning the Espionage Act against reporters. I see that as more damaging to the US than most of Trump's harmful acts to date. ..."
"... Obama successfully convinced people that he WANTED to do the right things but was prevented from doing them by the evil Republicans. Despite the insurance/drug company friendly implementation of ObamaCare, assertion of the most transparent administration, ever, brutally coming down on government whistleblowers, killing overseas citizens via drone, not prosecuting financial misdeeds, and destroying Libya, Obama is seen as righteous. ..."
"... In my view, a truly great con man remains unacknowledged/undetected. ..."
"... Once is the intra-elite competition between the intelligence community and Trump. ..."
"... Trump is more acceptable to Wall Street than the left agenda. These attacks serve to consolidate Trumps base; I've seen more Trump 2020 bumper stickers in my very-blue town than any other candidates. ..."
"... I'm not sure that the Democrats yelling "impeachment!" will register loud enough to overcome the substance of the election campaign. Not enough people care about it. ..."
"... The public discourse is presently in the hands of partisan hacks, of mainly one ideology; Rentier Capitalism. One main American political faction will characterize the obscurantist process as "White Noise. The other main faction will characterize it as "Rainbow Noise." Both will be correct about the "Noise" part. ..."
"... The current equation of Warren and Sanders is the point problem of that coherence. Sanders is weak on foreign policy particulars (Middle East, Venezuela, Ukraine are waffled responses, more afraid to alienate rather than state), Warren is totally absent because she has supported those policies in the past. ..."
"... Both committed to regulation, Warren wanting existing govt. style while Sanders wants the beginning of a bottom-up approach. Details are left on the "debate-stage floor", as what we have had so far is a Sideshow Bob presentation of policy, a Q&A for the media, which leads us nowhere unless you are fanatically political, which most of the nation has been educated/innoculated against. ..."
"... And not a word about Clinton approving arms sales while Secretary of State and accepting gifts to their foundation? ..."
"... What you are seeing is called "hypocrisy", writ large. The Democrats are finally discovering that they actually need the voters that they've been dissing for decades, and they really don't want to admit how badly they've screwed the pooch. ..."
"... That she has shoved the bankeresque Schiff to the fore in place of the more irascible and prosecutorial Nadler suggests she does not want to give the public a clear narrative, so much as to keep them calm, as if the Trump administration were in charge instead of being in office. ..."
"... Yes, Pelosi put the Intelligence Committee (Schiff) in charge, as opposed to the Judiciary Committee (Nadler). Odd. ..."
"... Don't forget too that Pelosi is related by marriage to Governor Gavin Newsom (his aunt was married to Ron Pelosi, brother-in-law to Nancy). It's one big happy Resistance family! Corruption is okay as long as they do it. Their hypocrisy has no limits. ..."
"... Just imagine if corrupt California elites could rule the United States! ..."
"... Nor was it in 2006, when, after recapturing the House, Pelosi took impeachment "off the table," even though the Bush Administration committed multiple felonies in its warrantless surveillance program, in addition to completely destroying the Fourth Amendment. (Obama later normalized and rationalized all this, of course.) ..."
"... In a very real sense, it is a partisan war where there are penalties for losing. ..."
"... Pelosi has clearly seen the dangers of democrat complicity and corruption before; what's changed? If she was acutely (off the table) aware of the dirty utterly filthy linen danger before, then why not now when it's, if anything, more obvious than ever? ..."
"... It's the ill conceived nature of this, the mess the democrats are creating for themselves, that suggests to me that shifting the focus away from popular programs such as medicare for all is unintended even if successful. It's like stabbing yourself in the arm to divert attention from robbing the church collection. Not a good analogy but anyway ..."
"... a world in which it's perfectly acceptable for the children of elites to trail around after their parents and help smooth the wider asset-grabbing through personal enrichment. ..."
"... Pelosi wants the scope very narrow. That's quite telling. Even more telling, and offensive, when you think about it, is her decision to have this inquiry be led by the House Intelligence Committee. This pretty much guarantees that at least some of the proceedings will happen behind closed doors. ..."
"... Revenge, like any addiction, doesn't brook common sense. The author of the article is spot on when he points out that it's just too late to impeach on the high road even if the democrat party did have something, anything, to distinguish them ethically from the republicans or Trump (other than bombast). ..."
"... Team Blue elites need #resistance happy because it's their base. ..."
"... As far as the primary is concerned, it reaffirms support for Biden by party leadership. His campaign requires "electability in the general", so not clear how that's helping the cause. ..."
"... Perhaps they figured Biden was gonna get hit anyway for making Poroshenko fire the guy running the office prosecuting Biden's son (whereupon the investigation was, by coincidence, halted). Thus get everything together hit back in the month or so before the details emerged in US media? ..."
"... I think it's a colossal mistake, and now Pelosi is all-in (together with a bunch of Representatives in deep purple congressional districts roped into going on record supporting the impeachment investigation), so all this ain't going nowhere. ..."
"... Maybe I missed it, and so I (as a veteran) must make sure it is said: if the Congress will not list, as the first Article of Impeachment, the slaughter of innocent people in wars not declared by Congress, then I don't see how any other possible Article would matter ..."
"... Here, Trump has aided and abetted the slaughter and unending misery for hundreds of thousands of Yemenis, in a country against which the U.S. never declared war, by keeping the House of Saud armed. And this reasoning would include the killing of innocent people outside any consideration of war and peace, a crime which can be incontrovertibly attributed to decisions emanating from the Oval Office regarding people who come to our borders to seek economic or political refuge. ..."
"... The problem, of course, is that the war in Yemen started under O'Bomber. One of those rare achievements of the Trump administration, in fact, is that he hasn't actually started any brand-spanking new wars at all–just continued the old ones started by Bushbama. ..."
"... Well, bush got congress to approve Iraq, so impeaching him would have been on account of the lies. Libya is on Obama Hillary. It wasn't 'we came, we saw, he died', cackle, it was 'a peaceful, prosperous country died', one with equal Ed for women, a rarity in ME. ..."
"... I have been hoping and praying that disgraced former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew McCabe has gone "John Dean" (of Watergate infamy) and the National Security State knows it. If that dream is a reality then maybe, just maybe, I'll have to buy a television set to watch that theater live on a 60 inch screen. ..."
"We've got people all around the world who want to invest in Joe Biden," said Biden's
brother James according to
this Politico story about how the Biden family cashes in on their well-placed relative.
... ... ...
If Biden is innocent of corruption, why does it look like he's not? What does that
say about the nature of corruption itself in the entire DC establishment?
Two traps for a party that much of the nation depends on to rid them of the man the last
election elevated to power. Two reasons for independent voters -- those not Party loyalists,
not blue-no-matter-who, not Never-Trumpers, voters who never turn out for elections or rarely
do -- to not turn out for this one, when their voice and vote is needed most in this greatest
of watershed years
.
What's decided now, in this year and the next, will set the course of the nation and the
world for a dozen years to come -- or a dozen millennia if the chaos predicted by the most
pessimistic among us takes root and grows. After all, social and political chaos is a breeding
ground for authoritarian "solutions." We don't need any of those, and this may be the last
electoral chance to avoid them.
To reiterate a comment in the recent Water Cooler (this article is a better forum):
One scenario that Neuburger hasn't considered: perhaps the Democrats are trying
impeachment now because they are out of ammo and getting scared about 2020. Rather than lose
the election, they are attempting a pre-emptive strike.
Or is it a pre-emptive defensive strike by the CIA/Blob? With Trump seeming to ask Ukraine
about Crowdstrike, and Barr asking for help from Australia on the Mueller investigation
origins (as well as investigating the way the dossier was used), Trump and Barr might be
trying to turn TrumpRussia into a counterattack on their establishment enemies, just in time
for the election. Buckle up, indeed.
Yes, I've been wondering this also. The CIA credentials of the "whistleblower" are somehow
too convenient, too familiar. The Dems are already more or less in bed with the CIA/Blob, so
it is as if they are acting more to aid a "messenger", as @InquiringMind
put it during the latest Water Cooler.
A recent decision was made by the intelligence organs to allow reporting of second-hand
information and be titled a whistleblower for your efforts. it is acceptable to spy (which
this is an example of, since it is not whistleblowing) and listen to conversations saying
they heard this or that was happening, report that through legal channels, and have it
accepted BECAUSE IT APPEALS POLITICALLY to the agency or the particular representative.
The intelligence community is rife with dissension and conflict; not over their need to
service the multi-national firms and their congressional sycophants they really represent,
but rather the speed at which they need to react to challenges coming from our limited free
flow of information that contradicts their "stories" and propaganda. We're getting wise
– not completely, not with any assuredness that our info is complete, but enough to
cause tremendous doubt and distrust of the messaging coming from government and media
propagandists.
To me, the danger of this period is exactly the lack of organized opposition, politically
at home and among the nations of the globe, to this onslaught and flooding of the ears with
lies that become real due to that repetition. We are not united, and the convenient and quick
answers are flawed. The Communist Party was deeply flawed, and the International a craven
defender of Stalin, but we could certainly use some organization similar to fight this neocon
cancer now, before it metastisizes into worse, if that is possible. That being said,
impatience drives tribal thinking, already invading academia and the few public intellectuals
existing. I await the working classes hitting their limit. Buckle up, indeed
Hey, I'm not posing an answer, and see fear of one everywhere, so don't thank me. There is
a inchoate and diffuse anger brewing "out there", but it does not reflect our measured,
rather moderate knowledge of crime and abuse of power we observe daily. It will, given the
money and influence of the right wing, push over to such violent reaction it will make the
1930s seem like a birthday party. The left, or what is loosely left of it, badly needs
discipline and structure, but its traditional organs have been rent asunder and are not
trustworthy.
A thinktank? New party? Dunno it has to have room to grow, and our secret-sauce parties
and intel outfits have "six ways from Sunday" to mess with any of it. Clarity of political
thought seems to come from crisis and being cornered, but that clarity is not guaranteed to
be "healthy", babies going with the bath water-wise. Bernie is a short-term stopgap to the
bleeding IF he can wrap his mind around the movement and an understanding of the immediate
threats to its existence- i.e., the DNC.
Regarding the first sentence of your comment: The requirements of the law never changed,
the whistleblower used an old form anyway, and the recently changed form has been
replaced.
In any case, the IG's process for handling whistleblower allegations is determined not
by a form but by the law and related policy documents. The key document, ICD 120, has been
virtually unchanged since 2014. Contrary to the speculation, the whistleblower used the
2018 form, not the new online form. The IG then investigated and found that his allegations
were credible and that Congress should be notified.
Yup, but this is still mislabeled "whistleblowing", which would be such if he/she were
ratting on the CIA. This hearsay would be laughed out of a court of law absent other proof.
Further, I think we can dismiss the IG investigation as being anything not pressured by
establishment types threatened by Trump's vendetta against Obama and his wing of the neo-lib
global corporation, as it promises to open the can of worms that both parties are united in
foreign policy and who we deal with, and that unity spills over into McCarthy-like reaction
to any unpredictability and unreliability such as Trump's. We can't "get him" on his real
crimes, as that would leave all "them guys" exposed.
I assumed that the much delayed Mueller report finally came out when it did and with the
conclusion it did because the CIA was finally convinced that it had Trump sufficiently cowed.
The July 27 phone call made it clear to them that it didn't.
And Pelosi, when asked by the
CIA to jump, immediately responded, "How high?" It will be extremely interesting to see how
much influence the CIA has over Republican Senators who will be casting decisive votes.
Thirty-three Republicans Senators will be excused and given cover. Is there a thirty-fourth
with the cojones to vote against removal and against the CIA's efforts to impose a color
revolution on American soil?
If this is really about 2020 then Democrats are even more stupid than I'm inclined to
believe. Krystal Ball said this morning that only 35% of the public supports impeachment. All
this effort will do is rile up Trump supporters. I recall what happened in the 1998 midterms
after the Clinton impeachment. There's every reason to believe this will turn around and bite
the Democrats in 2020.
Pelosi and Schumer are fine with that. If Democrats were to actually win, they'd have to
govern, and they can't do that.
There are several plausible explanations. If you consider Pelosi's motivations, you have
to look no further than her constituency, the donor class.
From their perspective there has been too many uncomfortable policy debates, including
climate change, occurring on the campaign trail. As with Russiagate all of these discussions
will vanish from the corporate media.
Also, some of the donors have stated they will not donate to the Dems, and may in fact
donate to Trump, if Warren gets nominated.
Finally, purely for display of party unity, protecting Joe Biden, even if it brings him
down will have value. Also, this specific charge will not bring up any of other former "suits" illegal
actions.
Inasmuch as polling showing the combined popularity of Sanders and Warren exceed 30% while
Biden is down to 19%, if you can end with a inconclusive first round of voting at the
Democratic Convention, you can bring in the Supers and name the person of your choice.
As to the question of 'why now?', my guess is because the 'resistance' types see the
writing on the wall that they are going to lose with anybody but Sanders as the candidate,
and they aren't about to allow Sanders to win. RussiaRussiaRussia, porn stars, and everything
else they tried didn't work and they've got nothing else that would give the public at large
something to vote for .
As to that writing on the wall, I will offer some very anecdotal evidence, but I found it
telling. A few days ago I went to a rural county fair. Now granted these fairs likely attract
a more conservative crowd, however this particular fair was in the most liberal county in the
state. Took a look at the exhibition hall at the fair, full of quilts, 4th grade artwork,
canned tomatoes, etc. as well as booths for both the Republican and Democrat parties.
At the Democrat party booth, they had put out poster boards with a list of issues and you
were supposed to put a little round sticker next to the issue you felt was most important.
Boring policy wonk stuff. I don't even remember if anyone was manning the booth when we
stopped by, but if they were they made no attempt whatsoever to speak with us. My wife put
one sticker on a poster and walked away and we were the only people there at the time. In
fairness, clearly there had been people there earlier since there were a lot of stickers
stuck to posters.
At the Republican booth, there were a number of people in line engaging with those manning
the booth. And rather than just pining little stickers on a poster, the Republicans were
handing out Trump 2020 swag and letting people get photos with a big Trump cutout. IDoing fun
stuff. Walking around the fair later I saw one of the few Hispanics in attendance (this is a
very white county in an extremely white state) sporting a Trump 2020 tote bag as he and his
wife walked through the fair.
If I were to base a prediction on the evidence alone, I would say Trump and the Elephants
are going to hand the Asses their asses in 2020 and they can feel it coming.
I really don't see how this doesn't blow up in their faces, but they've got nothing
else.
This is my feeling on it. It's the Democrats' Benghazi, a string of congressional hearings
designed to produce dirt on Trump to sink him in the election. Actual impeachment and removal
is nahgunnahappen, as that requires 67 senators, which would require all Democrats in the
Senate, both independents, and 20 Republicans . It would be a minor miracle if five
Republicans signed onto impeachment.
However, with dirt slinging as the only useful outcome possible, it shows how incompetent
Pelosi is by limiting the inquiry to just the Ukraine business. The damning dirt could come
in any form out of any corner of Trump's ongoings, so why would you limit the dirt digging to
something that, on the face of it, doesn't scream it went any deeper than Trump's
implication. Especially as it didn't happen that long ago.
God, this is so stupid. Look, perhaps it is because I live in a different continent or I
have a twisted turn of mind but I am seeing something completely different at work here. Is
Trump Corrupt? Of course he is but in a completely ham-fisted way that makes it blatantly
obvious. With Trump you always have low expectations. But Thomas Neuburger talks about ICE
deaths, Puerto Rico, the Muslim ban but so what? Obama was guilty of far worse but no
Democrats will criticize him for any of it. An example? If you cover up an international war
crime such as torture, that is an international crime too and Obama definitely covered up for
the CIA tortures and "looked forward". And one ramification for that was the US now having a
ex-torturer as head of the CIA.
So here is my take. The past few months Americans were finally having subjects like
healthcare and college debt forgiveness getting some air time and some serious traction. The
Democrat candidates were being forced to give answers on their positions on such ideas. But
now? The Democrats have introduced impeachment which has all the success prospects of
Russiagate. Expect copious amounts of verbal diarrhea in the next few months which will allow
for no time for discussion of subjects like healthcare anymore. The DNC will shout down
anyone trying to do so by shouting "Impeachment!". And when the elections rock around in a
year's time and there is finally some minor space to start talking about such subjects, the
DNC will tell progressives "You know, you should have really brought this up in 2019 while
there was time to talk about it. Your bad."
Indeed, we might as well argue that Obama should have been impeached for turning the
Espionage Act against reporters. I see that as more damaging to the US than most of Trump's
harmful acts to date.
I tell people that Trump is a minor league con man because so many people assert that he
is a con man
Obama successfully convinced people that he WANTED to do the right things but was
prevented from doing them by the evil Republicans. Despite the insurance/drug company
friendly implementation of ObamaCare, assertion of the most transparent administration, ever,
brutally coming down on government whistleblowers, killing overseas citizens via drone, not
prosecuting financial misdeeds, and destroying Libya, Obama is seen as righteous.
In my view, a truly great con man remains unacknowledged/undetected.
Obama is in a con man league of his own, as he benefits from the left's form of Obama
Derangement Syndrome.
Interesting that attacking trump on this is attacking Biden did dem elites give up on him?
don't see how he can survive, which seems to open the field for Warren sanders if so, not
what donors want, pelosi musta been forced by blue dogs cia.
Maybe good for sanders he needs rest, the stents will require recovery msm can't focus away
from impeach to celebrate his health problems
How long? Say one month?
Hopefully the dems great white hope Biden will be down and out by primaries Bernie might find
help in the south this time where it was a wall last time
Ca dem elites don't want Bernie, but electorate doesn't want Kamala
And Tulsi back on stage with her useful to focus on wars.
I think this vectors the right direction, Rev Kev. White noise to drown out clearly
articulated messages. If any of this were about actual evidence, Binney would've been called
to undercut the Crowdstrike assertions.
There are a couple of things that seem real. Once is the intra-elite competition between
the intelligence community and Trump. Epstein cracked a door and some light got through.
Trump seems to have taken the standard operating procedures personally.
Despite this, Trump is more acceptable to Wall Street than the left agenda. These attacks
serve to consolidate Trumps base; I've seen more Trump 2020 bumper stickers in my very-blue
town than any other candidates.
The endgame comes with the primaries. Sander's campaign income has a verisimilitude with
greater weight than the polls. Even polls which aren't specifically rigged can't cope with
modern communications. The problem is, with electronic vote-flipping on top of old-school
methods, unless the paper ballots get in (which is against status quo interests), how can it
be made clear the vote is being rigged? Could public gatherings outside the polling places be
enough to offer an alternative count?
Plus, Sanders has set himself up as TINA. He has not spread his wealth of four decades of
credibility to anyone else. No Hindu is getting the Oval, so Gabbard is a gadfly, not an
option. Trump and the top three Democratic candidates could all actually die of old age.
The only thing I'd actually put a bet on in all this is that Trump will not be removed
from office via impeachment.
I'm not sure that the Democrats yelling "impeachment!" will register loud enough to
overcome the substance of the election campaign. Not enough people care about it.
The real determinate is which people 'care' about it. The public discourse is presently in the hands of partisan hacks,
of mainly one ideology; Rentier Capitalism.
One main American political faction will characterize the obscurantist process as "White
Noise. The other main faction will characterize it as "Rainbow Noise." Both will be correct
about the "Noise" part.
According to Ball in the "Rising" video, the percentage of people who support impeachment
is 35%. That pretty much covers all the "partisan hacks" you refer to.
To the average voter? This is just noise and nonsense. Regardless of how impeachment ends
(and one doesn't have to be a genius to figure out that it will go nowhere), the concerns and
the anger of average voters are not going away.
Ditto, Ambrit- a rational response bestride the not caring noise.
The current equation of Warren and Sanders is the point problem of that coherence. Sanders
is weak on foreign policy particulars (Middle East, Venezuela, Ukraine are waffled responses,
more afraid to alienate rather than state), Warren is totally absent because she has
supported those policies in the past.
Both committed to regulation, Warren wanting existing
govt. style while Sanders wants the beginning of a bottom-up approach. Details are left on
the "debate-stage floor", as what we have had so far is a Sideshow Bob presentation of
policy, a Q&A for the media, which leads us nowhere unless you are fanatically political,
which most of the nation has been educated/innoculated against.
Right now, probably true. However, we've been victim to propaganda many times before
– WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc.etc. We have an apparatus that has honed its abilities
to reach millions immediately through TV, press, video, websites, that puts former agit-prop
to shame. We have been swarmed with the same message, basically allowing those caught in lies
previously to suddenly be believed today, "because"
The truth of any proposition comes down to its provenance and our ability to get tired of
the repetition and cacophony surrounding us, thus surrendering the ground. If enough believe
the initial message, if enough see their bread buttered by it, then the rest of us are prone
to that surrender unless an outside agency we CAN rely on exists.
It is sad to say that "not caring" becomes a positive. 50% of the voting public does not
vote, and most who vote do not care if their vote is even counted properly. Do not care
equals no democracy at all.
What you are seeing is called "hypocrisy", writ large. The Democrats are finally
discovering that they actually need the voters that they've been dissing for decades, and
they really don't want to admit how badly they've screwed the pooch.
Perhaps Ms. Pelosi's caucus finally made her do what she despises doing. That it should
benefit her party leadership's choice to replace Donald Trump is, of course,
coincidental.
There's still the nit that there's been no congressional vote authorizing her impeachment
inquiry, which will keep the process in the courts and delay proceedings longer than
necessary.
Ms. Pelosi's actions bring to mind the contradictory naval order, proceed with all
deliberate speed. It is a sign that the admirals acknowledge the necessity of doing
something, but tell their commanders it's on them if it goes South.
That she has shoved the bankeresque Schiff to the fore in place of the more irascible and
prosecutorial Nadler suggests she does not want to give the public a clear narrative, so much
as to keep them calm, as if the Trump administration were in charge instead of being in
office.
California is the vanguard of the "Resistance" to Trump. Pelosi is from California, as is
Schiff. Two of the Intelligence Committee members are also from California (Jackie Speier and
Eric Swalwell) as the LA Times pointed out a few days ago ("
California to play an outsize role in impeachment inquiry of Trump "). This is probably
why the whole impeachment inquiry is centered in the Intelligence committee and not the
Judiciary.
Various Obama officials live or work in California. For example, Eric Holder was hired by
the California Legislature to fight Trump. David Plouffe, who works with the Chan Zuckerberg
Initiative among other Silicon Valley groups, is helping a liberal group called ACRONYM with
anti-Trump digital messaging.
Don't forget too that Pelosi is related by marriage to Governor Gavin Newsom (his aunt was
married to Ron Pelosi, brother-in-law to Nancy). It's one big happy Resistance family!
Corruption is okay as long as they do it. Their hypocrisy has no limits.
Just imagine if corrupt California elites could rule the United States! The Wash Post even
had a fantasy piece about "President Pelosi" just a few days ago.
Thanks for that, saved me a bit of rushed commenting because I was going to quickly
comment on it before I noticed you had already.
California has 6 of the 24 members of the House Intelligence Committee: 4 of those 6
members hold 100% of Democratic (Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff) and Republican (Kevin McCarthy
and Devin Nunes) leadership roles; there are 4 out of 14 in the total Democratic membership,
and 2 out of 10 in the Republican membership.
Also, Californian members make up 100% of the House membership of the Gang of Eight, , 2
Democratic and 2 Republican: respectively, Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff; and Kevin McCarthy
and Devin Nunes.
And lastly, both California Senators Dianne Feinstein, and Kamala Harris (despite her
newbiness), are on the Senate Intelligence Committee, the only State to have both Senators as
members.
As a decades long California resident, what sickens me the most about this is California
legislators (overwhelmingly Democratic Party, but may as well be Republican given the
stunning inequality/austerity imposed in California) preside over the highest numbers of
unsheltered homeless in the country. A full third of California residents have been forced
onto Medi-Cal (where millions can't find a treating doctor for the life of them), or don't
qualify (despite not being able to afford their rents), yet can't afford any insurance.
Concurrently, State Legislators and that duplicitous, slimy creep Newsom just signed off on
an Obama inspired California
Healthcare Mandate Penalty , although there were crickets at California's Franchise Tax
Board when it came to following the IRS in going after Facebook's stunning and blatant 2010
Ireland Asset transfers Tax evasion (to the tune of billions now, and next to impossible to
determine what the current status of it is), they would much rather go after their
increasingly impoverished populace who can't afford a CPA, let alone an attorney.
> In other words, the rightness of impeachment was never a consideration for Democratic
Party leaders.
Nor was it in 2006, when, after recapturing the House, Pelosi took impeachment "off the
table," even though the Bush Administration committed multiple felonies in its warrantless
surveillance program, in addition to completely destroying the Fourth Amendment. (Obama later
normalized and rationalized all this, of course.)
So one would not have expected principle or the "rule of law" or any of those other
shibboleths to enter into the liberal Democrat decision-making process. It never does.
This person starts out with an establishing remark that convicts Trump, and goes on from
there. Unlike a true impeachment process, no 'real' groundwork is laid down. Furthermore, by
half-heartedly mentioning "issues" with the Pelosi formulation, in effect, that Biden is just
as bad as Trump, the author lays the groundwork for the 'impeachment' of both Party's "main"
candidates. The piece reminds me of the logic of the Alice in Wonderland trial: "Sentence
first – verdict afterwards." All this, my cynical sensibility reminds me, sotto voice,
for an insane Queen.
Impeachment has always been a political process. After all, it is a function of the Congress,
the prototype of politics. To take the authors buttressing point, that the 'essence' of
impeachment should be the pure logic of the deeds in question casts the entire process of
impeachment in the light of virtue signalling. How else would a disinterested observer
characterize a process where the process itself is not initiated with the anticipation of a
useful outcome? In a very real sense, it is a partisan war where there are penalties for
losing.
This piece, if any, shows plainly the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the American
political process today. The two "leading" candidates of the "rival" Partys are both
delineated to be frauds, figuratively and literally. Turning the mentioning of the earlier
English Parliamentary 'version' of impeachment on, as it were, it's head, one is lead to
consider that only something as all encompassing and determinative as an actual bloodletting
will be of any use to the Nation.
Be very careful what you ask for. You might get it.
"Impeachment is the Constitution's version of the English Civil War, minus the war."
It could be argued that getting rid of a Prime Minister via a vote of no confidence is
orders of magnitude simpler than impeachment. In fact, it seems to happen about every ten or
twenty years on average in the UK. And no civil war required either.
The best analogue of today with then is that the English Civil War did not just remove the
Royalist leadership of the time, but an entire generation of Royalists. Does America really
want a twenty year interregnum?
We are already in the Interregnum. Trump was 'none of the above'. People talked about a
'clown car' and then Trump showed that a clown could actually accede to power, insofar as a
clown can manage the role. The Democrats responded with a clown show of their own. It's a
circus, although the clowns are pretty malign. Maybe people like that. Meanwhile, serious
people with serious political proposals, like Sanders, are on the outside looking in.
Someone's going to have to break a window.
Pelosi has clearly seen the dangers of democrat complicity and corruption before; what's
changed? If she was acutely (off the table) aware of the dirty utterly
filthy linen danger before, then why not now when it's, if anything, more obvious than
ever?
All I can think of is that the Clinton derangement syndrome – the bitterness and
perceived injustice that the anointed one didn't get anointed – still has an iron grip
on the psyche of the DC Daristocrats. They're stone drunk on hatred, spite, and lust for
revenge and are hallucinating in broad daylight that they've got the hook to sell it.
I like the idea that this is all a clever ruse to keep the focus away from sanity in
health care etc., but it just doesn't look like they have that much sense. From the UK to the
the US, everyone's going nuts.
I bet it's good for fund raising, those I know who are most embarrassed by trump have a
fair amount of money and currently they are very excited. Whatever it is, it's not bernie (or
should I say &@cking bernie), it's not M4A, and it's not student loans, as commented on
above this line
It's the ill conceived nature of this, the mess the democrats are creating for themselves,
that suggests to me that shifting the focus away from popular programs such as medicare for
all is unintended even if successful. It's like stabbing yourself in the arm to divert
attention from robbing the church collection. Not a good analogy but anyway
There is a huge amount of pressure from the public to get rid of Trump any way possible
and a lot of that, ironically, has been manufactured by the democrats themselves. That, I
suspect, combined with Hillary syndrome, is more what's behind this than the criminal, but
lucid, plan to obscure the popularity of programs benefiting the public.
Perhaps you should go back and re-read the last 5 years of commentary then -- there's been
plenty of substance offered by those who are just as powerless as you.
Imagine Trump were to overthrow Maduro in a coup. He installs his puppet Guido who
immediately gives Ivanka a seat on the board of a Venezuelan oil company at 50K a month, or
more. Would the Democrats be screaming 'nothing to see here' in that scenario?
It's not clear the Democrats would notice any impropriety. What would be tearing them
apart is that they didn't get a seat at the trough (on the board) as well.
I would say 'Joe Biden's son's integrity' and 'the dubious right-wing Democratic Party
CIA-led arms sales-drive policy in the Ukraine.'
I don't think that Biden himself is particularly corrupt; the guy really is a terrible
hack. And I don't think legal corruption is necessarily what's at issue, but a world in which
it's perfectly acceptable for the children of elites to trail around after their parents and
help smooth the wider asset-grabbing through personal enrichment.
The wider context–villifying Russia, cleaning up Ukraine enough to justify
consorting with fascists and the far-right to keep all the balls in the air, needs to be
exposed.
There is a right way to do impeachment, and this ain't it. They could investigate the
Trump administrator for its rampant corruption – it's a very target-rich environment.
Instead, Pelosi wants the scope very narrow. That's quite telling. Even more telling, and
offensive, when you think about it, is her decision to have this inquiry be led by the House
Intelligence Committee. This pretty much guarantees that at least some of the proceedings
will happen behind closed doors.
So, they think that they're going to remove the duly elected
President behind closed doors, and they think the population will be okay with this? Do they
really live in such a bubble that they think people trust their judgment enough to do this?
It boggles the mind.
Revenge, like any addiction, doesn't brook common sense. The author of the article is spot
on when he points out that it's just too late to impeach on the high road even if the
democrat party did have something, anything, to distinguish them ethically from the
republicans or Trump (other than bombast).
Also, just a thought, having this discussion behind closed doors makes sense if Pelosi is
hoping they will come to their senses.
As to the right or wrong way to do impeachment, I think the democrats like the republicans
are simply beyond that or any notion of it other than the residue of dim memory that ends up
entirely as the decorative part in public speeches. I suspect they are quite simply oblivious
to such niceties as anything being wrong with using impeachment as a weapon rather than as a
means for justice.
I'm pretty sure Pelosi doesn't want it and wanted to repeat her 2007 play, but she doesn't
have 2008 certainty to offer (keep the powder dry I know but this was what that was about).
Team Blue elites need #resistance happy because it's their base. The people who missed brunch
aren't exactly rationale or going to have this explained to them behind closed doors. Pelosi
has been slowly losing with the caucus, but most of the members are terrible and vulnerable
to an AOC-esque challenge especially in safe seats which most of the seats are. Again without
theven #resistance, safe seat Team Blue types are very vulnerable.
Adding that, imo, the rank and file voters did the work of electing Democrats to a House
majority, motivated partly by Clinton revenge, but also by policy issues. There's been
noticeable dismay in the corners of twitter where I wander at Pelosi's taking so long to act,
the inept performances of the few hearings so far, and now the proposed narrow focus.
my take is they're never actually going to pass articles of impeachment, which would hand
the process over to McConnell in the Senate. It will stay in the House and they will attempt
to nab Trump or perhaps one of his sidekicks like Giuliani on obstruction of the House
investigation. This is by now a fairly transparent strategy, and we will find out what the
elusive PA swing voter thinks of it soon enough.
As far as the primary is concerned, it reaffirms support for Biden by party leadership.
His campaign requires "electability in the general", so not clear how that's helping the
cause.
Perhaps they figured Biden was gonna get hit anyway for making Poroshenko fire the guy
running the office prosecuting Biden's son (whereupon the investigation was, by coincidence,
halted). Thus get everything together hit back in the month or so before the details emerged
in US media?
I think it's a colossal mistake, and now Pelosi is all-in (together with a bunch of
Representatives in deep purple congressional districts roped into going on record supporting
the impeachment investigation), so all this ain't going nowhere.
Maybe I missed it, and so I (as a veteran) must make sure it is said: if the Congress will
not list, as the first Article of Impeachment, the slaughter of innocent people in wars not
declared by Congress, then I don't see how any other possible Article would matter.
Here,
Trump has aided and abetted the slaughter and unending misery for hundreds of thousands of
Yemenis, in a country against which the U.S. never declared war, by keeping the House of Saud
armed. And this reasoning would include the killing of innocent people outside any
consideration of war and peace, a crime which can be incontrovertibly attributed to decisions
emanating from the Oval Office regarding people who come to our borders to seek economic or
political refuge.
Wasn't the power to go to war exclusively reserved for Congress, to try to make sure that
the country wouldn't go to war on a lark? And wasn't the Bill of Rights enshrined to make
sure that the U.S. Government could not put people to death, at least without due
process?
I realize that this might mean that Congress would have had to impeach presidents left and
right. So be it; enlisted women and men can be severely punished for killing innocent people
(and for far less, such as disobeying orders). Why should presidents and vice-presidents
escape responsibility for high crimes of unjustifiable homicide (and, I must add,
countenancing torture)?
The problem, of course, is that the war in Yemen started under O'Bomber. One of those rare
achievements of the Trump administration, in fact, is that he hasn't actually started any
brand-spanking new wars at all–just continued the old ones started by Bushbama.
Well, bush got congress to approve Iraq, so impeaching him would have been on account of
the lies.
Libya is on Obama Hillary. It wasn't 'we came, we saw, he died', cackle, it was 'a peaceful,
prosperous country died', one with equal Ed for women, a rarity in ME.
Is this the last desperation Hail Mary by the Democratic Party and the National Security
State to save themselves?
Has it already happened?
I have been hoping and praying that disgraced former Deputy Director of the FBI Andrew
McCabe
has gone "John Dean" (of Watergate infamy) and the National Security State knows it. If that dream is a reality then maybe, just maybe, I'll have to buy a television set to
watch that theater live
on a 60 inch screen.
Clintonism was the introduction of mafia style in the US justice system and conversion of the
key law enforcement agency -- FBI -- in mafia style organization.
Re: Krugman's article on the death of American Democracy he asserts: " In less than three
years it has been transformed from an agency that tries to enforce the law to an organization
dedicated to punishing Trump's opponents."
I think that I agree with Bill Black that the roots of the criminogenic environment go
much deeper. Where was the DOJ in the prosecution of the massive banking fraud that led to
the great financial crisis ? Busy prosecuting poor people while the big fish criminals were
rescued by the corrupt institutions. I agree that Democracy dies when the institutions become
corrupt and the beneficiaries of the same corrupt institutions become smugly comfortable in
control of the narrative.
A troubling article by the New Yorker, "Clarence Thomas's Radical Vision of Race",
Points to a real world example: The profound corruption of the conservative SCOTUS that
led to Citizens United. The angst of the entitled bemoaning their good fortune, like spoiled
children.
The USA might eventually pay the price for the economic rape and alienation of Russia by
criminal Clinton and his coterie
Notable quotes:
"... Madeline "not so bright" Allbright was the first swan. As well as Clinton attempts to bankrupt and subdue Russia and criminal (in a sense of no permission from the UN) attack on Yugoslavia. Both backfired: Russia became permanently hostile. The fact he and his coterie were not yet tried by something like Nuremberg tribunal is only due to the USA dominance at this stage of history. ..."
"... The truth is that after the dissolution of the USSR the USA foreign policy became completely unhinged. And inside the country the elite became cannibalistic, as there was no external threat to its dominance in the form of the USSR. ..."
"... Still as an imperial state and the center of neoliberal empire the USA relies more on financial instruments and neoliberal comprador elite inside the country. ..."
"The US served as a benevolent hegemon, administering the occasional rap on the knuckles to
those acting in bad faith"
USA foreign policy since 70th was controlled by neocons who as a typical Trotskyites
(neoliberalism is actually Trotskyism for the rich) were/are hell-bent of world domination
and practice gangster capitalism in foreign policy.
Bolton attitude to UN is very symptomatic for the neocons as a whole.
Madeline "not so bright" Allbright was the first swan. As well as Clinton attempts to
bankrupt and subdue Russia and criminal (in a sense of no permission from the UN) attack on
Yugoslavia. Both backfired: Russia became permanently hostile. The fact he and his coterie
were not yet tried by something like Nuremberg tribunal is only due to the USA dominance at
this stage of history.
The truth is that after the dissolution of the USSR the USA foreign policy became
completely unhinged. And inside the country the elite became cannibalistic, as there was no
external threat to its dominance in the form of the USSR.
The USA stated to behave like a typical Imperial state (New Rome, or, more correctly,
London) accepting no rules/laws that are not written by themselves (and when it is convenient
to obey them) with the only difference from the classic imperial states that the hegemony it
not based on the military presence/occupation ( like was the case with British empire)
Although this is not completely true as there are 761 US Military Bases across the planet
and only 46 Countries with no US military presence. Of them, seven countries with 13 New
Military Bases were added since 09/11/2001.In 2001 the US had a quarter million troops posted
abroad.
Still as an imperial state and the center of neoliberal empire the USA relies more
on financial instruments and neoliberal comprador elite inside the country.
With the collapse of neoliberal ideology in 2008 the USA centered neoliberal empire
experiences first cracks. Brexit and election of Trump widened the cracks in a sense of
further legitimizing the ruling neoliberal elite (big middle finger for Hillary was addressed
to the elite as whole)
If oil price exceed $100 per barrel there will yet another crack or even repetition of the
2008 Great Recession on a new level (although we may argue that the Great Recession never
ended and just entered in Summers terms "permanent stagnation: phase)
Although currently with a bully at the helm the USA empire still going strong in forcing
vassals and competitors to reconsider their desire to challenge the USA that situation will
not last. Trump currently is trying to neutralize the treat from China by rejecting classic
neoliberal globalization mechanism as well as signed treaties like WTO. He might be
successful in the short run but in the "long run" that undermines the USA centered neoliberal
empire and speed up its demise. .
In the long run the future does not look too bright as crimes committed by the USA during
triumphal period of neoliberalism hangs like albatross around the USA neck.
EU now definitely wants to play its own game as Macron recently stated and which Merkel
tacitly supports. If EU allies with Russia it will became No.1 force in the world with the
USA No. 2. With severe consequences for the USA.
If Russia allied with China the USA Np.1 position will hinge of keeping EU vassals in
check and NATO in place. Without them it will became No.2 with fatal consequences for the
dollar as world reserve currency and sudden change of the USA financial position due to the
level of external debt and requires devaluation of the dollar.
Looks like 75 year after WWII the world started to self-organize a countervailing force
trying to tame the USA with some interest expressed by such players as EU, Russia, China,
India, Iran, Turkey, Pakistan and even Saudi Arabia. As well as ( in the past; and possibly
in the future as neoliberal counterrevolutions in both countries probably will end badly) by
Brazil and Argentina.
Only Canada, Australia and probably UK can be counted as the reliable parts of the USA
empire. That's not much.
Here are just some of the twists and turns in the case, which has gone on for more than
three years.
Flynn's trip to Russia in 2015, where it was claimed Flynn went without the knowledge or
approval of the DIA or anyone in Washington,
was proven not to be true .
Flynn was suspected of being compromised by a supposed Russian agent, Cambridge academic
Svetlana Lokhova, based on allegations from Western intelligence asset Stefan Halper.
This was also proven to be not true.
The very strange post-dated FD-302 form on the FBI's January 2017 interview of Flynn that
wasn't filled out until August 2017, almost seven months afterward, is
revealed in a court filing by Flynn's defense team .
FBI agent Pientka became the
"DOJ's Invisible Man," despite the fact that Congress has repeatedly called for him to
testify. Pientka has remained out of sight and out of mind more than a year and a half since
his name first surfaced in connection with the Flynn case.
Now, it's not that far-fetched of an idea that the Mueller special counsel prosecutors would
hide exculpatory evidence from the Flynn defense team, since they've just admitted to having
done exactly that in another case their
office has been prosecuting .
The defense team for Internet Research Agency/Concord, more popularly known as "the Russian
troll farm case," hasn't been smooth going for the Mueller prosecutors.
Then, in a
filing submitted to the court on Aug. 30, the IRA/Concord defense team alerted Judge
Friedrich that the prosecutors just got around to handing them key evidence the prosecutors had
for the past 18 months. The prosecution gave no explanation whatsoever as to why they hid this
key evidence for more than a year.
It's hard to see at this point how the entire IRA/Concord case isn't tossed out.
What would it mean for Flynn's prosecutors to have been caught hiding exculpatory evidence
from him and his lawyers, even after the presiding judge explicitly ordered them in February to
hand over everything they had?
It would mean that the Flynn case is tossed out, since the prosecution team was caught
engaging in gross misconduct.
Now you can see why Flynn refused to withdraw his guilty plea when Judge Sullivan gave him
the opportunity to do so in late December 2018.
A withdrawal of the guilty plea or a pardon would let the Mueller prosecution team off the
hook.
And they're not getting off the hook.
Flynn hired the best lawyer he possibly could have when it comes to exposing prosecutorial
misconduct. Nobody knows the crafty, corrupt, and dishonest tricks federal prosecutors use
better than Powell, who actually wrote a compelling book about such matters, entitled "
License to Lie: Exposing
Corruption in the Department of Justice ."
Everything this Mueller prosecution team did in withholding exculpatory evidence from
Flynn's defense team -- and continued to withhold even after Judge Sullivan specifically issued
an order about it -- is going to be fully exposed.
Defying a federal judge's Brady order is a one-way ticket to not only getting fired, it's a
serious enough offense to warrant disbarment and prosecution.
If it turns out Mueller special counsel prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence -- not
only in the IRA/Concord case, but also in the cases against Flynn, Paul Manafort, Michael
Cohen, Rick Gates, Roger Stone, and others -- that will have a huge impact.
If they are willing to withhold exculpatory evidence in one case, why wouldn't they do the
same thing in other cases they were prosecuting? Haven't they have already demonstrated they
are willing to break the rules? Tags
We have become a third-world country. Even throwing Mueller and his entire prosecutors'
team in jail would not be enough to restore confidence in our legal system. But it would be a
start.
On or about December 28, 2016, the Russian Ambassador contacted FLYNN.
c. On or about December 29, 2016, FLYNN called a senior official of the Presidential
Transition Team ("PTT official"), who was with other senior ·members of the
Presidential Transition Team at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, to discuss
what, if anything, to communicate to the Russian Ambassador about the U.S. Sanctions. On that
call, FLYNN and 2 Case 1:17-cr-00232-RC Document 4 Filed 12/01/17 Page 2 of 6 the PTT
official discussed the U.S. Sanctions, including the potential impact of those sanctions on
the incoming administration's foreign policy goals. The PIT official and FLYNN also discussed
that the members of the Presidential Transition Team at Mar-a-Lago did not want Russia to
escalate the situation. d. Immediately after his phone call with the PTT official, FLYNN
called the Russian Ambassador and requested that Russia not escalate the situation and only
respond to the U.S. Sanctions in a reciprocal manner. e. Shortly after his phone call with
the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with the PTT official to report on the substance of his
call with the Russian Ambassador, including their discussion of the U.S. Sanctions. f. On or
about December 30, 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin released a statement indicating
that Russia would not take retaliatory measures in response to the U.S. Sanctions at that
time. g. On or about December 31, 2016, the Russian Ambassador called FLYNN and informed him
that Russia had chosen not to retaliate in response to FL YNN's request. h. After his phone
call with the Russian Ambassador, FLYNN spoke with senior members of the Presidential
Transition Team about FL YNN's conversations with the Russian Ambassador regarding the U.S.
Sanctions and Russia's decision not to escalate the situation.
The coup plot between the international intelligence community (which includes our
FBI-CIA-etc) and their unregistered foreign agents in the multinational corporate media is
slowly being revealed.
Here’s another possibility... elites in the US Gov set on running a soft coup
against a duly elected president and his team made up a whole pile of **** and passed it off
as truth.
The Manafort thing has me totally riled since HRC's "Password" guy and his brother were
PARTNERS with manafort, did the same damn things, and were NOT investigated.
Donald Trump is many things to many people, but is not his social personna to be patient.
He is being VERY patient to let this unfold, to "give a man enough rope" or political party
and its owner, as it may be....
Donna Brazile's book is under-rated: it holds they keys as to who ran the DNC and why
after Obie bailed.
Our local community rag (Vermont) had an opinion piece last week about "The slide towards
Facism", where the author breathlessly stated that she had learned from a MSNBC expose by
Rachel Maddow that the administration was firing researchers at NASA and EPA as well as
cutting back funding for LGBTQ support groups. Oh the horror. The author conveniently forgot
that the same dyke had lied for 2 years about Russia,Russia,Russia but it's still OK to
believe any **** that drops out of her mouth.
This is the level of insanity happening around here. Of course it is Bernie's turf.
People who are so stupid and gullible deserve everything they are gonna get.
Poor Flynn. Rail-roaded by ZOG and Obama and Hillary and Co. I hope beyond hope that the
truth is revealed and that he can sue the **** out of the seditionists/(((seditionists))) who
put him into this mess such that his great-great-grandchildren will never have to work.
I also blame Trump for throwing Flynn under the bus.
If they are willing to withhold exculpatory evidence in one case, why wouldn’t they
do the same thing in other cases they were prosecuting? Haven’t they have already
demonstrated they are willing to break the rules?
Duh! Because it's easy and the media never covers it and AG Barr and FBI director Wray
will cover it all up. America no longer operates under rule of law, and now we all know it.
Never cooperate with them!
flynn didn't rape children, to buzy trying to fight liberators of iraq and afganistan from
invasion... that's his major crime.
I guess, kelly, mattis, mcmaster neither are on the child rape trend. but what can they
do? when the entire cia and doj and fbi are full on controlled and run by the pedos? it's
like when all the cardinals and the pope are pedos, what a bishop to do...
Why would CIA Rothschild'd up puppet Trump pick only the best William Barr?
Who told Acosta to cut no prosecution deal with Epstein? George Bush? Robert Mukasey? or
Bob Mueller?
Trump, Barr, Bush, Mueller all on the same no rule of law national no government
pys op , for Epstein & 9/11 clean op team Poppa Bush, Clinton, &
Mossad.
Barr: CIA operative
It is a sobering fact that American presidents (many of whom have been corrupt) have gone
out of their way to hire fixers to be their attorney generals.
Consider recent history: Loretta Lynch (2015-2017), Eric Holder (2009-2015), Michael
Mukasey (2007-2009), Alberto Gonzales (2005-2007), John Ashcroft (2001-2005),Janet Reno
(1993-2001), **** Thornburgh (1988-1991), Ed Meese (1985-1988), etc.
Barr was a full-time CIA operative, recruited by Langley out of high school, starting
in 1971. Barr’s youth career goal was to head the CIA.
CIA operative assigned to the China directorate, where he became close to powerful CIA
operative George H.W. Bush, whose accomplishments already included the CIA/Cuba Bay of
Pigs, Asia CIA operations (Vietnam War, Golden Triangle narcotics), Nixon foreign policy
(Henry Kissinger), and the Watergate operation.
When George H.W. Bush became CIA Director in 1976, Barr joined the CIA’s
“legal office” and Bush’s inner circle, and worked alongside Bush’s
longtime CIA enforcers Theodore “Ted” Shackley, Felix Rodriguez, Thomas Clines,
and others, several of whom were likely involved with the Bay of Pigs/John F. Kennedy
assassination, and numerous southeast Asian operations, from the Phoenix Program to Golden
Triangle narco-trafficking.
Barr stonewalled and destroyed the Church Committee investigations into CIA
abuses.
Barr stonewalled and stopped inquiries in the CIA bombing assassination of Chilean
opposition leader Orlando Letelier.
Barr joined George H.W. Bush’s legal/intelligence team during Bush’s vice
presidency (under President Ronald Reagan) Rose from assistant attorney general to Chief
Legal Counsel to attorney general (1991) during the Bush 41 presidency.
Barr was a key player in the Iran-Contra operation, if not the most important member of
the apparatus, simultaneously managing the operation while also “fixing” the
legal end, ensuring that all of the operatives could do their jobs without fear of exposure
or arrest.
In his attorney general confirmation, Barr vowed to “attack criminal
organizations”, drug smugglers and money launderers. It was all hot air: as AG, Barr
would preserve, protect, cover up, and nurture the apparatus that he helped create, and use
Justice Department power to escape punishment.
Barr stonewalled and stopped investigations into all Bush/Clinton and CIA crimes,
including BCCI and BNL CIA drug banking, the theft of Inslaw/PROMIS software, and all
crimes of state committed by Bush
Barr provided legal cover for Bush’s illegal foreign policy and war crimes
Barr left Washington, and went through the “rotating door” to the corporate
world, where he took on numerous directorships and counsel positions for major companies.
In 2007 and again from 2017, Barr was counsel for politically-connected international law
firm Kirkland
& Ellis . Among its other notable attorneys and alumni are Kenneth Starr, John
Bolton, Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and numerous Trump administration attorneys.
K&E’s clients include sex trafficker/pedophile Jeffrey Epstein, and Mitt
Romney’s Bain Capital.
A strong case can be made that William Barr was as powerful and important a figure in the
Bush apparatus as any other, besides Poppy Bush himself.
there is a war on america, and the DoD and men like flynn are too arrogant, dumb, and
proud to admit they have been fucked and conned deeply by men way smarter than them...
we don't need ******* brains, but killers to wage this revolution against the american
pedostate.
and that, what they master, they don't want to do.
if they want money, they should have learned to trade and not kill...
""Certain key unknown figures in the Federal Reserve may have 'conspired' with key unknown
figures at the Bank of New York to create a situation where $240 billion in off balance sheet
securities created in 1991 as part of an official covert operation to overthrow the Soviet
Union, could be cleared without publicly acknowledging their existence. These securities,
originally managed by Cantor Fitzgerald, were cleared and settled in the aftermath of
September 11th
through the BoNY. The $100 billion account balance bubble reported by the Wall Street
Journalas being experienced in the BoNY was tip of a three day operation, when these
securities were moved from off-balance-sheet to the balance sheet.
Thatcher was an English politico. It is not what she said, but what she did that counts. She is probably down in Dante's Inferno,
Ring 8, sub-rings 7-10. (Frauds and false councilors.) See, oh wayward sinners:
http://danteworlds.laits.utexas.edu/circle8b.html
Ah, you think that Milton should be at the bottom, eh? Then, I hope that he knows how to ice skate. (He was the worst kind
of 'class traitor.' [His parents were small store owner/managers.])
Ring 8 of the Inferno is for 'frauds' of all sorts, sub-rings 7-10 are reserved for Thieves, Deceivers, Schismatics, and Falsifiers.
Maggie should feel right at home there.
Donald Trump will be remembered as a humorous yet sad 4-year blip in the history of
America, where the People regrettably admit that this "entertainment age" was responsible for
their lack of judgement in 2016, and they learned that they shouldn't play games with
something as important to our country's honor and integrity as the office of the Presidency.
Fool me twice, shame on me.....
The main problem was the the USA elite after the dissolution of the USSR was hell-bent on world dominance. And Clinton
was in the vanguard of this trend.
Clinton has pretty destructive, toxic legacy, is not he? He and his administration
essentially acted as a short sited and greedy gangster and he sowed the teeth of dragon into US-Russia relations.
Clinton tried to exploit Russian weakness during this period to the fullest extent possible,. This is the policy similar to
policy of GB toward Germany after WWI. In short Clinton was a typical imperialist from the very beginning and like all subsequent
Presidents valued international treaties and obligation only when they benefited the USA. The stance that illegal bombing of
Serbia only confirmed. At this point by Nuremberg standards he and all top official ion his administration and first of all
Madeline not so bright Albright became war criminals. The fact they they were not prosecuted is just a historical aberration
stemming from the dominant USA position at this time.
Essentially Clinton transformed NATO into aggressive alliance which is an expansion of the USA military.
Notable quotes:
"... As President Bill Clinton repeatedly remarked, the two key questions about enlargement were when and how ..."
Newly available sources show how the 1993–95 debate over the best means of expanding
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization unfolded inside the Clinton administration. This
evidence comes from documents recently declassified by the Clinton Presidential Library, the
Defense Department, and the State Department because of appeals by the author.
As President Bill Clinton repeatedly remarked, the two key questions about enlargement
were when and how . The sources make apparent that, during a critical decision making
period twenty-five years ago, supporters of a relatively swift conferral of full membership to
a narrow range of countries outmaneuvered proponents of a slower, phased conferral of limited
membership to a wide range of states.
Pleas from Central and Eastern European leaders, missteps by Russian President Boris
Yeltsin, and victory by the pro-expansion Republican Party in the 1994 U.S. congressional
election all helped advocates of full-membership enlargement to win.
The documents also reveal the surprising impact of Ukrainian politics on this debate and the
complex roles played by both Strobe Talbott, a U.S. ambassador and later deputy secretary of
state, and Andrei Kozyrev, the Russian foreign minister.
Finally, the sources suggest ways in which the debate's outcome remains significant for
transatlantic and U.S.-Russian relations today.
... ... ...
In other words, the Bush administration performed the first “ratcheting down” of options, a process not without its costs. It
raised the question, controversial to this day, of whether the Bush administration promised Moscow that, in exchange for
tolerating the extension of NATO across a united Germany, the alliance would not seek further expansion eastward. Opinions on
this topic range from absolutely not to absolutely yes.15
... ... ...
Without advance warning, Yeltsin decided to vent his frustrations publicly at the Budapest summit with Clinton in attendance.
The Russian president accused the United States, in the interest of NATO expansion, of risking a “‘cold peace’” to follow the
Cold War.108
On the flight back from Budapest to Washington, Talbott recalled that the president “was furious at his foreign-policy team for
dragging him across the Atlantic to serve as a punching bag for Yeltsin.”
... ... ...
The shift in U.S. thinking unsurprisingly contributed to more tensions with Moscow, as evidenced by Talbott's subsequent
negotiations. Kozyrev tried to convince Talbott that a better idea would be to transform NATO into “a collective security
organization rather than a vehicle for containment” by amending the North Atlantic Treaty.122
Talbott rejected the idea, saying “no way are we going to entertain the possibility of redefining NATO in any way that
compromises its basic mission.”123
Put bluntly, “We're not in the business of having to ‘compensate’ Russia or buy it off. Russia is not doing us a favor by
allowing NATO to expand.”124
...Finally, interacting with the other five factors was President Clinton's increasing sympathy to the appeals of
CEE leaders, which inclined him toward those aides pushing for full Article 5 expansion, and his personal optimism that Russia
would eventually tolerate enlargement.
...In Perry's view, arms control—most notably, START II, which would have eliminated two-thirds of the U.S. and Russian
arsenals, but never went into effect—ended up being “‘a casualty of NATO expansion’” and of fighting between the Kremlin and the
Duma.139
START III suffered a similar fate, not even progressing to a signing. Looking back in 2015, Perry concluded: “The downsides of
early NATO membership for Eastern European nations were even worse than I had feared.”140
.... Viewed from twenty-five years on, with U.S.-Russian confrontation on the rise, democracy crumbling in Hungary
and Poland, and U.S. tanks returning to Europe, there is room for doubt. Given that the window of opportunity for changes is now
firmly shut, however, NATO must make the best of the status quo; for the foreseeable future, confrontation with Russia is once
again the order of the day.
"... And what did the spying involve? In such intelligence work, wiretaps are recorded; transcripts are made. The same can be true for person-to-person conversations between FBI informants and Trump campaign figures. In May, Trey Gowdy, the former Republican congressman who read deeply into Trump-Russia materials when he was in the House, strongly implied the FBI had transcripts of informant communications. ..."
"... "If the bureau is going to send an informant in, the informant is going to be wired," Gowdy told Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo. "And if the bureau is monitoring telephone calls, there's going to be a transcript of that." ..."
"... "Where are the transcripts, if any exist," Gowdy continued, "between the informants and the telephone calls to George Papadopoulos?" ..."
"... And then the biggest questions: If there was evidence gained from the wiretapping and informing, what was it? Was it valuable? What did it tell the FBI about Russia and the Trump campaign? And did it prove that the Justice Department was right all along to spy on the campaign -- that the spying was, in the words of Attorney General William Barr, "adequately predicated"? ..."
"... Here is why Republicans are skeptical. Special counsel Robert Mueller had access to the results of the FBI's spying, and Mueller could not establish that there was any conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. After a two-year investigation with full law enforcement powers, Mueller never alleged that any American took part in any such conspiracy or coordination. ..."
"... And even if it were entirely declassified, Horowitz will not tell the whole story of spying and the 2016 election. Horowitz is the inspector general of the Justice Department and does not have the authority to investigate outside the department. For example, he cannot probe the actions of the Central Intelligence Agency and its then-director John Brennan during the period in question. ..."
There will be much to learn in
Inspector
General Michael Horowitz's upcoming report on the Trump-Russia investigation, but most of it will likely boil down to just two
questions. One, how much did the Obama Justice Department spy on the Trump campaign? And two, was it justified?
Many Democrats would immediately protest the word "spying." But the public already knows the FBI secured a warrant to wiretap
low-level Trump adviser Carter Page a few months after Page left the campaign. The public also knows the FBI used informant
Stefan Halper to gather information on other Trump campaign figures. And the public knows the FBI sent an undercover agent who
went by the alias "Azra Turk" to London to tease information out of another low-level Trump adviser, George Papadopoulos.
Was that all? Were there more? Horowitz should give definitive answers.
And what did the spying involve? In such intelligence work, wiretaps are recorded; transcripts are made. The same can be true
for person-to-person conversations between FBI informants and Trump campaign figures. In May, Trey Gowdy, the former Republican congressman
who read deeply into Trump-Russia materials when he was in the House, strongly implied the FBI had transcripts of informant communications.
"If the bureau is going to send an informant in, the informant is going to be wired," Gowdy told Fox Business' Maria Bartiromo.
"And if the bureau is monitoring telephone calls, there's going to be a transcript of that."
"Where are the transcripts, if any exist," Gowdy continued, "between the informants and the telephone calls to George Papadopoulos?"
The "if any exist" was Gowdy's way of casting his statements as a hypothetical, but there was no doubt he was speaking from the
knowledge he gained as a congressional investigator.
And then the biggest questions: If there was evidence gained from the wiretapping and informing, what was it? Was it valuable?
What did it tell the FBI about Russia and the Trump campaign? And did it prove that the Justice Department was right all along to
spy on the campaign -- that the spying was, in the words of Attorney General William Barr, "adequately predicated"?
Here is why Republicans are skeptical. Special counsel Robert Mueller had access to the results of the FBI's spying, and Mueller
could not establish that there was any conspiracy or coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign. After a two-year investigation
with full law enforcement powers, Mueller never alleged that any American took part in any such conspiracy or coordination.
So, Republicans know the end result of the investigation, but they don't know how it began. Yes, they know the official story
of the start of what the FBI called Crossfire Hurricane -- that it began with a foreign intelligence service (Australia) telling
U.S. officials that Papadopoulos appeared to have foreknowledge of a Russian plan to release damaging information about Hillary Clinton.
But they don't think it's the whole story.
That's where Horowitz comes in.
There's one big potential problem that people on Capitol Hill are talking about, and that is the issue of classified information.
Everyone expects a significant amount of Horowitz's report to be classified. How much, no one is quite sure. But the fact is, the
report was done to tell the American people what the nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies did during the 2016 election.
Issuing a report with page after page blacked out would not be a good way to do that. But no one will know the extent of the classification
issue until Horowitz is ready to go public.
And even if it were entirely declassified, Horowitz will not tell the whole story of spying and the 2016 election. Horowitz
is the inspector general of the Justice Department and does not have the authority to investigate outside the department. For example,
he cannot probe the actions of the Central Intelligence Agency and its then-director John Brennan during the period in question.
That will be the role of another investigator, John Durham, the U.S. attorney appointed by Barr to investigate the origins of
the Trump-Russia probe. Durham is working with the support of top Republicans on Capitol Hill, like Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman
Lindsey Graham, who recently said, "I really am very curious about the role that the CIA played here."
But first, the Horowitz report. It will be an important step in answering the questions of how much spying took place and whether
it was justified. It's long past time Americans learned what happened.
Netanyahu: "Listen, I've got a bit of bad news. A tape recording has recently
surfaced of you and Monica having phone sex. The good news is that one of my most trusted
lieutenants has tracked it down. He assures me that he has the original tape and that there
are no known copies. No one else knows about the tape but my lieutenant and me. Of course, I
ordered him to destroy the tape and to never speak of it again. It will be like it never even
happened. All that remains is our friendship."
Clinton: "Thank you, Bibi. Your friendship means the world to me."
Netanyahu: "I know, Bill. I feel the same way about you."
I don't get it. Either Maher is part of the thinking class that has lost it's mind, or
he's a destructive, cynical (familyblog) who is deliberately inflaming his 'Liberal
Goodthinking' audience and gaslighting Wilkerson.
The LIberal Goodthinkers have gone so crazy they are making Trump look good.
Dangerous times.
PS: Thanks for term "Liberal Goodthinkers". Pretty good.
It's the thinking class versus the deplorables. And the former is enabling the latter in
no uncertain terms. This period of lunacy won't be forgotten come voting time. Whereas, had
the dems gracefully accepted defeat and concentrated on real issues that concern us all, they
might have had a shot at the midterm merrygoround. Instead, they chose to keep the failed
slurs of the last campaign a topic of conversation all the way through, as in fact the term
'transition' on these boards does as well. Transition = transitory.
Something is making Trump a very viable stayer through these turbulent times, and the
minefield that these people have turned being President into is a sad commentary on the state
of our union. But like the sanctions that are unthinkingly dispersed hither and yon, the
blowback can be supercharged, and I can't think of more worthy recipients.
Maher was a long time libertarian, and with the rightward shift of Team Blue and medical
Marijuana (after all we still need to arrest minorities), Bill became a "liberal" type. He's
still the same POS he was in the 90's.
Bingo! How he ever fooled anyone into thinking he was less than a narcissistic,
libertarian. money grubbing sociopath is beyond me. First time I saw him, way back when, he
was railing against Social Security and he is perhaps most responsible for making a celebrity
out of Arianna Huffington, giving her a nationwide pulpit on his original show when she was
repulsively right-wing.
We all know the Hypocrisy of that War. Clinton had to distract the masses from MonicaGate
and Hillary had to prove to the MIC that she could be beneficial to them.
Result : Those Kosovo Albanians had a state handed to them, and instead of building
it(with uncle Sam's and EU help) as prosperous country, they used their weapons and
"expertise" in becoming the low level gangsters of Europe. Every Europol analysis points to
the direction of Kosovo Albanians as the criminal thugs in prostitution and drug trade and
protection rackets. The largest percentage of a single ethnic group in European jails is that
of Albanians.
The most unjust and illegal of wars in the late 20c.
There was only one reason to bomb white Christian brothers in Serbia thereby aiding the
Muslim of Kosovo and Albania, and that was Russia, which by that stage had got its act
together and dealt with the traitorous oligarchs who had sold their country out to the
west.
Hillary and her cronies no doubt lost a lot of money when the Russians shut their rat
lines down.
I hope I live long enough to see those fuckers swing, and Tony Blair, Alistair Campnell
and Peter Mandelson as well.
Again, your Muslims are to blame for everything. Muslims are all different. And it is
necessary to separate the faithful Muslims from the bandits who are only covered by Muslim
slogans.
NATO and your godless government are to blame!
An Afghan Freedom Fighter in Donbass - ENG SUBTITLE
It happened at the time of the Lewinsky affair and the possible impeachment of Clinton.
They needed a distraction.
Milosevic btw. agreed to all conditions imposed on the FR of Yugoslavia except for one
condition that nobody would accept: the full and unhindered access to the territory of FRY by
NATO troops. That effectively meant an occupation. Nobody would agree to that. NATO and
Albright deliberately came up with that condition for they knew it was unacceptable. Even
Kissinger said that condition was over the top. NATO and Albright wanted that war. Serbia
btw. saved Albright twice when she was still a little Slovakian Jewish girl whose family
found refuge twice in Serbia. Once they escaped the Nazis that way and the second time the
communists.
NATO thought they would need 48 hours but they needed 78 days and Milosevic only gave in
after NATO switched from hitting military targets to civilian targets: Hospitals, commuter
trains, civilian industry, an open market, random houses in random villages. After Milosevic
pulled out his troops out of Kosovo, the KLA started killing Serbs and moderate Albanians,
not to mention engage in organ trafficking (...). As the article said, well over 200k Serbs,
moderate Albanians, Roma and other minorities were ethnically cleansed from Kosovo.
The US also used cluster bombs and DU weapons. Of the 4000 Italian KFOR troops that went
into Kosovo after the bombing, 700 are dead from cancer and leukemia with several hundreds
more seriously ill. The American KFOR troops wore hazmat suits. The Italians did not have
them and were not warned. Today, many people in southern Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo itself
are sick and dying.
yes just like USA tried to help Vietnam against communists... by killing 2 million
Vietnamese. and tried to help Korea by killing 20 % of the population. and by helping Iraq
get rid of "bad" Saddam Hussein by killing 2 million Iraqies.
Not disagreeing with you but lets remember that communists were killing a lot of people in
other areas not long before those wars in SE Asia. May have been a wash in the end.
Bring back the draft. On the whole Americans have no idea what the carnage of combat
produces. Combat vets do. And the ones that aren't natural psychopaths never want to
experience it again. This volunteer army we have is over loaded with a them. A military draft
will actually bring some sort civilian control.
Such ********. Do the millions we kill have any human rights? It's been going on for 4000
years. Ruthless pursuit of empire and fabricating phony justifications.
Hillary seems to enjoy killing people. If it wasn't Gaddaffi, it was all the people on her
body bag count, and now it's known she encouraged killing people in Serbia. Someone needs to
take that old cow out into the center of the town and burn her at the stake.
Partially true, otherwise as usually excellent Dr. Paul, ... The Pandora's box situation
was opened years before Clinton's bombing of Serbia, which was part of a larger scheme
started nearly a decade before.
That was when the US armed the religious extremists in Bosnia, in order to bring war,
"civil war" and chaos, and disintegration, the way they more recently tried to do with Syria,
or "succeeded" in doing in Libya, bringing chaos and open-air slave markets in a country that
was one of the most developed on the African continent under Gaddafi (a truth that was so
easily erased by propaganda).
And the whole neocon scheme started two decades before, with the Zbigniew Brzezinski
doctrine, when the US started arming the mujahedin in Afghanistan, provoking the trap for the
Soviet invasion of 1979, which was the real opening of US neocon's Pandora's box we are
regrettably so familiar with by now. We've all fallen in that old
neocon/military-industrial-congressional-complex trap by now. And there seems to be no end in
sight to those eternal wars "for civilization" (the old colonial trope dressed under new
fatigues). Unless serious societal and political changes take place in the US to put an end
to the US "imperial" death drive.
By all measures Clinton is a war criminal... Hilary is a female sociopath or worse.
Notable quotes:
"... Hillary Clinton revealed to an interviewer in the summer of 1999, "I urged him to bomb. You cannot let this go on at the end
of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?" ..."
"... The Kosovo Liberation Army's savage nature was well known before the Clinton administration formally christened them "freedom
fighters" in 1999. ..."
"... Sen. Joe Lieberman whooped that the United States and the KLA "stand for the same values and principles. Fighting for the KLA
is fighting for human rights and American values." ..."
"... Clinton administration officials justified killing civilians because, it alleged the Serbs were committing genocide in Kosovo.
After the bombing ended, no evidence of genocide was found, but Clinton and Britain's Tony Blair continued boasting as if their war
had stopped a new Hitler in his tracks. ..."
Twenty years ago, President Bill Clinton commenced bombing Serbia in the name of human rights, justice, and ethnic tolerance.
Approximately 1,500 Serb civilians were killed by NATO bombing in one of the biggest sham morality plays of the modern era. As British
professor Philip Hammond recently noted, the 78-day bombing campaign "was not a purely military operation: NATO also destroyed what
it called 'dual-use' targets, such as factories, city bridges, and even the main television building in downtown Belgrade, in an
attempt to terrorise the country into surrender."
Clinton's unprovoked attack on Serbia, intended to help ethnic Albanians seize control of Kosovo, set a precedent for "humanitarian"
warring that was invoked by supporters of George W. Bush's unprovoked attack on Iraq, Barack Oba-ma's bombing of Libya, and Donald
Trump's bombing of Syria.
Clinton remains a hero in Kosovo, and there is an 11-foot statue of him standing in the capitol, Pristina, on Bill Clinton Boulevard.
A commentator in the United Kingdom's Guardian newspaper noted that the statue showed Clinton "with a left hand raised, a
typical gesture of a leader greeting the masses. In his right hand he is holding documents engraved with the date when NATO started
the bombardment of Serbia, 24 March 1999." It would have been a more accurate representation if Clinton was shown standing on the
corpses of the women, children, and others killed in the U.S. bombing campaign.
Bombing Serbia was a family affair in the Clinton White House. Hillary Clinton revealed to an interviewer in the summer of
1999, "I urged him to bomb. You cannot let this go on at the end of a century that has seen the major holocaust of our time. What
do we have NATO for if not to defend our way of life?" A biography of Hillary Clinton, written by Gail Sheehy and published
in late 1999, stated that Mrs. Clinton had refused to talk to the president for eight months after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke.
She resumed talking to her husband only when she phoned him and urged him in the strongest terms to begin bombing Serbia; the president
began bombing within 24 hours. Alexander Cockburn observed in the Los Angeles Times,
It's scarcely surprising that Hillary would have urged President Clinton to drop cluster bombs on the Serbs to defend "our
way of life." The first lady is a social engineer. She believes in therapeutic policing and the duty of the state to impose
such policing. War is more social engineering, "fixitry" via high explosive, social therapy via cruise missile . As a tough therapeutic
cop, she does not shy away from the most abrupt expression of the therapy: the death penalty.
I followed the war closely from the start, but selling articles to editors bashing the bombing was as easy as pitching paeans
to Scientology. Instead of breaking into newsprint, my venting occurred instead in my journal:
April 7, 1999: Much of the media and most of the American public are evaluating Clinton's Serbian policy based on
the pictures of the bomb damage -- rather than by asking whether there is any coherent purpose or justification for bombing.
The ultimate triumph of photo opportunities . What a travesty and national disgrace for this country.
April 17: My bottom line on the Kosovo conflict: I hate holy wars. And this is a holy war for American good deeds
-- or for America's saintly self-image? Sen. John McCain said the war is necessary to "uphold American values." Make me barf!
Just another Hitler-of-the-month attack.
May 13: This damn Serbian war is a symbol of all that is wrong with the righteous approach to the world and to problems
within this nation.
The KLA
The Kosovo Liberation Army's savage nature was well known before the Clinton administration formally christened them "freedom
fighters" in 1999. The previous year, the State Department condemned "terrorist action by the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army."
The KLA was heavily involved in drug trafficking and had close to ties to Osama bin Laden. Arming the KLA helped Clinton portray
himself as a crusader against injustice and shift public attention after his impeachment trial. Clinton was aided by many congressmen
eager to portray U.S. bombing as an engine of righteousness. Sen. Joe Lieberman whooped that the United States and the KLA "stand
for the same values and principles. Fighting for the KLA is fighting for human rights and American values."
In early June 1999, the Washington Post reported that "some presidential aides and friends are describing [bombing] Kosovo
in Churchillian tones, as Clinton's 'finest hour.'" Clinton administration officials justified killing civilians because, it
alleged the Serbs were committing genocide in Kosovo. After the bombing ended, no evidence of genocide was found, but Clinton and
Britain's Tony Blair continued boasting as if their war had stopped a new Hitler in his tracks.
In a speech to American troops in a Thanksgiving 1999 visit, Clinton declared that the Kosovar children "love the United States
because we gave them their freedom back." Perhaps Clinton saw freedom as nothing more than being tyrannized by people of the same
ethnicity. As the Serbs were driven out of Kosovo, Kosovar Albanians became increasingly oppressed by the KLA, which ignored its
commitment to disarm. The Los Angeles Times reported on November 20, 1999,
As a postwar power struggle heats up in Kosovo Albanian politics, extremists are trying to silence moderate leaders with a
terror campaign of kidnappings, beatings, bombings, and at least one killing. The intensified attacks against members of the moderate
Democratic League of Kosovo, or LDK, have raised concerns that radical ethnic Albanians are turning against their own out of fear
of losing power in a democratic Kosovo.
American and NATO forces stood by as the KLA resumed its ethnic cleansing, slaughtering Serbian civilians, bombing Serbian
churches, and oppressing non-Muslims. Almost a quarter million Serbs, Gypsies, Jews, and other minorities fled Kosovo after Clinton
promised to protect them. In March 2000 renewed fighting broke out when the KLA launched attacks into Serbia, trying to seize
territory that it claimed historically belonged to ethnic Albanians. UN Human Rights Envoy Jiri Dienstbier reported that "the [NATO]
bombing hasn't solved any problems. It only multiplied the existing problems and created new ones. The Yugoslav economy was destroyed.
Kosovo is destroyed. There are hundreds of thousands of people unemployed now."
U.S. complicity in atrocities
Prior to the NATO bombing, American citizens had no responsibility for atrocities committed by either Serbs or ethnic Albanians.
However, after American planes bombed much of Serbia into rubble to drive the Serbian military out of Kosovo, Clinton effectively
made the United States responsible for the safety of the remaining Serbs in Kosovo. That was equivalent to forcibly disarming a group
of people, and then standing by, whistling and looking at the ground, while they are slaughtered. Since the United States promised
to bring peace to Kosovo, Clinton bears some responsibility for every burnt church, every murdered Serbian grandmother, every new
refugee column streaming north out of Kosovo. Despite those problems, Clinton bragged at a December 8, 1999, press conference that
he was "very, very proud" of what the United States had done in Kosovo.
I had a chapter on the Serbian bombing campaign titled "Moralizing with Cluster Bombs" in Feeling Your Pain: The Explosion
and Abuse of Government Power in the Clinton–Gore Years (St. Martin's Press, 2000), which sufficed to spur at least one or two
reviewers to attack the book. Norman Provizer, the director of the Golda Meir Center for Political Leadership, scoffed in the
Denver Rocky Mountain News, "Bovard chastises Clinton for an illegal, undeclared war in Kosovo without ever bothering to mention
that, during the entire run of American history, there have been but four official declarations of war by Congress."
As the chaotic situation in post-war Kosovo became stark, it was easier to work in jibes against the debacle. In an October 2002
USA Today article ("Moral High Ground Not Won on Battlefield") bashing the Bush administration's push for war against Iraq,
I pointed out, "A desire to spread freedom does not automatically confer a license to kill . Operation Allied Force in 1999 bombed
Belgrade, Yugoslavia, into submission purportedly to liberate Kosovo. Though Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic raised the white flag,
ethnic cleansing continued -- with the minority Serbs being slaughtered and their churches burned to the ground in the same way the
Serbs previously oppressed the ethnic Albanians."
In a 2011 review for The American Conservative, I scoffed, "After NATO planes killed hundreds if not thousands of Serb
and ethnic Albanian civilians, Bill Clinton could pirouette as a savior. Once the bombing ended, many of the Serbs remaining in Kosovo
were slaughtered and their churches burned to the ground. NATO's 'peace' produced a quarter million Serbian, Jewish, and Gypsy refugees."
In 2014, a European Union task force confirmed that the ruthless cabal that Clinton empowered by bombing Serbia committed atrocities
that included murdering persons to extract and sell their kidneys, livers, and other body parts. Clint Williamson, the chief prosecutor
of a special European Union task force, declared in 2014 that senior members of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) had engaged in "unlawful
killings, abductions, enforced disappearances, illegal detentions in camps in Kosovo and Albania, sexual violence, forced displacements
of individuals from their homes and communities, and desecration and destruction of churches and other religious sites."
The New York Times reported that the trials of Kosovo body snatchers may be stymied by cover-ups and stonewalling: "Past
investigations of reports of organ trafficking in Kosovo have been undermined by witnesses' fears of testifying in a small country
where clan ties run deep and former members of the KLA are still feted as heroes. Former leaders of the KLA occupy high posts in
the government." American politicians almost entirely ignored the scandal. Vice President Joe Biden hailed former KLA leader and
Kosovo Prime Minister Hashim Thaci in 2010 as "the George Washington of Kosovo." A few months later, a Council of Europe investigative
report tagged Thaci as an accomplice to the body-trafficking operation.
Clinton's war on Serbia opened a Pandora's box from which the world still suffers. Because politicians and pundits portrayed that
war as a moral triumph, it was easier for subsequent presidents to portray U.S. bombing as the self-evident triumph of good over
evil. Honest assessments of wrongful killings remain few and far between in media coverage.
This article was originally published in the July 2019 edition ofFuture of Freedom .
James Bovard is a policy adviser to The Future of Freedom Foundation. He is a USA Today columnist and has written
for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, New Republic, Reader's Digest, Playboy, American Spectator,
Investors Business Daily, and many other publications. He is the author of Freedom Frauds: Hard Lessons in American Liberty
(2017, published by FFF); Public Policy Hooligan (2012); Attention Deficit Democracy (2006); The Bush Betrayal
(2004); Terrorism and Tyranny (2003); Feeling Your Pain (2000); Freedom in Chains (1999); Shakedown (1995);
Lost Rights (1994); The Fair Trade Fraud (1991); and The Farm Fiasco (1989). He was the 1995 co-recipient of
the Thomas Szasz Award for Civil Liberties work, awarded by the Center for Independent Thought, and the recipient of the 1996 Freedom
Fund Award from the Firearms Civil Rights Defense Fund of the National Rifle Association. His book Lost Rights received the
Mencken Award as Book of the Year from the Free Press Association. His Terrorism and Tyranny won Laissez Faire Book's Lysander
Spooner award for the Best Book on Liberty in 2003. Read his blog . Send
him email .
"Nice guy(Bill Clinton) uhhh got a lot of problems coming up, in my opinion, with the
famous island with Jeffrey Epstein lot of problems."
-Donald Trump at 2015 CPAC conference
How does the Candidate Trump knew in 2015 that, "Nice guy(Bill Clinton) uhhh got a lot of
problems coming up, in my opinion, with the famous island with Jeffrey Epstein lot of
problems."?
What does the above tell us about Candidate Trump and his foreknowledge to things to
come?
"... on the Lolita Express; was it really beyond him to order a hit? ..."
"... New York Times ..."
"... Are the Elites the arch villains from the comic books, probably not, but then again many of them operate corporations that cause suffering to economically deprived populations all over the world. ..."
"... Why is this surprising? Aristocrats have always behaved this way. ..."
"... The sexual abuse of children and kids in their early teens is a very democratic crime. While physical abuse and neglect are linked to lower-income parents, sexual abuse occurs in all strata of society. It is not confined to the elites or to money changers. Nor to Jews, if that is what you are implying. ..."
"... Unconcerned about negative consequences, these people have become increasingly brazen. They certainly know that the laws that apply to you and me do not apply to them. ..."
"... In the words of George Carlin, "it's a big club, and you ain't in it." I stopped reading after the first two para's on this, tone is exactly the same as the sneering disdain from the empire's various MSM propaganda arms aimed at those "not in the club." ..."
"... 1) Either our intelligence agencies knew what was going on with Epstein and did nothing to stop him. Or... ..."
"... 2) They had no clue .. ..."
"... Occam's Razor says Possibility No. 1 is more likely to be the truth. But what would such a truth tell us? ..."
"... "What I am saying is that Epstein's direct testimony – AND ONLY EPSTEIN'S DIRECT TESTIMONY – had the potential to create a Common Knowledge moment that could bring down – not just specific sociopathic oligarchs like Mob Boss Donald or Mob Boss Bill or Mob Boss Andrew if they were the specific targets of that testimony – but the entire Mob system of sociopathic oligarchy. ..."
"... One strongly suspects that Ghislaine Maxwell knows just as much as Epstein did. Her participation was just as important to the operation of this "trafficking" ring. She was the lead recruiter, handled logistics, "grooming" and also was Epstein's "in" to many of his VIP associates (who were really clients). If witness accounts are accurate, she was also a participant in a good number of these depraved, criminal acts. ..."
"... The fact she has not been charged is quite the tell about our system of "justice." ..."
"... This is a dangerous slope. People once bowed to the elites because there was a principle of enforcement called nobless oblige. Society felt that elites had to be held to a higher standard because they carried greater responsibilities and burdens for society and the welfare of the national good. ..."
"... Since the 1960s nobless oblige has been downgraded to sound bites and photo ops for publicity and marketing. The elites have all but abandoned their responsibilities to support religion, to support education (except to indocrinate), to support tradition and society and the national good. The elites have become inward looking, inbred and narcissistic with little to no outward focus except in a marxist totalitarian vein of thought which serves their interest, indulges their hungers, preserves their wealth and power. ..."
"... My point was that as popolo minuti transform into popolo grossi in terms of access to power, they tend to start to transform into them in terms of moral character as well. (Inequality of) power corrupts, and absolute (inequality of) power corrupts absolutely. Thus, it seems that the over-representation of psychopaths in positions of power is because the psychopathy is acquired (and plenty of studies show drastic declines in empathy with even a little priming for power), rather than because it is easier for psychopaths to rise to the top. The worst of the popolo grossi tend to be hereditary. ..."
"... I think we're a lot closer to 1789 France than we want to believe. Read some Chris Hedges to see how the socialists see the current situation. Here's an example. https://www.commondreams.or... ..."
"... "given that all available evidence points to gross negligence on the part of the jail." How is gross negligence different from deliberate negligence? ..."
In our tense populist moment, Jeffrey Epstein's crimes land like a grenade. •
August 15, 2019
Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein in Cambridge, MA on 9/8/04. (Photo by Rick Friedman/Corbis via Getty Images) Hands up, those of you who
made a Fort Marcy Park joke last Saturday. Anyone? Surely there were a few. Fort Marcy Park was the Washington, D.C. woodland where
White House attorney Vince Foster was found dead in 1993, and while his demise was repeatedly ruled a suicide, certain conservatives
spent years afterwards hallucinating that the Clintons had him killed. Now, a quarter century later, both right and left are back
in conspiracy mode. Mere hours after pedo-to-the-stars Jeffrey Epstein was reported to have killed himself, the hash tag #ClintonBodyCount
began circulating on Twitter, followed closely by #TrumpBodyCount. Both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump had been associates of Epstein's;
both, the thinking went, might have been desperate for him not to take the stand.
It is wrong, of course, to publicly speculate that Epstein was whacked, given that all available evidence points to gross negligence
on the part of the jail. But can you really blame people? Twenty-five years ago, if you'd said that a roll call of America's elites,
everyone from a former president to the most famous lawyer in the country, would be implicated in a sex trafficking ring masterminded
by an enigmatic Wall Street financier who was also a member
of the Trilateral Commission , you would have been laughed into the darkest corner of the local subway platform (next to the
guy holding the "Vatican Hides Pedophiles" sign, presumably). Today, you'd be reading AP copy. Validate an improbable conspiracy
theory, and you grant license to all the related improbable conspiracy theories: Bill Clinton flew dozens of times on the Lolita Express; was it really beyond him to order a hit?
And if we know one thing about the Epstein story, it's that everything about it is utterly improbable. Epstein stands credibly
accused of assembling a
veritable underage harem . One of his victims, Virginia Guiffre, has already
implicated Prince Andrew
, the third-born of Queen Elizabeth II, and a picture has since emerged showing the royal with his arm around the then-teenager's
waist. Guiffre says she was also
ordered
to have sex with , among others, a "foreign president," a "well-known prime minister," and a "large hotel chain owner." Such
an open secret was all this perversion that the current president of the United States
made cheeky reference to it back in 2002. So invincible
did Epstein think himself that he discussed underage sex openly, telling a New York Times reporter that laws against pedophilia
were a
"cultural aberration."
That Epstein looked to other cultures to rationalize his behavior is nothing new -- Oscar Wilde wrapped his similar predilections
in lofty talk about the Greek ideal. What is different is that rather than being hunted and exposed by the powerful, as Wilde was,
Epstein was protected by them for decades. Even after he was convicted of soliciting an underage prostitute in 2008, he was sentenced
to only 18 months in prison, held in a
private
wing of the Palm Beach County stockade, and let out on generous "work release."
Study the Epstein case long enough and you end up at Alex Jones's favorite conclusion: they're all sons of bitches. Everyone who
was anyone seemed to be in on this, or at least acting at the behest of someone who was. The essence of the conspiratorial mindset
is that powerful shadowy forces are, first, capable of and engaged in the most dastardly skullduggery imaginable, and, second, in
cabal-like cooperation with each other across all levels of power. The Epstein case seems to affirm both planks. It makes our elites
seem like aliens, of a different culture, a different moral code, a different species -- how else could they have let slide what
none of us ever would? Mary Colum's remark to Ernest Hemingway, "The only difference between the rich and other people is that the
rich have more money," has rarely rang less true.
There's been for some time now a sense of drift between most Americans and their elites, driven by factors like income inequality,
geographic enclaving, and cultural differences. We are living in a populist moment, to be sure, an era when the usual purveyors of
class warfare sound more apt than they otherwise would. In such a fraught environment, the Epstein revelation lands like a grenade.
Not only are America's gentry hitching rides on the Acela while mumbling about deplorables -- so the feeling goes -- they're also
running cover for a Caligula who's preying on little Susie down the street. Suddenly the populist divide doesn't just run between
classes or races or regular toast versus avocado, but between ethical extremes, good and literal evil.
This is, of course, what most populists profess: the people as a group are wholesome, the elites as a group are venal, and the
former has to be vaulted over the latter in order for society to be made whole again. Yet Epstein's crimes are so wicked as to potentially
set this moral chasm ablaze like never before. That's why, though Trump may have associated with Epstein, he's unlikely to be damaged
by him: everything that's happened only confirms what he's been saying for years. In fact, you might view the Epstein fracas as a
dialectic between two of his former associates, Trump's throw-them-out populism versus Clinton's benevolent stewardship of society
by the smart set. And Trump won out.
Just as populisms aren't driven entirely by economic causes, so too are revolutions often about more than bread. Consider the
Russian Revolution, sparked at least in small part by the people's perception of Rasputin as a sexual deviant. Consider, too, the
French Revolution's rage against the profligate "Madame Déficit" Marie Antoinette. In such cases, the moral tends to get intertwined
with the economic; license is seen as enabling decadence while the people pray and starve. This can be a blind spot in traditional
conservative thinking. We rightly detest (most) revolutions and the tremors they cause, but we sometimes fail to notice that the
Jacobins have good reason to be angry and that the ruling classes they overthrow really are that loathsome.
America is nowhere near 1789 France, or armed revolution in general. But we are anxious, restive, hungry for justice. A republic
likes ours depends on the harmonious coexistence of its people and its elites, a matter that our Founders spent a good deal of time
worrying about. Now we have a hideous face f0r elite corruption, one that's enabled fever in the national mind and dehumanized those
around him. For those of us who prize stability and liberty in a polity, who think populism is always best in modest doses, the weeks
ahead may be reason for worry.
Because it seems there's only more to come. On Wednesday, another victim
came forward , alleging
that Epstein raped her when she was 14 after she turned down sex with him. That this carnal omega, this pathetic loser, this finger-sniffing
pervert from every teen comedy lurking outside the pretty girl's home longing for a piece of discarded lingerie was somehow elevated
into a Teflon-coated Wall Street sun god is beyond comprehension. My friend Michael Davis calls Epstein and company the
Hellfire Club , but
just how much will they torch on their way down?
When I started to see what was going on in this country, which was my journey, I was amazed to find out that there is sex trafficking
8 blocks from the White House and I learned of this in 2011. Lisa Ling did a great documentary on it. "Night time traffic greater
than the day time." Pimps attempting to recruit girls walking home from school. If you pay attention it is also a journey of
the food chain of Corporate America that supports this.
This is a Money Changer issue, that is about the closing of eyes from both parties. and please don't tell me this is not so.
I know better than that.
To be absolutely, clear there was speculation that Epstein was going to be assassinated weeks before it happened. For the most
part citizens aren't so much surprised, as disappointed that Justice is once again foiled.
Are the Elites the arch villains from the comic books, probably not, but then again many of them operate corporations that
cause suffering to economically deprived populations all over the world.
When the World's 26 richest people own as much as
poorest 50%, just how close do they seem to achieve a god like status when looking up from the bottom? Maybe that's one reason
that people are so angry when it seems that the most vulnerable among us, our children, are the victims of a limited number
of the Elites and their twisted and horrific appetites.
I personally doubt much will come of the Epstein affair it will most likely be just one more myth added to the tally of
injustice, and the people will have to bitterly swallow it whole. It will probably take many more cases like this being exposed
before the people actually have their fill, and decide to do something about it. In the meantime, prepare to see more of the
same by the laughing and mocking Elites
In this day and age, I doubt a reporter will touch this story, and if they did, the real story would never make it into
the Main Stream Media. And, most likely the reporter would be permanently black balled, and never work in Journalism again.
It's happened many times before, because it doesn't fit within the approved propaganda message.
Give the story a couple decades or more, and it may come out, but otherwise it will be handled as a whack-job Conspiracy
Theory.
The Fourth Estate is the only business that is protected by the Constitution, and yet it has been neutered, and those in
the Press, who were supposed to be the Watchdogs for the people, have become the Lapdogs of the Elites.
What passes as News today is formulaic programming, passed on from the Propagandist to the Media, both nationally
and locally.
Two Republican state senators and two New York City Policemen died violently within 72 hours ....
1. On June 4, former Arkansas Senator Linda Collins-Smith, 57, was found dead outside her home, her body unrecognizable
on discovery. Police are now investigating her death as a homicide. On June 5, the county prosecutor announced that the circuit
judge sealed the documents and statements obtained by police.
2. On June 5, Deputy Chief Steven Silks, 62, weeks away from retirement, was found in an unmarked police car with a gunshot
wound to the head. News reports reported indicate it seemed self-inflicted.
3. On June 5, former Oklahoma Sen. Jonathan Nichols, 53, was found shot dead in his home. Police have not announced whether
they are investigating a suicide or homicide..
4. On June 6, Detective Joseph Calabrese, 58, was found near his police car on a Brooklyn, NY beach, dead of a gunshot wound
in what one report called an apparent suicide.
RIP.
Many other Americans died violently this past week. Why link these four together?
The answer comes down to a dark suspicion and a few hard facts which suggest that one or more of these four deaths might
have had something to do with these individuals' work against pedophiles and human trafficking, or the official corruption
so often surrounding both.
The sexual abuse of children and kids in their early teens is a very democratic crime. While physical abuse and neglect are
linked to lower-income parents, sexual abuse occurs in all strata of society. It is not confined to the elites or to money
changers. Nor to Jews, if that is what you are implying.
Just about everyone in America has a family member who was sexually abused by someone who was usually not elite. Therefore,
I cannot get worked up about class issues because of Jeffrey Epstein.
What I can get worked up about are the way elites start wars for poor people to die in and the way poor people get cruel
sentences while the elite either walk or get the Epstein treatment--private wing, generous work release.
I agree. Young girls are trafficked in more circles than the elite. I don't understand the connection to any particular social
class. But better connected people do have better lawyers and can get away with more. Until like Mr. Epstein , they don't.
The true character of these people is starting to be revealed. This (lack of) character is not only displayed when these men
travel to Pedo Island, it's on display everywhere they go, in everything they do. Every organization they lead, or have anything
to do with, is likely rotten to the core.
Unconcerned about negative consequences, these people have become increasingly brazen. They certainly know that the laws
that apply to you and me do not apply to them.
If the system is so corrupt to have protected Epstein for decades, who else is being protected? Who else is getting away
with figurative rape in every department of government, or house of finance?
The sooner the public recognizes the "true face" of our elites and rulers the better. Left to their own devices,
these people - who think they have class but in reality are the worst kind of trash - can bring down a nation.
Literally no one I know thought this guy would make it to trial alive with the exception of me, as I still had some hope in
the system, and I was proven wrong. I've lost whatever remaining faith I had in the system.
In the words of George Carlin, "it's a big club, and you ain't in it." I stopped reading after the first two para's on this,
tone is exactly the same as the sneering disdain from the empire's various MSM propaganda arms aimed at those "not in the club."
1) Either our intelligence agencies knew what was going on with Epstein and did nothing to stop him. Or...
2) They had no clue ... which would mean our much vaunted intelligence community knew nothing about the travel habits of
the "ruling class" of the world, about Jeff Epstein's real activities, had received no tips, had no insiders, and were incapable
of "putting two and two together," etc. In short, Big Brother - with all its resources and intelligence and sources - with
capabilities that put the Gestapo or the KGB to shame - had no idea.
Occam's Razor says Possibility No. 1 is more likely to be the truth. But what would such a truth tell us?
The third possibility is that BigBrother was in on it and didn't object to sacrificing teenage girls to get compromising information
on people they wanted tp blackmail.
"What I am saying is that Epstein's direct testimony – AND ONLY EPSTEIN'S DIRECT TESTIMONY – had the potential to create a
Common Knowledge moment that could bring down – not just specific sociopathic oligarchs like Mob Boss Donald or Mob Boss Bill
or Mob Boss Andrew if they were the specific targets of that testimony – but the entire Mob system of sociopathic oligarchy.
Jeffrey Epstein was the Missionary to bring down the monsters behind the monster, to bring down the SYSTEM of monsters.
Jeffrey Epstein's books and records are not. The individual voices of Jeffrey Epstein's victims are not.
And that's what makes me angriest of all.
That while the individual victims of Jeffrey Epstein's crimes will maybe (maybe!) get some smattering of "justice" and recompense
from the show trial of a monster's estate, there will be no Justice served against the monsters behind the monster, that the
Mob system of sociopathic oligarchy that CREATED this Jeffrey Epstein and the next Jeffrey Epstein and the next and the next
will continue unabated. Untouched. Golden."
One strongly suspects that Ghislaine Maxwell knows just as much as Epstein did. Her participation was just as important to
the operation of this "trafficking" ring. She was the lead recruiter, handled logistics, "grooming" and also was Epstein's
"in" to many of his VIP associates (who were really clients). If witness accounts are accurate, she was also a participant
in a good number of these depraved, criminal acts.
The fact she has not been charged is quite the tell about our system of "justice."
Whether Epstein was killed or committed suicide I don't know. I would however like to know who these elites were who participated
in the rapes of these young girls. They are just as guilty as Epstein whether they knew the ages of these girls or not, it
was there responsibility to find out.
This is a dangerous slope. People once bowed to the elites because there was a principle of enforcement called nobless oblige.
Society felt that elites had to be held to a higher standard because they carried greater responsibilities and burdens for
society and the welfare of the national good.
Since the 1960s nobless oblige has been downgraded to sound bites and photo ops for publicity and marketing. The elites have
all but abandoned their responsibilities to support religion, to support education (except to indocrinate), to support tradition
and society and the national good. The elites have become inward looking, inbred and narcissistic with little to no outward
focus except in a marxist totalitarian vein of thought which serves their interest, indulges their hungers, preserves their
wealth and power.
What you are have been seeing since the 1960s is the veneer being pulled off the rich and powerful. I would say Nixon and
Princess Diana and Ted Kennedy did the most to pull down the veneer from the rich and powerful but it could be argued that
Nixon and Princess Diana and Ted Kennedy were accidental victims of circumstance. However Epstein's human trafficking of children
for sex and blackmail .... breaks the most because his crimes were no accident nor was he a victim of circumstance. Epstein
planned this and created an organization around it elevating his elitist crimes to a level no that I dont think anyone in modern
history can match.
I doubt that history's elites were ever any better. It's just that with far less transparency and access, it was much easier
for them to hide how awful they were. The 1960s was the start of mass media, and so the veneer started to crack.
I do think this COULD qualify as "the story of the century." That is, If the story was told in its entirety - all "names"
exposed.
If fully told, the swamp might, in fact, be "drained."
Now the people in said swamp have a strong incentive to protect their domain. Which is why so many of us are skeptical the
true story will ever be told.
If there was ever a time where brave and patriotic whistleblowers were needed ...
"This is, of course, what most populists profess: the people as a group are wholesome, the elites as a group are venal, and
the former has to be vaulted over the latter in order for society to be made whole again."
Sorry, but take a look at the average American. The so-called "people" are for the most part just as morally obtuse as the
"elites" but they carry the additional burden of being not only ignorant but also stupid. Just look around. Best recent example
of the utter stupidity of the American people: a recent survey shows they think 23% of the population is gay. Really.
But isn't the issue exactly that the "only difference between the rich and other people is that the rich have more money" comment
is perfectly true?
The rich and powerful are us, but corrupted by riches and power. Many of them behave the way many of us would quickly start
to behave if we found ourselves in their shoes. If the gap in power between you and most other people is so huge that you can
do anything to them and get away with it, your morals stop applying to them because you start to view them as somewhat subhuman.
In this sense, I'm sure Epstein never even thought of raping the underage daughters of other elites.
Thus, the issue is stratospheric inequality of power (by whatever fungible measure you choose - money, political, religious,
social, etc). And we see it happen ALL the time throughout history and across geographies - as soon as the power gap is in
excess of social boundaries, as soon as there is a group of people you can do pretty much anything you want to and get away
with it, you start going a little crazy. Exploitation, rape, torture, murder, slavery - everything starts looking justified.
Then it's just a matter of degree, with tin-pot dictators on one end and Epstein somewhere in the middle.
Read Machiavelli. He observed that the popolo minuti (regular folks) just wished to be left alone by authorities whereas popolo
grossi (fat cats) were of a different psychological composition: they delighted in deception, were vain, greedy and hungry
for power.
Centuries later, studies of psychopaths reveal these creatures are different from regular humans at the brain level. The elites
are psychopathic (the key ones are) and no, they ain't like regular people. They are literally a different kind.
My point was that as popolo minuti transform into popolo grossi in terms of access to power, they tend to start to transform
into them in terms of moral character as well. (Inequality of) power corrupts, and absolute (inequality of) power corrupts
absolutely. Thus, it seems that the over-representation of psychopaths in positions of power is because the psychopathy is
acquired (and plenty of studies show drastic declines in empathy with even a little priming for power), rather than because
it is easier for psychopaths to rise to the top. The worst of the popolo grossi tend to be hereditary.
In my opinion, there is nothing so dangerous as to believe that evil people are a different breed from the rest of us. Instead,
they tend to simply be us, but in different circumstances. History tends to show that revolutions aimed at replacing the evil
people with better people end up with corrupted revolutionaries, rather than a fundamentally less abusive system.
"It reminds me of a well known speech by a defense counsel, who pleaded his client's poverty as an excuse of robbing and murdering
six of his victims, on the lines that "My client's poverty drove him to murder six people, everybody else would have done the
same!"
Outstanding article. However, I think we're a lot closer to 1789 France than we want to believe. Read some Chris Hedges to
see how the socialists see the current situation. Here's an example.
https://www.commondreams.or...
Elites, that is those with more wealth and/or power than the rest of the masses have always been this way. Remember how decadent
the European aristocracy was with their sport of "wenching"? that is going around in groups raping young peasant girls. Also,
there was the Hellfire Club which you can research if you want details. This scandal will get less and less coverage in the
MSM until it fades away like all the others involving the rich and powerful.
The Global "Elite" control our Ruling Class by means of blackmail. A person does not get raised to high truly influential positions
of power(Politicians, Judges, Hollywood, etc.) unless they have enough dirt on you to know that they can control you without
question. The most powerful form of blackmail that they have is ped0filia because it is THE most abhorrent crime that someone
can commit, so much so that even criminals in prison refuse to allow ped0 scumbags to be housed near them.
Trump has an obvious penchant for beautiful WOMEN not kids. He was helping and somewhat part of the "Elite" in that he was
joining in with them to buy politicians for influence but Trump neutralized that being over his head by openly admitting to
buying politicians. They thought it was safe to allow him to run because they thought it was a joke and he would never get
elected. They were wrong. In my opinion, they don't have enough dirt on him to get him to go along with their agenda of selling
out the USA to the highest bidder hence the all-out attacks on him.
The key to understanding the "Elite"/Ruling Class dynamic is not conflating the two and realizing that blackmail is the
main tool used by the one to keep the other under their control.
*Sorry about the Trump tangent above but it's absolutely ridiculous that people are trying to tie Trump to Epstein even
though Trump has been trying to bring national attention to the Epstein case FOR YEARS.
"given that all available evidence points to gross negligence on the part of the jail."
How is gross negligence different from deliberate negligence?
You can tell? And btw the WaPo just came out with news that broken
bones in Epstein's neck are more usual in cases of homicide.
I generally see anyone who belittles
'Conspiracy theorists' as part of an Establishment that uses 'incompetence' as the perennial excuse for everything that goes
wrong.
The old accusation, that you are a 'conspiracy theorist' (a term invented by the CIA after the Kennedy assassination) is holding
less and less weight. The irrational kooks now seem to be the people who think Epstein committed suicide. Jokes were everywhere
about how 'we were shocked to hear about the suicide of Jeffrey Epstein, next Tuesday' when a day later we hear, 'Jeffrey Epstein
committed suicide'.
By the way, this equivalence between Trump and Clinton is bogus, I believe. There isn't much evidence of any involvement
of Trump (some evidence to the contrary in fact), but there is a load of evidence suggesting 'Wild Bill' was availing himself.
Remember when Maxine Waters was labelled a kook for saying the CIA was bringing cocaine into her LA district? She was mocked
and ridiculed. Now we know she was right. You can't make this stuff up.
I'm sorry, but this case stinks to high heaven, and if you're ready to accept "gross negligence" as the explanation you're
likely to believe ANYTHING the authorities tell you. Epstein was either murdered, as the autopsy and reports of shrieking from
his cell indicate, or subbed out by intelligence services and replaced by a murdered homeless person who received plastic surgery.
Study the history of modern intelligence services: appearances are deceiving, and systemic disinformation is endemic to politics.
Careful public speculation, acknowledging where we're uncertain, is very much the responsible thing to do; otherwise there
is no hope of democratic accountability. The investigation we're being promised will be conducted by the exact same institution
-- the US Department of Justice -- that was responsible for keeping Epstein safe and securing his public testimony about his
criminal network. These are the people you want us to trust? Come on, a little critical reasoning, please!
The most ridiculous part is the idea that being rich and powerful gives you a predilection to turn a blind eye. My wife's family
turned a blind eye to a perverted uncle that molested multiple family members over decades. No one stood up, it would've been
a shame to them to admit it. How is this any different?
"... And at no point will there be any of the damage limitation that a trial, requiring and weighing evidence, would have put on the mushrooming of charges, rumours and speculations which has been taking and will continue to take place. ..."
"... In realistic terms the damage to the system of a few outliers, like Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew or Dershowitz being driven, red faced from public life, would be minimal. In fact it could easily be spun as am indication that the system worked and that, in the end, an obscure former masseur could be vindicated against Princes and ex-Presidents. ..."
The Epstein case is very simple: had a trial taken place-and proper trials are increasingly
rare in the USA, as the record of his Florida 'trial' shows- it had the potential of being
extremely embarrassing to a number of prominent and powerful people.
On the other hand, now that he is dead, there can be no limit to the enormous number of
allegations that can be made against him and them.
From the point of view of The Establishment, this death is far from convenient. It will
redound to the advantage of many individuals but in the long run it will contribute to an
increase in popular distrust of the entire system. And at no point will there be any of the
damage limitation that a trial, requiring and weighing evidence, would have put on the
mushrooming of charges, rumours and speculations which has been taking and will continue to
take place.
In realistic terms the damage to the system of a few outliers, like Bill Clinton, Prince
Andrew or Dershowitz being driven, red faced from public life, would be minimal. In fact it
could easily be spun as am indication that the system worked and that, in the end, an obscure
former masseur could be vindicated against Princes and ex-Presidents.
The danger is that this sordid but very routine 'scandal' will blot out real and important
matters that require public debate. How many US Presidents and English princes have not been
involved in the sort of things said to have been facilitated by Epstein? So far as Princes
go, I can think of none. And many of them, including future Kings, have done a lot worse
things than fuck teenage girls, though that has been routine for all who didn't prefer
boys.
It would be interesting to learn what lessons it is thought this affair should teach us?
Should the age of consent laws be revised to ban sexual relations between rich and poor? Or
to legislate against sexual partnerships involving an age differential of more than, say, ten
years?
Or should class society and the capitalist system, which commodifies everything and puts
the poor majority in positions in which they are vulnerable to prostitution, be abolished?
This would involve something a little more substantial than a lynch mob led by unprincipled,
loudmouth demagogues feeding off the obsessions and frustrations of the sexually
disfranchised.
These last we have had in America since the Pilgrim Fathers stumbled ashore, clutching
their Old Testaments angrily and looking for others to blame. And be punished.
As to the nonsense that Epstein has been spirited away, is not really dead and will, like
Merlin, one day return...that way madness lies.
"... Joe Biden is both sadly demented and deeply compromised to the Chinese Communist Party through his use of his office as VP to fund his son's investment fund with money from China's government owned and run central bank. His condition and his compromised state will keep him from the WH. ..."
"... Gabbart is the only person that seems rational and slightly honest. Harris traded sex for political advancement I understand why she would be a favorite. No moral or ethical standards willing to do anything for what she wants. Perfect useful idiot. ..."
Tulsi Gabbard is an exception to the subject of my title, but she is not going to be
nominated. I am currently contributing to her campaign as a tribute to a gallant lady.
Joe Biden is both sadly demented and deeply compromised to the Chinese Communist Party
through his use of his office as VP to fund his son's investment fund with money from China's
government owned and run central bank. His condition and his compromised state will keep him
from the WH.
They will both be irrelevant in the 2020 election as will as the Zombie candidates like
Bullock, Delaney, etc. i.e. the "moderates."
The rest of the pastiche of 2020 "Democrat" candidates are essentially Globalist advocates
of reduced US sovereignty as a step toward their "ideal" of a world socialist state in which
they will be part of the new Nomenklatura and will enjoy exemptions from the inevitable
shortages of everything resulting from universal "sharing" with the unfortunate masses who will
be proletarians engaged in slave labor or doing the gardening at the dachas of people like
Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Beto O'Roarke and the like.
The barely hidden opposition by the leftist Democrats to border control is telling. The
leftist Democrats want to take down the SW border of the US until it is nothing but a line on
the map. They want to do that that in order to flood the country with illegals who can be voted
for Democrat majorities in states where they control the state governments. Remember, the
states run federal elections.
California is an example of dirty dealing intended to further rig election outcomes. Gavin
Newsom, the apparent present leader of the Sacramento cabal, has signed into law a statute
seeking to bar Trump from the ballot if he will not surrender his federal tax returns for
public inspection. Was the possibility of illegally voting millions of non-citizens by driver
licensing of illegals and their simultaneous voter-registration at the DMV not enough to ensure
victory? Thank god that a change in the number of presidential electors allotted to California
is not within the capability of the Sacramento cabal.
Americans and other people who will vote in 2020 will have a stark choice. Do you wish to
remain living in a sovereign state or do you wish to become a building bloc in a world
socialist empire?
Unfortunately the only choice available to the US sovereignty side will be Donald Trump, the
real estate hustler from New York City. Weld is not a serious candidate. pl
Both parties seem inclined to bring about "paradise on earth". To understand these
internationalists, I cite Dostoevsky's Grand Inquisitor conversation with Christ:
..."'So that, in truth, Thou didst Thyself lay the foundation for the destruction of Thy
kingdom, and no one is more to blame for it. Yet what was offered Thee? There are three
powers, three powers alone, able to conquer and to hold captive for ever the conscience of
these impotent rebels for their happiness those forces are miracle, mystery and authority.
Thou hast rejected all three and hast set the example for doing so. When the wise and dread
spirit set Thee on the pinnacle of the temple and said to Thee, "If Thou wouldst know whether
Thou art the Son of God then cast Thyself down, for it is written: the angels shall hold him
up lest he fall and bruise himself, and Thou shalt know then whether Thou art the Son of God
and shalt prove then how great is Thy faith in Thy Father." But Thou didst refuse and wouldst
not cast Thyself down. Oh, of course, Thou didst proudly and well, like God; but the weak,
unruly race of men, are they gods? Oh, Thou didst know then that in taking one step, in
making one movement to cast Thyself down, Thou wouldst be tempting God and have lost all Thy
faith in Him, and wouldst have been dashed to pieces against that earth which Thou didst come
to save. And the wise spirit that tempted Thee would have rejoiced. But I ask again, are
there many like Thee? And couldst Thou believe for one moment that men, too, could face such
a temptation? Is the nature of men such, that they can reject miracle, and at the great
moments of their life, the moments of their deepest, most agonising spiritual difficulties,
cling only to the free verdict of the heart? Oh, Thou didst know that Thy deed would be
recorded in books, would be handed down to remote times and the utmost ends of the earth, and
Thou didst hope that man, following Thee, would cling to God and not ask for a miracle. But
Thou didst not know that when man rejects miracle he rejects God too; for man seeks not so
much God as the miraculous. And as man cannot bear to be without the miraculous, he will
create new miracles of his own for himself, and will worship deeds of sorcery and witchcraft,
though he might be a hundred times over a rebel, heretic and infidel. Thou didst not come
down from the Cross when they shouted to Thee, mocking and reviling Thee, "Come down from the
cross and we will believe that Thou art He." Thou didst not come down, for again Thou wouldst
not enslave man by a miracle, and didst crave faith given freely, not based on miracle. Thou
didst crave for free love and not the base raptures of the slave before the might that has
overawed him for ever. But Thou didst think too highly of men therein, for they are slaves,
of course, though rebellious by nature. Look round and judge; fifteen centuries have passed,
look upon them. Whom hast Thou raised up to Thyself? I swear, man is weaker and baser by
nature than Thou hast believed him! Can he, can he do what Thou didst? By showing him so much
respect, Thou didst, as it were, cease to feel for him, for Thou didst ask far too much from
him- Thou who hast loved him more than Thyself! Respecting him less, Thou wouldst have asked
less of him. That would have been more like love, for his burden would have been lighter. He
is weak and vile. What though he is everywhere now rebelling against our power, and proud of
his rebellion? It is the pride of a child and a schoolboy. They are little children rioting
and barring out the teacher at school. But their childish delight will end; it will cost them
dear. Mankind as a whole has always striven to organise a universal state. There have been
many great nations with great histories, but the more highly they were developed the more
unhappy they were, for they felt more acutely than other people the craving for world-wide
union. The great conquerors, Timours and Ghenghis-Khans, whirled like hurricanes over the
face of the earth striving to subdue its people, and they too were but the unconscious
expression of the same craving for universal unity. Hadst Thou taken the world and Caesar's
purple, Thou wouldst have founded the universal state and have given universal peace. For who
can rule men if not he who holds their conscience and their bread in his hands? We have taken
the sword of Caesar, and in taking it, of course, have rejected Thee and followed him. Oh,
ages are yet to come of the confusion of free thought, of their science and cannibalism. For
having begun to build their tower of Babel without us, they will end, of course, with
cannibalism. But then the beast will crawl to us and lick our feet and spatter them with
tears of blood. And we shall sit upon the beast and raise the cup, and on it will be written,
"Mystery." But then, and only then, the reign of peace and happiness will come for men. Thou
art proud of Thine elect, but Thou hast only the elect, while we give rest to all. And
besides, how many of those elect, those mighty ones who could become elect, have grown weary
waiting for Thee, and have transferred and will transfer the powers of their spirit and the
warmth of their heart to the other camp, and end by raising their free banner against Thee.
Thou didst Thyself lift up that banner. But with us all will be happy and will no more rebel
nor destroy one another as under Thy freedom. Oh, we shall persuade them that they will only
become free when they renounce their freedom to us and submit to us. And shall we be right or
shall we be lying? They will be convinced that we are right, for they will remember the
horrors of slavery and confusion to which Thy freedom brought them. Freedom, free thought,
and science will lead them into such straits and will bring them face to face with such
marvels and insoluble mysteries, that some of them, the fierce and rebellious, will destroy
themselves, others, rebellious but weak, will destroy one another, while the rest, weak and
unhappy, will crawl fawning to our feet and whine to us: "Yes, you were right, you alone
possess His mystery, and we come back to you, save us from ourselves!"
"'Receiving bread from us, they will see clearly that we take the bread made by their
hands from them, to give it to them, without any miracle. They will see that we do not change
the stones to bread, but in truth they will be more thankful for taking it from our hands
than for the bread itself! For they will remember only too well that in old days, without our
help, even the bread they made turned to stones in their hands, while since they have come
back to us, the very stones have turned to bread in their hands. Too, too well will they know
the value of complete submission! And until men know that, they will be unhappy. Who is most
to blame for their not knowing it?-speak! Who scattered the flock and sent it astray on
unknown paths? But the flock will come together again and will submit once more, and then it
will be once for all. Then we shall give them the quiet humble happiness of weak creatures
such as they are by nature. Oh, we shall persuade them at last not to be proud, for Thou
didst lift them up and thereby taught them to be proud. We shall show them that they are
weak, that they are only pitiful children, but that childlike happiness is the sweetest of
all. They will become timid and will look to us and huddle close to us in fear, as chicks to
the hen. They will marvel at us and will be awe-stricken before us, and will be proud at our
being so powerful and clever that we have been able to subdue such a turbulent flock of
thousands of millions. They will tremble impotently before our wrath, their minds will grow
fearful, they will be quick to shed tears like women and children, but they will be just as
ready at a sign from us to pass to laughter and rejoicing, to happy mirth and childish song.
Yes, we shall set them to work, but in their leisure hours we shall make their life like a
child's game, with children's songs and innocent dance. Oh, we shall allow them even sin,
they are weak and helpless, and they will love us like children because we allow them to sin.
We shall tell them that every sin will be expiated, if it is done with our permission, that
we allow them to sin because we love them, and the punishment for these sins we take upon
ourselves. And we shall take it upon ourselves, and they will adore us as their saviours who
have taken on themselves their sins before God. And they will have no secrets from us. We
shall allow or forbid them to live with their wives and mistresses, to have or not to have
children according to whether they have been obedient or disobedient- and they will submit to
us gladly and cheerfully. The most painful secrets of their conscience, all, all they will
bring to us, and we shall have an answer for all. And they will be glad to believe our
answer, for it will save them from the great anxiety and terrible agony they endure at
present in making a free decision for themselves. And all will be happy, all the millions of
creatures except the hundred thousand who rule over them. For only we, we who guard the
mystery, shall be unhappy. There will be thousands of millions of happy babes, and a hundred
thousand sufferers who have taken upon themselves the curse of the knowledge of good and
evil. Peacefully they will die, peacefully they will expire in Thy name, and beyond the grave
they will find nothing but death. But we shall keep the secret, and for their happiness we
shall allure them with the reward of heaven and eternity. Though if there were anything in
the other world, it certainly would not be for such as they. It is prophesied that Thou wilt
come again in victory, Thou wilt come with Thy chosen, the proud and strong, but we will say
that they have only saved themselves, but we have saved all. We are told that the harlot who
sits upon the beast, and holds in her hands the mystery, shall be put to shame, that the weak
will rise up again, and will rend her royal purple and will strip naked her loathsome body.
But then I will stand up and point out to Thee the thousand millions of happy children who
have known no sin. And we who have taken their sins upon us for their happiness will stand up
before Thee and say: "Judge us if Thou canst and darest." Know that I fear Thee not. Know
that I too have been in the wilderness, I too have lived on roots and locusts, I too prized
the freedom with which Thou hast blessed men, and I too was striving to stand among Thy
elect, among the strong and powerful, thirsting "to make up the number." But I awakened and
would not serve madness. I turned back and joined the ranks of those who have corrected Thy
work. I left the proud and went back to the humble, for the happiness of the humble. What I
say to Thee will come to pass, and our dominion will be built up. I repeat, to-morrow Thou
shalt see that obedient flock who at a sign from me will hasten to heap up the hot cinders
about the pile on which I shall burn Thee for coming to hinder us. For if anyone has ever
deserved our fires, it is Thou. To-morrow I shall burn Thee. Dixi.'"*...
Dem candidate clown car is every bit as vile as the Gop clown car in 16.
Gabbart is the only person that seems rational and slightly honest. Harris traded sex for
political advancement I understand why she would be a favorite. No moral or ethical standards
willing to do anything for what she wants. Perfect useful idiot.
While I am aware of Eric Zuesse being somewhat controversial to some people, I do concur with
his assessment of the party that should be stripped of the 'Democratic' prefix. There is
nothing democratic in this organization and its members are either willful stooges, or the
most gullible people on earth - responsible for heinous crimes against humanity under the
cover of 'humanitarian aid'.
To even consider to allow this organization to continue in its deception of the American
electorate, shows the deepest infiltration of foreign influence, for whom this deception is
not only natural, but also compulsive. You may have guessed it, it's not the Russians.
However, an article by the Strategic Culture Organization, linked to on MOA yesterday
The 'Special Relationship' is collapsing , goes even further. It makes obvious the unholy
filth that has been plaguing humanity for a very long time. And while some may find it
questionable, it turns out that the Queen does appear to be the longest sitting Fascist in
the history of mankind.
Sometimes it is necessary to connect the dots beyond personal beliefs in regards to the
real conspiracy against working people all over the world.
Former President Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender's infamous jet than previously reported,
with flight logs showing the former president taking at least 26 trips aboard the "Lolita Express" -- even apparently ditching his
Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights, according to records obtained by FoxNews.com.
Clinton's presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more
than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified
on manifests by their initials or first names, including "Tatiana." The tricked-out jet earned its Nabakov-inspired nickname because
it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls.
"Bill Clinton associated with a man like Jeffrey Epstein, who everyone in New York, certainly within his inner circles, knew was
a pedophile," said Conchita Sarnoff, of the Washington, D.C. based non-profit Alliance to Rescue Victims of Trafficking, and author
of a book on the Epstein case called
"TrafficKing." "Why would a former president associate with a man like
that?"
... ... ...
Virginia Roberts, 32, who claims she was pimped out by Epstein at age 15, has previously claimed she saw Clinton at Epstein's getaway
in 2002, but logs do not show Clinton aboard any flights to St. Thomas, the nearest airport capable of accommodating Epstein's plane.
They do show Clinton flying aboard Epstein's plane to such destinations as Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, China, Brunei, London, New
York, the Azores, Belgium, Norway, Russia and Africa.
Among those regularly traveling with Clinton were Epstein's associates, New York socialite Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein's assistant,
Sarah Kellen, both of whom were investigated by the FBI and Palm Beach Police for recruiting girls for Epstein and his friends.
Official flight logs filed with the Federal Aviation Administration show Clinton traveled on some of the trips with as many as 10
U.S. Secret Service agents. However, on a five-leg Asia trip between May 22 and May 25, 2002, not a single Secret Service agent is
listed. The U.S. Secret Service has declined to answer multiple Freedom of Information Act requests filed by FoxNews.com seeking
information on these trips. Clinton would have been required to file a form to dismiss the agent detail, a former Secret Service
agent told FoxNews.com.
In response to a separate FOIA request from FoxNews.com, the U.S. Secret Service said it has no records showing agents were ever
on the island with Clinton.
You better be tough to watch this, not for women unless you are like me who will watch it
and spread it.
Warning: you can't unwatch this and will need to claim your space after and pray.
This IS John Podesta. This IS what I said was coming to him last summer/fall.
What did I say about this coming eclipse? It is in Pisces, water, water pourer, dams, leaks, secrets and film. Note the color purple which is the Pisces color.
People are saying this is John Podesta torturing a boy in a shower. I had to turn the sound off it was so horrific. This came from Weiners laptop, the cops must be leaking now Life insurance file.
Yes and longtime NYPD said "as a father it was one of the most
disturbing things I have ever seen."
because it is evil.
I am thinking it is MKULTRA stuff, designed with strobe light to split the personality.
vulcanravenPinto CurrencyFeb 19, 2017 1:47 PM I fucking hope so. I just wonder what the hell they are waiting for, but
the more I think about it this is the best I can come up with:
If Pedogate is finally blown wide open, it is going to rip a hole through the fabric of
reality for the unawashed sheeple. It will also destroy any and all faith in the US government,
and full blown chaos will erupt everywhere.
So whoever is holding the goods on PG, also knows
that reality hangs in the balance upon opening that can of worms. I also believe when the dam
finally does break and people are getting led away in handcuffs on national TV, a large majority
of the population will still be in full blown denial... finding any and every reason to somehow
blame the scandal on Trump/Russia/The Flying Spaghetti Monster
"... Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of Robert Maxwell and girlfriend and "Nazi guard" for Epstein"s child sex stable also ran a fake charity closed day ago called Terra Mar. The FBI is now investigating if the charity was used to pay off Epstein/Maxwell child rape victims. ..."
"... The UK Guardian and Transparify.org list the think tank now run by General McMaster and tied to Platero, Maxwell and Epstein as invisibly funded and "deceptive." ..."
Following the bread crumbs from Epstein has led to a fake charity and from there to General
McMaster, former National Security Advisor to Donald Trump, who now heads a reputedly fake
London based think tank secretly funded by money laundered through the repressive Bahraini
royal family.
But there is more.
Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of Robert Maxwell and girlfriend and "Nazi guard" for
Epstein"s child sex stable also ran a fake charity closed day ago called Terra Mar. The FBI is
now investigating if the charity was used to pay off Epstein/Maxwell child rape
victims.
The charity takes us further into Maxwell's den of Mossad partnerships. Most serious of all
are those through her lifelong friend Calfo Platero, who ties Epstein and Maxwell to the highly
disreputable London based Institute for Strategic Studies. The UK Guardian and
Transparify.org list the think tank now run by General McMaster and tied to Platero, Maxwell
and Epstein as invisibly funded and "deceptive." However, in 2016, the organization that
McMaster joined when he left the Trump White House in 2018 admitted to taking secret funding
from the rulers of Bahrain under an agreement that they would keep the funding secret.
Bahrain has been cited with numerous human rights abuses and an attempt to murder an
American diplomat and blame it on Iran. Middle East Eye confirmed Bahrain's involvement, a
major "revolving door" scandal for a high level Trump appointee.
Evidence accumulates that Obama was the real leader of this color revolution against Trump with Brannan as his chief lieutenant
and Comey as a willing accomplice.
Now that the dust has settled, one must ask why the Deep State wanted Trump gone. Why does the Obama-Clinton mafia hates him so
much? Is this due to Trump committed an unforgivable sin in suggesting we “get along with Russia” and thus potentially cut the
revenues of military-industrial complex ? This is not true -- Trump inflated the Pentagon budget to astronomical height. Then
why ?
Notable quotes:
"... The full details of the plot to take out Donald Trump remain to be revealed. But there should now be no doubt that his effort was not the work of a few rogue intelligence and law enforcement officials acting on their own. This was a full blown covert action undertaken with the full knowledge and blessing of Barack Obama. ..."
"... Operation Crossfire Hurricane was launched the end of July 2016. CIA Director John Brennan briefed key Democrat members of Congress in early August on allegations that Donald Trump was colluding with Vladimir Putin. And Peter Strzok traveled to London in early August 2016 to meet with the CIA and with Alexander Downer, who was claiming that George Papadopolous was talking up the Russians. Following that trip Strozk texted the following to his mistress, Lisa Page : ..."
"... We also know that Senior Obama Administration officials, such as NSC Director Susan Rice and UN Ambassdor Samantha Power, were pushing to "unmask" Trump campaign officials who were named in US intelligence documents. ..."
"... Let us look at this from another angle. If the Russians were actually trying to interfere in the 2016 election, then it was known to both US intelligence and law enforcement. Hell, we are told in the Mueller report that the FBI detected the Russians trying to hack the DNC way back in 2015. If there really was intelligence on Russian efforts to meddle why did the Obama Administration do nothing other than sanction FBI's Crossfire Hurricane? ..."
"... On what basis did Barack Obama insist it was impossible to rig the US Presidential election? This is a critical anomaly. Why was the Obama team asleep at the switch, especially on the intel front, it the Russians actually were engaged in rigging the election to install Donald Trump? ..."
"... Obama seemed to have got a taste for spying on his domestic political opponents from monitoring Israeli attempts to block the Iran nuclear deal. I think the lock her up stuff really scared the Obama people, who had much to hide. ..."
The full details of the plot to take out Donald Trump remain to be revealed. But there should now be no doubt that his effort was
not the work of a few rogue intelligence and law enforcement officials acting on their own. This was a full blown covert action undertaken
with the full knowledge and blessing of Barack Obama.
As
I have written previously , the claim that Russia tried to hijack our election is a damn lie. But you do not have to take my
word for it. Just listen to Barack Obama speaking in October 2016 in response to Donald Trump's expressed concerns about
election meddling :
"There is no serious person out there who would suggest that you could even rig America's elections, in part because they are
so decentralized. There is no evidence that that has happened in the past, or that there are instances that that could happen this
time," the president said to the future president in October 2016.
"Democracy survives because we recognize that there is something more important than any individual campaign, and that is making
sure the integrity and trust in our institutions sustains itself. Becasue Democracy works by consent, not by force," Obama said.
"I have never seen in my lifetime or in modern political history, any presidential candidate trying to discredit the elections
and the election process before votes have even taken place. It is unprecedented. It happens to be based on no fact. Every expert
regardless of political party... who has ever examined these issues in a serious way will tell you that instances of significant
voter fraud are not to be found. Keep in mind elections are run by state and local officials."
It is important to remember what had transpired in the Trump/Russia collusion case by this point. Operation Crossfire Hurricane
was launched the end of July 2016. CIA Director John Brennan briefed key Democrat members of Congress in early August on allegations
that Donald Trump was colluding with Vladimir Putin. And Peter Strzok traveled to London in early August 2016 to meet with the CIA
and with Alexander Downer, who was claiming that George Papadopolous was talking up the Russians. Following that trip
Strozk texted
the following to his mistress, Lisa Page :
Strzok: And hi. Went well, best we could have expected. Other than [REDACTED] quote: " the White House is running this. " My answer,
"well, maybe for you they are." And of course, I was planning on telling this guy, thanks for coming, we've got an hour, but with
Bill [Priestap] there, I've got no control .
Page: Yeah, whatever (re the WH comment). We've got the emails that say otherwise.
The White House clearly knew. But Strzok's text is not the only evidence. We also know that Senior Obama Administration officials,
such as NSC Director Susan Rice and UN Ambassdor Samantha Power, were pushing to "unmask" Trump campaign officials who were named
in US intelligence documents.
There are only two possibilities:
Obama was being briefed by Susan Rice and DNI James Clapper and CIA Director about the project
to take out Trump, or
Obama was kept in the dark.
Let us look at this from another angle. If the Russians were actually trying to interfere in the 2016 election, then it was known
to both US intelligence and law enforcement. Hell, we are told in the Mueller report that the FBI detected the Russians trying to
hack the DNC way back in 2015. If there really was intelligence on Russian efforts to meddle why did the Obama Administration do
nothing other than sanction FBI's Crossfire Hurricane?
On what basis did Barack Obama insist it was impossible to rig the US Presidential election? This is a critical anomaly. Why was
the Obama team asleep at the switch, especially on the intel front, it the Russians actually were engaged in rigging the election
to install Donald Trump?
My wife was for many years an election official in Virginia. IMO Obama was right in saying that a US presidential election
is impossible to "rig." The US Constitution requires that federal elections be run by the states WITHOUT federal supervision.
As a result the methods and equipment in the states and the various parts of the states vary widely and the state systems are
not tied together with a national electronic network as, for example, the system is in France where the result of a national election
is reported on TeeVee immediately when the polls close.
Asking the question, "Can you cite one specific case where a single vote was definitively changed by Russian meddling?"
causes panic in a person who is declaiming about the evils of Russian meddling in our elections.
When you ask that question, the invariable retort is that the Russians are so clever that you wouldn't know that you were being
gulled; or, when I say that I have never seen a Russian produced facebook ad, the rejoinder is that the Russians concentrated
on Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Ohio and, of course, I would have been privy to the bot-sent emails and facebook ads generated by
the Internet Research Agency.
You've maintained all along that the Russians interfered in the election, yet I believe it is your position that the Russians
did not change a single vote. Is that correct or do you believe the Russians changed the votes before tabulation?
What did the Russians do that the Trump and Hillary campaigns did not do? Did they also turnout the tens of thousands who showed
up for Trump rallies that Hillary could never muster? Are they still turning out thousands at recent Trump rallies? I'm curious
how come Brennan and Clapper could not turn out thousands to Hillary's rallies when according to our German friend "b", the omnipotent
US Intel services just turned out a quarter of the population of Hong Kong to protest CCP authoritarianism?
Did the Israeli, Saudi and Chinese governments interfere in the election? How would you compare what they did to what you believe
the Russians did?
uieter about it. All that is very different from the absolute covert nature of the Russian IO in the 2016 election. I have
no idea what China did or is doing.
You have no evidence for the so-called Russian IO. It is a fabrication. The lies on this are enormous. If the FBI really had detected
GRU hacking of the DNC in 2015, which is claimed in the fabricated meme, then you would expect the FBI and the other counter intel
elements of the USG to take action. THEY DID NOTHING.
The issue of Russian hacking only emerged when Hillary and the DNC learned that DNC emails were going to be put out by WIKILEAKS.
Again, not one shred of actual evidence that the Russians did it, but blaming the Russians became a convenient excuse in a bid
to divert attention from the real story--i.e,. Hillary and the DNC colluded to defeat Bernie Sanders.
The only real solid evidence of colluding with foreigners, in this case the Ukraine, comes courtesy of Hillary and her campaign.
Hiring a foreign intel officer (ie. Steele) who then takes info from Russians of questionable background and spread it around
as "truth". That was not a Russian IO. Pure Clinton IO.
"What the Russians did was insert misattributed information and disinformation into the election cycle...That is what separates
the Russian IO from anything Clinton, Trump or any of their supporters did."
I believe supporters of both candidates did exactly what you say the Russians did - insert misattributed information & disinformation
into the media stream. If you watch MSNBC or Fox on any given day there is much assertion & opinion masquerading as news. And
the Twitter & Facebook and blog universe are teeming with stories and innuendo that are more fiction than fact all from anonymous
accounts.
The Russia Collusion hysteria is replete with examples of "misattributed information and disinformation". It seems that yellow
journalism is as American as apple pie.
The whole opaque PAC structure with names like "Americans for Democracy" funded by chain structures hiding the real financiers
and calling up down is something that we see growing in every election cycle and is already of significant scale both in terms
of financing and dubiousness.
It is also rather common that "experts" who are called upon to opine on issues routinely never disclose their conflicts of
interest. Jeffrey Sachs and so many others on the payroll of CCP entities never disclose those payments as they extoll the virtues
of offshoring our industrial base to China and are apologists for CCP espionage.
Blue peacock, supporters of Clinton and Trump did not put out misattributed info. They both put out truth, innuendo, exaggerations,
misleading info and even outright lies, but they put it out as themselves. They didn't represent themselves as someone other than
who they were. The PAC structure comes close to skirting this requirement for truthful attribution, but a quick internet search
blows away the facades of these PACs. What the Russians did was pure black propaganda.
You mean the kindly grandmother, Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the United States, did not inform President Obama that
the FBI had obtained a FISA warrant to surveil the Republican candidate for the presidency and members of his staff becasue he
was working with Russians? Or do you mean that James Comey failed to tell his boss, Loretta Lynch; or do you mean John Brennan
failed to tell Obama about that Steele dossier from Fusion GPS that Mueller know anything about; or do you mean that James Clapper
failed to tell Jeh Johnson about that too? The Russians made them do all those things as part of an interference campaign, right?
It couldn't have been they were corrupt and incompetant.
"Instead, Obama...." made an "If you like your doctor, you can keep you doctor" statement that he knew was completely false.
Trump didn't win, Russians influenced Americans to vote for Trump, just ask the losers of the election, their paid sources and
their colleagues in Congress. In fact Americans love Hilary so much she's just where in the polls right now?
I continue to be astounded by the outrage at "Russian meddling". So some Russians used the internet to post true or false information
on candidates in a election.... so what?...millions of American partisan trolls were doing the same thing for or against a candidate.
We had tons of fake info written by American bloggers and posters all over the net, Facebook, twitter etc..
Its not like Putin came to the US and gave a speech to congress in favor of Trump ...as Netanyahu did in appearing before the
US congress and urging them to go against President Obama's Syria policy for heaven's sake.
It is so ridiculous I have given up hope of finding enough IQs above that of a cabbage to form a sane government.
Obama seemed to have got a taste for spying on his domestic political opponents from monitoring Israeli attempts to block
the Iran nuclear deal. I think the lock her up stuff really scared the Obama people, who had much to hide.
1. The FBI cannot be trusted to uphold defend and protect our Constitution, as they sought actively
to overturn a duly elected POTUS.; and
2 - Mueller's incompetence is astounding.
Is the only entity of the Defense Department called the U.S. Army the only ones left actually upholding, defending, and protecting
our Constitution and our Constitution processes? I don't see the other entities of the DOD called Navy and Air Force doing their
jobs upholding our Constitution!
Thumbs up to the Army, thumbs down to the Navy and Air Force!
I'm a little more charitable to the FBI. The Trumps lied their asses off to the FBI about their foreign contacts. Which IMO,
wrong or right, left the FBI all but no recourse but to investigate those lies. Even if the lies were simply based in long-seated
personal habits, it takes investigation to prove that is the case.
"You have no evidence for the so-called Russian IO. It is a fabrication." In fact, Putin rejects the claim many times publicly
saying that Russia does not meddle in foreign elections as a matter of policy. Maybe I'm gullible, but I find his disclaimer pretty
convincing....
My question for Larry Johnson requires some speculation on his part: How did the claims of "Russia meddling" which began with
the DNC and Hillary campaign, take root at the FBI, CIA and NSA???
Is there an unseen connection between the Democrat leadership and the Intel agencies??? And --if there is-- does that mean
we are headed for a one-party system???
Larry, sorry to nitpick, but I have such regard for your work that it pains me to see the typographical error in your second sentence,
where you say "his error" shortly after referring to Trump. I'm guessing that you meant to say "this error", but it reads as if
it means "Trump's error".
And while I'm at it, your last sentence has "it" instead of "if".
Keep up your great work for this excellent website.
Sadly naive in that you think the conspirators were actually acting in good faith. You think they were right when they used
the Steele Dossier in applying for a FISA warrant in Colyyer's Star Chamber? Steele was a paid informant for the FBI as was Page.
https://c.deployads.com/sync?f=html&s=2344&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oftwominds.com%2Fblogjuly19%2Fcrisis-deep-state7-19.html
Epstein and the Explosive Crisis of the Deep State
July 15, 2019
Since the battle is for the legitimacy of the state, it must be waged at least partially
in the open.
Speculations by outsiders must give Deep State insiders many opportunities to chuckle,
"if only they knew." We don't know, of course, and public leaks are engineered to misdirect
our attention from what's actually going on or "frame" our understanding in a positive way.
Decades later, history reveals a very ordinary mix of great successes and horrific
failure in secret operations , caused by errors of judgment, faulty intelligence, poor
planning and so on. In other words, life isn't tidy, either inside or outside the Deep
State.
Nonetheless we can postulate a few things with some certainty. One is that the Deep
State-- the unelected, permanent government which includes not just the intelligence community
but a vast array of agencies and institutions as well as the top-level structures of diplomacy,
finance and geopolitics--is not monolithic. There are different views and competing camps, but
the disagreements and bureaucratic wars are kept out of sight.
Two, we know that at critical junctures of history one camp wins the narrative battle and
establishes the over-riding direction of state policy. Put another way, one camp's
understanding of the era's most pressing problems becomes the consensus, and from then on
disagreements are within the broad outlines of the dominant ideology.
The end of World War II was a critical juncture. The proper role of the U.S. in the
postwar era was up for grabs, and over the course of a few years, the CIA and other
intelligence agencies were established and the doctrine of containment of the Soviet Union
became the dominant narrative, a narrative that held with remarkable consistency for four
decades until the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991.
This collapse was another critical juncture, and debates over America's role in this
"unipolar era" were finally settled in favor of the geopolitical-activist ideology of
neoconservatism (Neocons).
This globalist ideology led to a variety of policy disasters and is now discredited in many
circles, and has been under attack within the Deep State for some time. This is the divided
Deep State I've written about for the past five years.
The failures of Neocon globalism have ushered in another critical juncture. What is
America's proper role in a multi-polar world that is fracturing across multiple faultlines?
This critical juncture is a manifestation of a broader profound political disunity in
America and many other nations.
The corporate media has obligingly portrayed this profound political disunity as a
contest between "good globalism" and "bad populism," a clear attempt to smear all those who see
the dark side of globalism as a threat to the nation and indeed the world. This bias reflects
the continued dominance of the Neocon-globalist camp.
But the cracks are now visible. The mainstream "influential" press has recently been
publishing critiques admitting the failures of Neocon globalism and agonizing about how to
"save" the globalist agenda despite its failures.
I have long held that there is a camp within the Deep State that grasps the end-game of
Neocon globalism, and is busy assembling a competing nation-centric strategy. There is
tremendous resistance to the abandonment of Neocon globalism, not just from those who see power
slipping through their fingers but from all those firmly committed to the hubris of a magical
faith in past success as the guarantor of future success.
Michael Grant described this complacent clinging to what's failed in his excellent account
The Fall of the Roman Empire , a short book I have been recommending since 2009:
There was no room at all, in these ways of thinking, for the novel, apocalyptic situation
which had now arisen, a situation which needed solutions as radical as itself. (The Status Quo)
attitude is a complacent acceptance of things as they are, without a single new idea.
This acceptance was accompanied by greatly excessive optimism about the present and
future. Even when the end was only sixty years away, and the Empire was already crumbling fast,
Rutilius continued to address the spirit of Rome with the same supreme assurance.
This blind adherence to the ideas of the past ranks high among the principal causes of
the downfall of Rome. If you were sufficiently lulled by these traditional fictions, there
was no call to take any practical first-aid measures at all.
The faction within the Deep State that no longer accepts traditional fictions is
gaining ground, and now another fracture in the Deep State is coming to the fore: the
traditionalists who accept the systemic corruption of self-serving elites and those who have
finally awakened to the mortal danger to the nation posed by amoral self-serving elites.
The debauchery of morals undermines the legitimacy of the state and thus of the entire
power structure. As I recently noted in Following in Rome's Footsteps:
Moral Decay, Rising Inequality (June 29, 2019), America's current path of moral decay and
soaring wealth/power inequality is tracking Rome's collapse step for step.
Enter the sordid case of Jeffrey Epstein, suddenly unearthed after a decade of
corporate-media/elitist suppression. It's laughable to see the corporate media's pathetic
attempts to glom onto the case now, after actively suppressing it for decades: Jeffrey
Epstein Was a Sex Offender. The Powerful Welcomed Him Anyway. (New York Times) Where was
the NYT a decade ago, or five years ago, or even a year ago?
Of all the questions that are arising, the signal one is simply: why now? There are
many questions, now that the dead-and-buried case has been dug up: where did Epstein get his
fortune? Why did he return to the U.S. from abroad, knowing he'd be arrested? Why was the
Miami Herald suddenly able to publish numerous articles exposing the scandalous
suppression of justice after 11 years of silence? Years later, victims recount
impact of Jeffrey Epstein abuse .
Here's my outsider's take: the anti-Neocon camp within the Deep State observed the test
case of Harvey Weinstein and saw an opportunity to apply what it learned. If we draw
circles representing the anti-Neocon camp and the moralists who grasp the state's legitimacy is
hanging by a thread after decades of amoral exploitation and self-aggrandizement by the ruling
elites, we would find a large overlap.
But even die-hard Neocons are starting to awaken to the danger to their power posed by the
moral collapse of the ruling elites. They are finally awakening to the lesson of history, that
the fatal danger to empires arises not from external foes but from inside the center of power
as elite corruption erodes the legitimacy of the state.
The upstarts in the Deep State have united to declare open war on the degenerates and
their enablers, who are everywhere in the Deep State: the media, the intelligence
community, and on and on.
Since the battle is for the legitimacy of the state, it must be waged at least partially
in the open. This is a war for the hearts and minds of the public, whose belief in the
legitimacy of the state and its ruling elites underpins the power of the Deep State.
If this wasn't a war over the legitimacy of the state, the housecleaning would have been
discrete. Insiders would be shuffled off to a corporate boardroom or do-nothing/fancy title
office, or they'd retire, or if necessary, they'd die of a sudden heart attack or in a tragic
accident ( if only they knew ).
The cockroaches are scurrying, and the challenge now is to crush as many as possible
before they find cover. Bullies are at heart cowards, and once the bullies who were
untouchable due to powerful friends in powerful places are exposed to an accounting of their
behavior, they will spill the beans on everyone in a craven attempt to lighten the consequences
of their corruption and debauchery.
Power is a funny thing: when it dissipates suddenly, it dissipates completely.
All those who were confident they were untouchable might want to heed this sign:
carefully fall into the cliff .
The hidden conflicts within the Deep State are emerging, and the resulting crisis will be
explosive. Remember, the housecleaning must be public or the legitimacy of the state will
go over the cliff. If the Deep State wants to retain its power, it must root out the corrupt
degenerates before they bring down the entire rotten structure.
https://acdn.adnxs.com/ib/static/usersync/v3/async_usersync.html The Nobility of the
feudal era had some reciprocal obligation to its serfs; our New Nobility has no obligation to
anyone but themselves. It is painfully obvious that there are two sets of laws in America:
bankers can rip off billions and never serve time, and members of the Protected Class who
sexually exploit children get a wrist-slap, if that.
Here's the sad reality: everybody in the Ruling Elites looked the other way: all the
self-described "patriots" in the Intelligence services, all the technocrats in the Departments
of Justice, State, etc., the Pentagon, and on and on. Everybody with any power knows the whole
class of Ruling Elites is completely corrupt, by definition: to secure power in the U.S.,
you have to sell your soul to the Devil , one way or the other.
Like all Ruling Elites, America's Elites are absolutely confident in their power:
this is hubris taken to new heights.
That the citizenry could finally have enough of their corrupt, self-serving Overlords
does not seem in the realm of possibility to the Protected Few. There's always a way to
lawyer-up and plea-bargain for a wrist-slap, a way to bend another "patriot" (barf), a way to
offer a bribe cloaked as a plum position in a philanthro-capitalist NGO (non-governmental
organization), and so on.
The possibility that moral outrage could spark a revolt seems improbable in such a
distracted culture, but consider the chart below: even the most distracted, fragmented
tribe of the peasantry eventually notices that they're not in the top 1%, or the top 0.1%, and
that the Ruling Elites have overseen an unprecedented concentration of wealth and power into
the hands of the few at the expense of the many:
"... And according to the Beast , "Clinton also failed to mention the intimate 1995 fundraising dinner at the Palm Beach home of Revlon mogul Ron Perelman, where Clinton hobnobbed with the likes of Epstein, Don Johnson, and Jimmy Buffett. (Nearby, at Epstein's own Palm Beach mansion, the money man allegedly abused hundreds of underage girls.)" ..."
"... Meanwhile, Clinton's college friend A. Paul Prosperi visited Epstein at least 20 times while he was in the Palm Beach county jail after pleading guilty to procuring an underage prostitute in 2008. Prosperi was also present at a 1995 Perelman fundraiser at which both Clinton and Epstein were present. ..."
"... Over that same time period, a source with knowledge of the situation told The Daily Beast, Middleton met with Epstein in the White House at least three times . It is unclear what they discussed, or for how long. Middleton did not respond to repeated calls and emails for comment, or to a reporter who visited his home in Arkansas. ..."
Bill Clinton's attempts to distance himself from convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein have
taken yet another blow - after a
Daily Beast investigation reveals that the financier - who came highly recommended by Lynn
Forester de Rothschild - visited the Clinton White House multiple times .
As early as 1993, records show, Epstein donated $10,000 to the White House Historical
Association and attended a donors' reception hosted by Bill and Hillary Clinton. Around the
same time, according to a source familiar with the connection, Epstein visited presidential
aide Mark Middleton several times at the White House . Two years later, businesswoman Lynn
Forester de Rothschild wrote a personal letter to Clinton thanking him for their talk about
the financier . -
Daily Beast
On July 8, the former president sought to distance himself from Epstein, claiming that the
two crossed paths just six times beginning in 2002; "four flights on the billionaire's private
jet, a single trip to his Harlem office, and one "brief visit" to his New York apartment, all
with staff and security detail in tow," per the Beast .
"President Clinton knows nothing about the terrible crimes Jeffrey Epstein pleaded guilty to
in Florida some years ago, or those with which he has been recently charged in New York,"
Clinton spokesperson, Angel Ureña, told the Beast. " Any suggestion to the contrary is
both factually inaccurate and irresponsible."
Clinton's denial flies in the face of flight logs from Epstein's now-sold 'Lolita Express'
727 jet at least
26 times .
When the president released his initial statement on Epstein, he did not explain the
multiple other trips he appears
to have taken on the financier's plane -- including one flight to Westchester with
Epstein, his alleged madam Ghislaine Maxwell, and an "unnamed female." -
Daily Beast
And according to the Beast , "Clinton also failed to mention the intimate 1995 fundraising
dinner at the Palm Beach home of Revlon mogul Ron Perelman, where Clinton
hobnobbed with the likes of Epstein, Don Johnson, and Jimmy Buffett. (Nearby, at Epstein's
own Palm Beach mansion, the money man allegedly abused hundreds of underage girls.)"
While Politico claimed in a piece last week that the Clintons and Epstein connected through
Epstein's longtime confidant and alleged
procurer of young women - Ghislaine Maxwell, after Clinton left office, documents in
the Clinton Library attest to much earlier links .
In late September of 1993, Bill and Hillary Clinton hosted a reception for supporters who
had contributed to recent White House renovations. The nearly $400,000 overhaul -- which
included new gold draperies and a 13-color woven rug for the Oval Office -- was funded
entirely by donations to the White House Historical Association, a private organization that
helps preserve and promote the White House as a historical monument.
The reception took place at the White House residence from 7:30 to 9:30 p.m., according to
a copy of the president's daily schedule. White House Social Secretary Ann Stock -- who
appears in Epstein's
little black book of phone numbers -- was listed as the point of contact . According to
multiple attendees, the evening included an intimate tour of the newly refurbished residence,
followed by a receiving line with the president and first lady. Dessert was served in the
East Room, where the couple thanked everyone for attending and announced the Committee for
the Preservation of the White House.
Guests for the event , according to the invitation list, included the journalist and
philanthropist Barbara Goldsmith, heiress Jane Engelhard, political consultant Cynthia
Friedman, and " Mr Jeffrey Epstein and Ms. Ghislaine Maxwell ." Epstein and Maxwell do not
appear on the 'regret list,' and there is a letter 'A' next to both of their names,
indicating they planned to attend . A press release from the event, put out by Hillary
Clinton's office, lists Epstein as a White House Historical Association donor. -
Daily Beast
Meanwhile, Clinton's college friend A. Paul Prosperi visited Epstein at least 20 times
while he was in the Palm Beach county jail after pleading guilty to procuring an underage
prostitute in 2008. Prosperi was also present at a 1995 Perelman fundraiser at which both
Clinton and Epstein were present.
Another Clinton connection with Epstein comes through White House aide Mark E. Middleton - a
friend of Clinton's from his beginnings in Arkansas who joined the administration in 1993 as
special assistant to Chief of Staff Mack McClarty (another Arkansas insider, per the Beast ).
Middleton would rise to the level of "Deputy to the Counselor" in 1994.
Over that same time period, a source with knowledge of the situation told The Daily
Beast, Middleton met with Epstein in the White House at least three times . It is unclear
what they discussed, or for how long. Middleton did not respond to repeated calls and emails
for comment, or to a reporter who visited his home in Arkansas.
Middleton and Epstein also appear to have shared a famous friend in common. Donald Trump
-- who once called Epstein a "terrific guy" -- sent Middleton a signed copy of his book , The
Art of the Deal , while the lawyer was working in the White House. The inscription read, " To
Mark -- Best wishes. Your mom is the best ."
Hobnobbing with businessmen like Epstein and Trump was part and parcel of Middleton's
White House job , according to a 1999 report from the House Committee on Government Reform.
("In the course of his duties, Middleton was in contact with many prominent business people
and contributors to the President," the report states.) But it also got the lawyer in trouble
with the administration once he left. -
Daily Beast
Rothschild letter
In 1995, Lynn Forester de Rothschild writes ""Dear Mr. President: It was a pleasure to see
you recently at Senator Kennedy's house. There was too much to discuss and too little time.
Using my fifteen seconds of access to discuss Jeffrey Epstein and currency stabilization, I
neglected to talk to you about a topic near and dear to my heart. Namely, affirmative action
and the future."
Of note, former Epstein attorney and pal Alan Dershowitz previously said that Forester de
Rothschild introduced him to Epstein at a party on Martha's Vineyard for Lord Rothschild in the
summer of 1996.
"He was feisty, he was utterly politically incorrect," said Dershowitz in a recent interview
with New York magazine. "He was interesting to be with."
Bill Clinton and that vicious evil **** of a wife Hillary have done more to **** this
country up and the entire world than any other human beings. No contest.
Remember when Harvey Weinstein was the "scum" of the moment? During these "15 minutes,"
director Quentin Tarantino acknowledged his regret in not exposing Weinstein. Basically, he
gave an interview where he admitted he knew what his producer friend had been doing - or must
have been doing - all these years, and yet Taratino did nothing. Taratino gets credit in my
book for acknowledging this. In other words, he COULD have done something to stop his
activities/crimes, but did not.
Compare and contrast Tarantino's "mea culpa" to the HUNDREDS of VIPs who must have known
what Epstein was doing - for decades. And remained silent and never considered going to
authorities.
Scores or hundreds of people COULD have stopped this, but did not.
This tells us much about our system and the "leaders" who rule us. Also about our
"watchdog" press corps, which had no interest in exposing this person or his operation.
Affirmative action? Ha! 1 year later Clinton signs into law permission for the Attorney
General to traffic in little kids without Judicial oversight;
SEC. 604. ASYLUM REFORM.
(a) Asylum Reform.--Section 208 (8 U.S.C. 1158) is amended to read as follows: ... (D) No
judicial review.--There shall be no judicial review of a determination of the Attorney
General under subparagraph (A)(v). ..." - excerpt from https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-104publ208/html/PLAW-104publ208.htm
Bill Richardson seems to be getting a pass so far on this story. While he has been
identified as being in Epstein's "black book" and receiving a couple of $50,000 campaign
donations from Epstein, what hasn't been mentioned is Richardson's key role as a Clinton
"fixer" and sycophant. Typically, he is identified only as a "former New Mexico
governor."
But prior to being elected governor of New Mexico, he served (if memory is correct) as the
U.S. ambassador to the U.N. under Bill Clinton. It was in this role that he "found" a job for
Monica Lewinsky, when Clinton had to move her out of the White House.
No telling what he did for Clinton before he was rewarded with this plum appointment.
I'm sure if a real investigation ever occurred we would learn that New Mexico leaders were
as "bought off" as the U.S. Virgin Island leaders had to be.
Epstein bought his 7,500 acre "ranch" from a former New Mexico governor. Richardson admits
he visited this place one time (yeah right). The "ranch" has no cattle and has its own air
strip. Hasn't anyone in this state, or this county, investigated what was going on at this
place?
But if Richardson and Clinton are both involved (and they are), we know they were both up
to no good, and we're trying to keep something secret.
" Clinton's college friend A. Paul Prosperi visited Epstein at least 20 times while
he was in the Palm Beach county jail . . ."
Just checking on Epstein's well-being and morale. A true humanitarian. There is no chance
that Mr. Prosperi was acting as a cut-out for the Clinton family. /S
Paul must have visited him at night since Epstein was hardly in his cell during the
daytime due to the allowance of liberal furloughs 6.5 days per week and "business trips" he
was allowed to take that lasted several days.
Virginia Roberts is on the record - in sworn affidavits - of saying she had sex with
Prince Andrew on three occasions. She even mention the places and time frames she was at
these places with Prince Andrew.
Can't reporters or investigators simply see if Prince Andrew was at these places at the
same time she was? Wouldn't this corroborate (or disprove/impeach) her story?
Absolutely not. "Journalists" have no time to check on the Prince Andrew story, or the
allegation that Bill Clinton flew with Epstein 26 times. They are too busy pursuing false
allegations against Trump and putting spin on Mueller's train-wreck testimony from
yesterday.
This story intimates that Bill Clinton and Jeff Epstein knew one another long before
Clinton says they knew one another. And were much closer to one another than we have been led
to believe.
And anyone who spent a lot of time with Epstein knew exactly what commodity/service
Epstein offered.
Even if Clinton never availed himself of the services offered by one of Epstein's girls,
he had to know exactly what business Epstein "trafficked" in. Of course, the notion that
Clinton never "sampled the product" is laughable.
The little voice inside my head , 7 minutes ago
link
The story also opens the door to a vast amount of connections previously unknown, you
could follow the people mentioned in the article and see what became of them and start
building a web... Many posts here are starting to do that. Hopeful
This was some real investigative journalism. All reporters had to do was check White House
records that show who attended what events. This story PROVES Clinton was lying if he indeed
said he didn't know Epstein until after he was out of office. This alone is grounds to
investigate him further. (Things he said in the past have now been proven to be lies -
Investigation 101).
Reporters then showed Clinton's long-time buddy (who ran his political campaign at
Georgetown) was also an associate of Epstein. And this person visited Epstein 20 times (!)
while Epstein was in jail (over a 13-month period).
These CAN'T be coincidences.
Anyway, most of these people will say "no comment" or will refuse to respond to requests
for comments. But this doesn't mean reporters can't find incriminating sources or stories
from other avenues.
For example, Vanity Fair reporters simply interviewed people who worked at the Virgin
Islands airport. They then asked these people: "Did you happen to see a large number of young
girls boarding or getting off Epstein's planes?"
Answer: Yes. Definitely. All the time.
I mean, what are we to make of this?
Why were so many young girls traveling to and from Epstein's island?
"... When scanning the news most days, I see a constant amplification of wedge issues by mass media, blue-check pundits and even many in the so-called alternative media. I see people increasingly being encouraged to demonize and dehumanize their fellow citizens. Anyone who voted for Trump is automatically a Nazi, likewise, anyone who supports Sanders is an anti-American communist. The reality is neither of these things is even remotely true, so why are people so quick to say them? ..."
"... The Epstein case shines a gigantic spotlight on just how twisted and sociopathic the highest echelons of U.S. society have become. This is exactly what happens when you fail to put wealthy and powerful super predators behind bars. They get more brazen, they get more demented and, ultimately, they destroy the very fabric that holds society together. We are in fact ruled by monsters. ..."
Perhaps, at long last, a serial rapist and pedophile may be brought to justice , more than a dozen years after he was first
charged with crimes that have brutalized countless girls and women. But what won't change is this: the cesspool of elites, many
of them in New York, who allowed Jeffrey Epstein to flourish with impunity.
For decades, important, influential, "serious" people attended Epstein's dinner parties, rode his private jet, and furthered
the fiction that he was some kind of genius hedge-fund billionaire. How do we explain why they looked the other way, or flattered
Epstein, even as they must have noticed he was often in the company of a young harem? Easy: They got something in exchange from
him , whether it was a free ride on that airborne "Lolita Express," some other form of monetary largesse, entrée into the extravagant
celebrity soirées he hosted at his townhouse, or, possibly and harrowingly, a pound or two of female flesh.
An honest assessment of the current state of American politics and society in general leaves little room for optimism regarding
the public's ability to accurately diagnose, much less tackle, our fundamental issues at a root level. A primary reason for this
state of affairs boils down to the ease with which the American public is divided against itself and conquered.
Though there are certain issues pretty much everyone can agree on, we simply aren't focusing our collective energy on them or
creating the mass movements necessary to address them. Things such as systemic bipartisan corruption, the institutionalization of
a two-tier justice system in which the wealthy and powerful are above the law, a broken economy that requires both parents to work
and still barely make ends meet, and a military-industrial complex consumed with profits and imperial aggression not national defense.
These are just a few of the many issues that should easily unite us against an entrenched power structure, but it is not happening.
At least not yet.
We currently find ourselves at a unique inflection point in American history. Though I agree with Charles Hugh Smith's assessment
that " Our Ruling
Elites Have No Idea How Much We Want to See Them All in Prison Jumpsuits, " we have yet to reach the point where the general
public is prepared to do something about it. I think there are several reasons for this, but the primary obstacle relates to how
easily the citizenry is divided and conquered. The mass media, largely owned and controlled by billionaires and their corporations,
is highly incentivized to keep the public divided against itself on trivial issues, or at best, on real problems that are merely
symptoms of bipartisan elitist plunder.
The key thing, from a plutocrat's point of view, is to make sure the public never takes a step back and sees the root of society's
problems. It isn't Trump or Obama, and it isn't the Republican or Democratic parties either. These individuals and political gangs
are just useful vehicles for elitist plunder. They help herd the rabble into comfortable little tribal boxes that results in made
for tv squabbling, while the true forces of power carry on with the business of societal pillaging behind the scenes.
You're encouraged to attach your identity to team Republican or team Democrat, but never unite as one voice against a bipartisan
crew of depraved, corrupt and unaccountable power players molding society from the top. While the average person living paycheck
to paycheck fashions themselves part of some biblical fight of good vs. evil by supporting team red or blue, the manipulative and
powerful at the top remain beyond such plebeian theater (though they certainly encourage it). These folks know only one team -- team
green. And their team keeps winning, by the way.
When scanning the news most days, I see a constant amplification of wedge issues by mass media, blue-check pundits and even
many in the so-called alternative media. I see people increasingly being encouraged to demonize and dehumanize their fellow citizens.
Anyone who voted for Trump is automatically a Nazi, likewise, anyone who supports Sanders is an anti-American communist. The reality
is neither of these things is even remotely true, so why are people so quick to say them?
Why is most of the anger in this country being directed at fellow powerless Americans versus upward at the power structure which
nurtured and continues to defend the current depraved status quo? I don't see any upside to actively encouraging one side of the
political discussion to dehumanize the other side, and I suggest we consciously cease engaging in such behavior. Absolutely nothing
good can come from it.
Which is partly why I've been so consumed by the Jeffrey Epstein case. For once, it allows us to focus our energy on the depraved
nature of the so-called American "elite," rather than pick fights with each other. How many random Trump or Sanders supporters do
you know who systematically molest children and then pass them off to their wealthy and powerful friends for purposes of blackmail?
The Epstein case shines a gigantic spotlight on just how twisted and sociopathic the highest echelons of U.S. society have
become. This is exactly what happens when you fail to put wealthy and powerful super predators behind bars. They get more brazen,
they get more demented and, ultimately, they destroy the very fabric that holds society together. We are in fact ruled by monsters.
Unfortunately, by being short-sighted, by fighting amongst ourselves, and by taking the easy route of punching down versus punching
up, we allow such cretins to continue to rape and pillage what remains of our civilization.
If we can truly get to the bottom of exactly what Epstein was up to, I suspect it has the potential to focus the general public
(beyond a few seconds) on the true nature of what's really going on and what makes the world tick. Revelations of such a nature could
provide the proverbial tipping point that's so desperately needed, but this is also why the odds of us actually getting the whole
story is quite low. There's simply too much at stake for those calling the shots.
* * *
Side note: I've been consistently updating my
Epstein twitter thread as I learn new information.
I suggest checking back in from time to time.
Liberty Blitzkrieg is now 100% ad free. As such, there's no monetization for this site other than reader support. To make this
a successful, sustainable thing I ask you to consider the following options. You can become a
Patron . You can visit the
Support Page to donate via PayPal, Bitcoin
or send cash/check in the mail.
If we can truly get to the bottom of exactly what Epstein was up
1. We can't.
2. Epstein was in the business to set up people with kompromat material ...
3. ...and did it for someone else , it appears as he was protected from above for many years.
4. These " elses " won't allow that the support of the Americans to forever fight Israels wars gets shattered.
5. I expect operation diversion & coverup soon. My hunch is that they will pull a 9/11 hoax as a last resort if things get out
of hand fast.
6. They did it in the past, they will do it in the future.
7. Human lives don't matter to them.
Michael Krieger said: "It's sad and mind-boggling how easy it is to divide and conquer the American public. Manipulating the
masses in this country is trivial. The next few years will not be pretty".
Despite all the news of how the elites have manipulated the American public, it still goes on, unabated. Americans, for the
most part, are dumb and fat couch potatoes. They are not going to rise up against their elite masters, because they don't have
the wherewithal to do so. So, the show continues on, and the elites don't seem to have anything to worry about, and do as they
will.
If Americans were truly energetic about reigning in the abuses of the elites, they would have done so back in the 1870's, when
Mark Twain wrote about the Gilded Age Elites. Here it is, 149 years later, and nothing has changed in America today. The elites
still rule, and everyone else is an indentured servant. Of course, there are benefits for the elites to keep the American masses
dumbed down, and letting them lead couch potato life styles. Doing so, keeps them in power.
I suspect it was the CIA or FBI. But the goal was to keep Acosta from investigating Virginia Roberts' claims. If authorities
did this they would have had to investigate Prince Andrew.
If they found her to be truthful, they might even have to arrest Prince Andrew (can you imagine this happening?). Or at least
ask him to testify in a trial.
If the truth came out, this would humiliate the British nation, and Great Britain was (still is) one of America's most important
allies in the "war on terror" and all our other neocon initiatives.
Acosta was essentially told to "back off" Prince Andrew (not necessarily Epstein, who was best buddies with "Andy.")
This doesn't mean Israel intelligence was not involved in some way. It just means that American intelligence was involved,
or wanted to protect key people. Hell, they still do.
We can be almost certain that the exact same thing that happened with Acosta is happening right now. Some prosecutor is being
told to "back off. Don't go here. Focus only on Epstein and Epstein only."
This is why Ghislaine Maxwell has not been charged and will not be charged. This is why the FBI has not raided Pedo Island
or Pedo Ranch. This is why Epstein's four "co-accomplices" have not been charged.
Prosecutors have again been told that "intelligence" is saying that it's okay to do this (charge Epstein with sex crimes),
but NOT okay to do this (investigate and arrest any fellow predators).
It isn't just the elites and we need to stop pretending it is
"Child sex trafficking which is the buying and selling of women, young girls and boys for sex, some as young as 9 years old,
has become big business in America. It is the fastest growing business in organized crime and the second-most-lucrative commodity
traded illegally after drugs and guns.
Adults purchase children for sex at least 2.5 million times a year in the United States.
It's not just young girls who are vulnerable to these predators, either.
According to a 2016 investigative report, "boys make up about 36% of children caught up in the U.S. sex industry (about 60% are
female and less than 5% are transgender males and females)."
Who buys a child for sex?
Otherwise, ordinary men from all walks of life. "They could be your co-worker, doctor, pastor or spouse."
If Epstein was muslin would this be a crime? Of course not it would be part of Muslim Culture. Look into the Abuse done to
young girls in the Rotherham abuse case. BTW I am no sticking up for Epstein but the ruling elites and certain minorities are
treated different from Joe and Jane Public
"The Epstein Case Is A Rare Opportunity To Focus "On The Depraved Nature Of America's Elite"
This IS a "rare opportunity' for Americans to do just this (focus on how deprived our elite leaders really are).
If Americans really started to do this, for an extended period of time, and got, you know, kind of pissed off about this state
of affairs, we might even throw all the bums out. We might really "drain the swamp."
So this is a BIG story. Potentially.
Of course, the Powers that Be are going to do everything they can to make sure Americans do NOT focus on this story for too
long. Or that the "narrative" is controlled. (For example by focusing only on Epstein, not his hundreds of depraved buddies and
corrupt institutions).
I've been posting for 10 days that there are "too many" of these people. And they are too powerful.
Seems to me if authorities went after one of the "johns," they would have to go after ALL of the "Johns." And this includes
Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton, former senators, governors, CEOs, secretaries of the treasury, bankers, etc.
It's the massive numbers of possible offenders that is probably keeping all of these people "safe."
And I still think Prince Andrew is the biggest fish the authorities don't want to humiliate/charge.
Even more so than Clinton. Half the country would throw a party if Clinton was charged. But in the UK, 90 percent of British
citizens would be mortified and greatly embarrassed if one of their Princes was proven to have done all the things that have been
alleged he did.
The degradation of political elites is a universal phenomenon. Of course, first of all it is
noticeable in relation to the Western elites (American, European), but this can also be found
in the post-Soviet space (Georgia, Armenia, Moldova etc). Ukraine is generally a special case
- real freaks and Nazis in power, the speaker of parliament with the mental retardation
certificate, the Attorney General of the country (btw, previously convicted) without a legal
education etc.
So I join and also express my condolences to the people of Great Britain.
The entire world political class and most of the commentariat of the political class
indulges in kayfabe.
"In professional wrestling, kayfabe /ˈkeɪfeɪb/ (also called work or worked)
is the portrayal of staged events within the industry as "real" or "true", specifically the
portrayal of competition, rivalries, and relationships between participants as being genuine
and not of a staged or predetermined nature of any kind. The term kayfabe has evolved to also
become a code word of sorts for maintaining this "reality" within the direct or indirect
presence of the general public.[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayfabe
So, what options do the UK citizenry have until the next general election? IMO, Corbyn
encapsulated it well in his two tweets :
"Boris Johnson has won the support of fewer than 100,000 unrepresentative Conservative
Party members by promising tax cuts for the richest, presenting himself as the bankers'
friend, and pushing for a damaging No Deal Brexit.
"But he hasn't won the support of our country."
And:
"Johnson's No Deal Brexit would mean job cuts, higher prices in the shops, and risk our
NHS being sold off to US corporations in a sweetheart deal with Donald Trump.
"The people of our country should decide who becomes the Prime Minister in a General
Election."
"In this sense Boris Johnson is a throwback to former times – not quite to the 19th
century like his aide-de-camp Jacob Rees-Mogg but at least to the middle of the 20th century.
On the face of it, Harold MacMillan, the then British PM, was a straight-laced, slightly
eccentric upper-class Englishman. That his wife was upstairs in bed, for years, with one of
his parliamentary colleagues Sir Robert Boothby didn't seem to faze him. Or us, but then we
weren't to know about it.
"In deference to the new age, Boris Johnson has skipped the straight-laced bit; he has
cuckolded his colleagues, even leaving cuckoos in their nests, has left a trail of lurid
love-life stories to make a thriller-writer blush, and will likely bed down in Downing Street
on Wednesday night with his 31 year-old girlfriend. But the rest is just the same. Johnson is
(or has fashioned himself) as an upper-class English eccentric and will be hoping the
deference is not dead amongst 21st century Britons.
"To be fair it should be said that Johnson is as colourful as his predecessor Mrs May was
bloodless. He is clever and quick-witted (you get what you pay for at Eton), is well read and
is a good writer too (he should be, he is Britain's most expensive newspaper columnist). Like
his hero Winston Churchill, he believes history will treat him kindly because HE intends to
write it."
George will soon be on RT's InQuestionRT as per his tweet at 5pm
BST.
The Anglo-Zionist have elevated another buffoon to entertain the masses. Trump was just the
tip of the iceberg. It will not be long before President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert
Camacho will soon be leading the global masses.
Didn't I hear something about Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson having presidential
aspirations?
Boris Johnson's ascension to power in UK is just a clown act in a tragic circus. But a
circus nonetheless. A none-story. A nothingburger.
I implore you to stay focused on Jeffery Epstein. That is the real story of our time. One
that could bring down AIPAC/Israel and all of its' spies, the Clintons, Trump, and certain
elements of the deep state once and for all, and free US from the shackles of Zionism.
Do not let this story die by way of side shows like the story above and etc.
"It's a big job to uncover Israeli subversion, but somebody needs to start doing it."
Let it be you. We trust your reporting and I hope you don't take your eyes off the ball.
Forget about BoJo, Russiagate (it is really Israelgate) and Ukraine. Epstein is the story of
the ages. One that could change the realm forever.
It is starting to appear to be very much a contest of buffoons, which country has the more
outrageous buffoon. At this point, it is a close race between the us and the uk but who is to
judge.
The world's "leadership class" really is bereft of any level of competence or standing:
trump, boris, macon, ursula (and remaining eucom and IMF "leaders"), pompeo, bolton, pence,
nitenyahoo,et al. and on and on.
IMHO, Putin, lavrov, shoigu stand out head and shoulders above the aforementioned
"leadership class."
That's because Putin and Xi (and some others) are in fact leaders, making rational
decisions for the benefit of their nations.
Those others are just figureheads - ability is not so important as reliability and
entertainment value.
It'll be interesting to see if BoJo can fake solemnity and diplomacy as convincingly as Trump
can when in the company of other national leaders. I'm confident that Zelenski, being an
actor, will be able to make it look easy.
There's a sort of precedent for this switch to comedy-based leadership.
I half-remember that when Ronnie Raygun offered himself as a candidate for POTUS, he answered
the critics of his lack of experience by asserting that he had played many leadership roles
during his movie career - making him the superior candidate.
And the sheeple bought it!
It seems that this is the dawn of a new "Anything's Possible" era.
Always thought professional wrestling provided a good analogy for our current situation.
Trump and BoJo (and the nations they represent) do indeed represent classic "heels". In
particular the USA is clearly now a "closet champion" or the "term for a heel in possession
of a title belt who consistently dodges top flight competition and attempts to back down from
challenges". What a world we inhabit.
"... The **** smell of all of this is simply overwhelming. He is not just a pedophile. He was and probably still is a Mossad agent whose purpose it was to entrap mainly US politicians and power bookers with the extremely compromising film evidence he was later found to be obtaining from the various elite junkets to his little island. ..."
Just posting this for posterity, as I've seen this information before:
"Bill Clinton was one of the most famous and frequent passengers on Epstein's "Lolita Express" and a guest on his private island.
When Roberts asked Epstein about Clinton's presence on the island, he simply laughed it off, and said, "Well, he owes me a favour."[37]
Epstein also donated money to the Clinton Foundation even after his conviction. In early 2015, a photo emerged showing Ghislaine
Maxwell at the wedding of Chelsea Clinton to Jewish investment banker Marc Mezvinsky in July 2010.
An annotated copy of the address book turned up in court proceedings after Epstein's former house manager Alfredo Rodriguez
tried to sell it in 2009. Rodriguez characterized it as containing the "Holy Grail" or "Golden Nugget" to unraveling Epstein's
child-sex network."[38] The book, which was eventually obtained by the FBI, listed well-known political figures such as Prince
Bandar of Saudi Arabia, Tony Blair, Senator Edward Kennedy, and Henry Kissinger, Ehud Barak, John Kerry, David Rockefeller and
even Donald Trump."
So...Kraft goes down, and there are supposedly even more "interesting" names on the list of those who were serviced by those
toothless asian whores. Could this be part of some unreal blackmail scheme against Trump?? Or is this **** TRUE, and we have a
pedophile in our highest office??
I don't know what the truth is any more. Maybe someone smarter than me can make sense of this ****. I sure can't.
The **** smell of all of this is simply overwhelming. He is not just a pedophile. He was and probably still is a Mossad
agent whose purpose it was to entrap mainly US politicians and power bookers with the extremely compromising film evidence he
was later found to be obtaining from the various elite junkets to his little island.
He and his Israeli handlers simply have too much on too many people for Epstein to really pay for any of his crimes, which
crimes many spy agencies around the world engage in frequently. However, what should really piss Americans off is that Epstein
was doing his dirt mainly against Americans for Israel, and Israel was supposed to be a trusted friend and ally of the US, working
in close concert with US spy agencies and forces in destroying nations like Iraq and Syria and pulling off false flag operations
like 9/11.
"... A court filing in a civil case in Florida last week included new allegations against Jeffrey E. Epstein, a businessman who pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution, and two other high-profile men: a member of the British Royal family and an American lawyer. ..."
"... About the royal: Some of you may argue that if there was an encounter, the Prince may have been unaware of the girl's age. He has people . People who make arrangements for him. One can see how such a fellow might hear the same knock on the door that Neil Bush once heard. Perhaps, upon opening the door, his first reaction was something other than "May I see your ID, Miss?" ..."
"... On Saturday, Mr. Dershowitz said he "categorically and unequivocally" denied all of the allegations. He said he would file disbarment proceedings against the lawyers who filed the motion, Bradley J. Edwards, a lawyer in Florida, and Paul G. Cassell, a former federal judge and a law professor at the University of Utah. ..."
"... The full court filing was published on Mondoweiss a couple of days ago. We learn that the complainant, Jane Doe #3, was 15 years of age, and that she was recruited by an Epstein associate named Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of Robert Maxwell (the late news tycoon and known Mossad asset). The photo to the left shows the Prince with the girl who seems to have been Jane Doe #3. ..."
Underaged sex with Alan Dershowitz and Prince Andrew...and Bill Clinton...? (If the claims are true, Hillary is OVER.)
Wow.
A court filing in a civil case in Florida last week included new allegations against Jeffrey E. Epstein, a businessman
who pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution, and two other high-profile men: a member of the British Royal family and an American
lawyer.
The motion filed in United States District Court in the Southern District of Florida alleges that Mr. Epstein forced a teenage
girl to have sexual relations with several men, including Prince Andrew, Queen Elizabeth's second son, and Alan M. Dershowitz,
a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School. Both men have denied the allegations.
Jeffrey Epstein is not just a businessman. He's a billionaire, and he has already been convicted of soliciting underaged prostitution.
About the royal: Some of you may argue that if there was an encounter, the Prince may have been unaware of the girl's age.
He has people . People who make arrangements for him. One can see how such a fellow might hear the same knock on the door
that Neil Bush once heard. Perhaps, upon opening the door, his first reaction was something other than "May I see your ID, Miss?"
That scenario seems plausible. However, as we shall see, that scenario is not what has been alleged.
We will get to the Prince in a bit. For now, let's focus on Dershowitz.
On Saturday, Mr. Dershowitz said he "categorically and unequivocally" denied all of the allegations. He said he would file
disbarment proceedings against the lawyers who filed the motion, Bradley J. Edwards, a lawyer in Florida, and Paul G. Cassell,
a former federal judge and a law professor at the University of Utah.
"They are lying deliberately, and I will not stop until they're disbarred," Mr. Dershowitz said in a phone interview.
The very predictability of that furious reaction means that no lawyer would have filed such charges against Dershowitz frivolously.
Cassell has an impressive resume. He's not a young go-getter out to make a name for himself.
I understand that there are a lot of women who have made iffy claims against famous people. But this case seems different. Epstein
has already pled guilty. Moreover, Dershowitz was part of Epstein's legal team.
The full court filing was published on
Mondoweiss a couple of days ago. We learn
that the complainant, Jane Doe #3, was 15 years of age, and that she was recruited by an Epstein associate named Ghislaine Maxwell,
daughter of Robert Maxwell (the late news tycoon and known Mossad asset). The photo to the left shows the Prince with the girl who
seems to have been Jane Doe #3. Allegedly, the shot was taken by Epstein. (Note: In what follows, the term NPA refers
to non-prosecution agreement .)
Epstein then became enamored with Jane Doe #3, and with the assistance of Maxwell converted her into what is commonly referred
to as a "sex slave." Epstein kept Jane Doe #3 as his sex slave from about 1999 through 2002, when she managed to escape to a foreign
country and hide out from Epstein and his co-conspirators for years. From 1999 and 2002, Epstein frequently sexually abused Jane
Doe #3, not only in West Palm Beach but also in New York, New Mexico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, in international airspace on Epstein's
private planes, and elsewhere.
Epstein also sexually trafficked the then-minor Jane Doe, making her available for sex to politically-connected and financially-powerful
people. Epstein's purposes in "lending" Jane Doe (along with other young girls) to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself
with them for business, personal, political and financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail information.
One such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with was former Harvard Law
Professor Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein's and well-known defense attorney. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to have sexual
relations with Dershowiz on numerous occasions while she was a minor, not only in Flroida but also on private planes, in New York,
New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition to being a participant in the abuse of Jane Doe #3 and other minors, Dershowitz
was an eye-witness to the sexual abuse of many other minors by Epstein and several of Epstein's co-conspirators. Dershowitz would
later play a significant role in negotiating the NPA on Esptein's behalf. Indeed, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement that
provided immunity from federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida not only to Epstein, but also to "any potential
co-conspirators of Epstein." NPA at 5. Thus, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement with a provision that provided protection
for himself against criminal prosecution in Florida for sexually abusing Jane Doe #3. Because this broad immunity would have been
controversial if disclosed, Dershowitz (along with other memebers of Epstein's defense team) and the Government tried to keep
the immunity provision secret from all of Epstein's victims and the general public, even though such secrecy violated the Crime
Victims' Rights Act.
There's a third named participant in these doings, one Jean Luc Brunel, a close Epstein friend and a scout for various modelling
agencies.
He would bring young girls (ranging from ages as young as twelve) to the United States for sexual purposes and farm them out to
his friends, especially Epstein. Brunel would offer the girls "modeling" jobs. Many of the girls came from poor countries or impoverished
backgrounds, and he lured them in with a promise of making good money.
The Government was well aware of Jane Doe #3 when it was negotiating the NPA, as it listed her as a victim in the attachment to
the NPA. Moreover, even a rudimentary investigation of Jane Doe #3's relationship with Epstein would have revealed the fact that
she had been trafficked throughout the United States and internationally for sexual purposes. Nonetheless, the Government secretly
negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein precluding any Federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida of
Epstein and his co-conspirators. As with Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, the Government concealed the non-prosecution agreement from
Jane Doe #3 -- all in violation of her rights under the CVRA -- to avoid Jane Doe #3 from raising powerful objections to the NPA
that would have shed tremendous light on Epstein and other powerful individuals that would likely have prevented it from being
conlcuded in the secretive manner in which it was.
The document also mentions a Jane Doe #4, an impoverished sixteen year old who was told that she could make $300 by giving a "massage"
to an old man in Palm Beach.
This matter seems very serious. We have too many details, too many corroborating witnesses (in the form of four Jane Does). We
have a photo. We have reports of the existence of many, many more photos. The hugger-mugger involving the NPA seems downright ghastly
-- yet all too credible.
Frankly, I would not rule out the possibility that Epstein was working for an intelligence agency -- either Mossad or one of our
own. The Maxwell connection points to Mossad.
This whole business has "honeytrap" written all over it.
The Clinton connection.
The
Daily Mail discloses that one of Epstein's, er, protegees was a woman named Johanna Sjoberg. Since the story links her to Prince
Andrew, it is tempting suppose that she is the aforementioned Jane Doe #3. However, British newspapers have named another young woman,
Virginia Roberts.
Miss Sjoberg worked for Epstein for four years, often massaging him as he lay on a couch in his giant bathroom making phone calls
to friends such as Bill Clinton and Cate Blanchett.
He kept a little black book, containing the numbers of all his masseuses by a phone in the bathroom, she said. She left after
he started becoming 'more aggressive' in his demands that she 'do sexual things to him'.
She said she was aware that the girls recruited by Epstein and his acolytes were not paid just for massages but for 'sexual
favours'.
Virginia Roberts revealed that as a 17-year-old 'erotic masseuse', she was flown by Epstein to London to meet Prince Andrew,
Miss Sjoberg said: 'I'm not surprised he was sending girls abroad. I just did not think they were so young.'
The Prince strongly denies any claim of impropriety, of course.
What about Epstein and Clinton? Obviously, there is nothing wrong in taking a man's phone call, even a call from someone like
Epstein. However...
Bill Clinton was also named dozens of times in lawsuits against Epstein and was alleged to have flown on his private jet more
than 10 times.
Flight logs in lawsuits detailed that between 2002 and 2005 the former US President traveled around the world courtesy of his
friend and stopped at Epstein's Caribbean island Little St James where young girls were supposedly kept as sex slaves.
Clinton was deemed to be so close to Epstein that he was nearly deposed during the investigation into his paedophilia.
Before he was jailed Epstein's other acquaintances are said to have been former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak; former New
Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson; and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers.
Let's make the obvious point. If there is any evidence of wrongdoing against Bill Clinton, then Hillary's chances at the nomination
are over . A candidacy can withstand many things, but a statutory rape scandal involving one's spouse? No.
Over the years, the casually-dressed, globe-trotting financier, who was said to log more than 600 flying hours a year, has been
linked with Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker and Manhattan-London society figure Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the late
media titan Robert Maxwell.
Epstein reportedly flew Tucker and Spacey to Africa on his private jet as part of a charitable endeavour. Clinton, meanwhile,
flew on multiple occasions in the same plane to Epstein's private Caribbean island, Little St James, between 2002 and 2005 as
he developed his philanthropic post-presidential career. It would later be alleged in court that Epstein organised orgies on that
same private island in the US Virgin Islands.
Reports in the US media say many of the A-list names broke off any links with the former maths teacher after his arrest and conviction
in 2008 of having sex with an underage girl whom he had solicited. His arrest followed an 11-month undercover investigation at
a mansion in Florida's Palm Beach that Epstein owned.
In 2008, he pleaded guilty to a single charge of soliciting prostitution and was handed a 18-month jail sentence. He served
13 months in jail and was obliged to register as a sex offender. A 2011 report in the New York Post said that he celebrated his
release from jail and his return to a property he maintains in New York – a 45,000-sq-foot eight-storey mansion on East 71st Street
– with Prince Andrew.
The story goes on to give much useful information about Epstein's business dealings.
The financier, who was jailed for 18 months in 2008 after pleading guilty to solicitation for prostitution, kept a sickening stash
of images on a computer seized at his Palm Beach mansion in 2006.
The six-year-old papers, seen by the Sunday People, state: "Some of the photographs in the defendant's possession were taken
with hidden cameras set up in [Epstein's] home in Palm Beach.
"On the Day of his arrest, police found two hidden cameras and photographs of underage girls on a computer in the defendant's
home.
"[He] may have taken lewd photographs of Jane Doe 102 with his hidden cameras and transported [them] to his other residences
and elsewhere."
Court papers also allege that Maxwell presented nude pictures of her she had taken herself to Epstein as a birthday present.
They add that Roberts' claims that she was forced to tell Epstein all about her sexual encounters so he could use the information
to "blackmail" the royal.
She further claims she was sex-trafficked to "many other powerful men, including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful
business executives, foreign presidents, a well known Prime Minister, and other world leaders".
And now let's play our game: Who was that Prime Minister?
To- neeeeee...! If that's you, you're gonna have to say so many rosaries that even the Virgin Mary will get sick of hearing
your voice.
This scandal places our right-wing media in a bind. Obviously, the right-wingers will want to leap on anything that dirties the
Clinton name. On the other hand, anything that reeks of Mossad involvement is untouchable.
Trump attacked Hillary during 2016 elections campaign using change of Bill connection with Epstein. This was too dangerous move
if he himself was implicated.
Notable quotes:
"... Why would intelligence services want to make an intelligence op out of someone so sleasy and easily compromised? ..."
"... The wealthy class has defeated the poor class. What we are seeing now is a civil war in the wealthy class. The Epstein business is just one of the skirmishes in that civil war. ..."
"... Trump is fighting for his life and money. Lose the next election and spend the rest of both fighting imprisonment. What makes me think its time to remind people that the office of POTUS has teeth? ..."
"... "I was told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence' and to leave it alone," ..."
"... does not say he "worked for intelligence". It might just mean that "intelligence" made the deal with him in return for information and that they then estimated the fall out and cleaned up (ie took people that could be blackmailed out of sensitive positions). ..."
"... But as to the "why now" of Epstein, surely it is 2020. As for Barr being a CIA kid, that does give some pause, except he is working for Trump, and so presumably he is playing his part in the 2020 event. ..."
"... From what I have read and heard, Trump is not tainted by the Epstein story. The attempts of those on the left or whatever (I can't even call it the left anymore) to associate Trump with the Epstein story are very belabored. "Grabbing pussy" of adult women who cluster around is not the same as recruiting young girls and teenagers and running sex camps for grown-up boys such as Randy Andy, RAndy Bill, and other Randy boys. ..."
"... AFAIK Trump did not ride the Lolita Express. The rumors about raping a 13-year-old in Epstein's apartment will have to become more than rumor to harm Trump, no matter how much the left pushes an Epstein = Trump narrative. ..."
"... As they pushed the Weinstein = Trump narrative. I.e., whenever you see Weinstein's name, think "Trump." But I don't think that really worked except with the very ones who were pushing that equation in the first place. In other words, auto-suggestion. ..."
"... "...every good gamblers knows to hedge their bets. ..."
"... Defense Department computers are among the top distributors of child pornography. An untold number of Department of Defense (DOD) employees and contractors have subscriptions to child pornography websites, and the problem is apparently so pervasive it requires new technical solutions to address it. ..."
"... "Hundreds of DoD-affiliated individuals" were recently identified as suspects in child pornography cases, according to an investigation by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service. ..."
"... Last year, an investigation by the National Criminal Justice Training Program found DOD computers were among the top networks nationwide for peer-to-peer sharing of pornographic images of minors. DOD's network ranked 19th out of 2,891 computer networks studied. ..."
"... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNue92Gta3s 2014 Aerial drone video of Little St. James. The island is owned privately by Jeffrey Epstein and is located southeast of St. Thomas, United States Virgin Islands. ..."
Interesting post in that it raises many of the key issues and how they may fit together.
Generally agrees with my initial (or maybe secondary) impression that this is result of Trump triggering backmail clause by
failing to act as required by those running the show.
But, I have I think a better theory more fits the situation. Acosta (the human "sh*t-grenade) was hired because he knew stuff
and knew people who knew stuff. Trump was being blackmailed with Epstein affair - dems/cia/etc... It almost work, he almost attacked
Iran, was led to believe it could be done in a way that would not lead to war - likely by you-know-who.
He balked and called their "bluff". They were not bluffing. Problem for them is that Trump can maybe weather the sh*t-storm
they can bring - comey/brennan/clapper/et al... For now, I am inclined to side with Trump.
I don't know why but in spite of his lack of polish, he's brought some crude and interesting results.
Epstein was just a young "dirty old man". Trump is innocent - can anybody point to any incident where Trump committed a real felony,
not some breach of landlord regulations, For all the accusations of him being the capo di tutti capi, nothing has really stuck,
so he gives the impression of being a criminal but really isn't but it's good theatre. So my guess is that Trump told Barr to
go to it and bring Epstein in and bang him up for life. Reasons:
Trump was getting bored with Acosta
Epstein may drag down others - the Clintons being prime candiadates
This is a poke in the eye for Obama
Trump looks good when Epstein does the time he deserves
Meanwhile the anti-#resistance investigations role on and implicate Hillary for making false statements and Obama for trying
to fix the 2016 election.
Trump'll romp home in 2020. If Adelson, etc. tries to push another Republican candidate, Trump'll run as an independent and probably
still win. Trump now has his main "problems" by the balls.
'Appalled' does not suffice any longer. All this shit is more than a mentally healthy Human Being can bear - and in that fact
lies also a motive to bombard the population 24/7 with shit like that. Therefore it appears that this, too is part of an orchestrated
effort to rile up people against each other and destroy whatever peace still exists.
You could call it 'distraction' from insurmountable problems created by this specific sub-species of Homo Sapiens. But I am
not commenting about that.
I am as pissed as a decent person can get without losing its temper. But I am utterly disgusted that this childfucker Epstein
has soiled the name of one of my favorite Human Beings in history:
Brian Epstein - the one person that gave Humanity The Beatles.
I can not emphasize enough how effed up this is. There must be a court order to rename him into Jeffrey Childfucker, in order
to protect the name of one of the greatest music managers ever.
But I do concede to the fact, that this kind of damage might as well limited to people who know who The Beatles were.
The wealthy class has defeated the poor class. What we are seeing now is a civil war in the wealthy class. The Epstein business
is just one of the skirmishes in that civil war.
Today's CJR media feed focuses on Acosta and the 2007 plea deal without mentioning either Bush or Obama. Focus is still on Trump.
Of course Acosta is now a member of the Trump administration. But Trump was not in charge with this particular POS went down.
Trump is fighting for his life and money. Lose the next election and spend the rest of both fighting imprisonment. What makes
me think its time to remind people that the office of POTUS has teeth?
"I was told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence' and to leave it alone,"
does not say he "worked for intelligence". It might just mean that "intelligence" made the deal with him in return for
information and that they then estimated the fall out and cleaned up (ie took people that could be blackmailed out of sensitive
positions).
They don't care about the fall out any longer, so this now is allowed to blow up.
"The left is going wild thinking that this will "get Trump" but quite the opposite is happening. . .
Now this story will run into 2020 largely damaging democrats into the 2020 election. Trump's DOJ is running the operation."
That is my perception, although I am not a qualified observer.
But as to the "why now" of Epstein, surely it is 2020. As for Barr being a CIA kid, that does give some pause, except he
is working for Trump, and so presumably he is playing his part in the 2020 event.
From what I have read and heard, Trump is not tainted by the Epstein story. The attempts of those on the left or whatever
(I can't even call it the left anymore) to associate Trump with the Epstein story are very belabored. "Grabbing pussy" of adult
women who cluster around is not the same as recruiting young girls and teenagers and running sex camps for grown-up boys such
as Randy Andy, RAndy Bill, and other Randy boys.
To me the big question is why Dersh was part of the FOIA action to unseal the docs. If just appearing in a photo with Epstein
is enough for "the left" to try to hang Trump, the Dersh is in a lot more image trouble, with him name on the plane manifest.
Is Trump's name on the plane log? I don't think so. So, imagewise Dersh is going to take a big hit. And, by defending Trump
last summer as he did, he has now associated himself with both Trump and Epstein. Trump comes out clean. Dersh comes out Derty.
PS. Why is so much blacked out on the plane logs that have been published?
the Macow sounds "about right" to me, but only "about." I can very well imagine that Dersh is taking orders from the JSP, but
if he rode the Lolita Expres, he is in trouble.
AFAIK Trump did not ride the Lolita Express. The rumors about raping a 13-year-old in Epstein's apartment will have to
become more than rumor to harm Trump, no matter how much the left pushes an Epstein = Trump narrative.
As they pushed the Weinstein = Trump narrative. I.e., whenever you see Weinstein's name, think "Trump." But I don't think
that really worked except with the very ones who were pushing that equation in the first place. In other words, auto-suggestion.
O @110 sez: "...every good gamblers knows to hedge their bets.
You bet equally on both wrestlers in the ring? You don't make much profit that way. Much better to arrange who wins ahead of
time with the competitors and the referee and then just bet on the one everyone agrees to make the winner.
Sure, Trump was in on the fix, so even if he won the power elites still win, but that is true for all of the other contestants
in the primaries as well, with the possible exception of Sanders. The problem is that the power elites have very specific plans,
and those plans depended upon their tool in the White House being Clinton, not Trump. It isn't that Trump would be their enemy
or anything silly like that, but rather that a Trump victory would not resonate; would not synergize with the megatrends they
were manufacturing within the population.
On the contrary, the Trump victory introduced a societal forcing function that is 180° out of sync with the larger narrative
the power elites were trying to create. Trump was chosen to be the loser in the 2016 elections because his defeat would have had
the opposite effect, damping trends in society that the power elites wanted quashed and reinforcing the ones that they wanted
amplified. Hundreds of $billions in entertainment-base narrative generation that have been fed to the public since 2016, and had
been in the production pipeline from years prior, were supposed to be reflected in the real world by the victory of the first
woman president. Instead that media is being fed to the public while the top office in the world is occupied by an unrepentant
pussy grabber. The messaging is diametrically opposed and interferes with itself rather than reinforcing itself.
Sure, Trump is still the tool of the power elites, but he is not the tool they were planning on.
"I am trying to link Wexner with the Bronfman's (Seagrams Liquor Family) via a source other than the Mega Group (which may
not be credible, IDK)."
The existence of the Mega Group was revealed in the Wall Street Journal in 1998 under the headline 'Titans of Industry Join
Forces To Work for Jewish Philanthropy'. According to the Journal , it was founded in 1991 by Wexler and Charles Bronfman.
Membership included Edgar Bronfman, the chairman of the World Jewish Congress, Charles Bronfman, Edgar's brother and a top
executive of the family's flagship Seagrams Corp.; Leslie Wexler of Limited, Inc.; Charles Schusterman, chairman of Samson Investment
Co. of Tulsa, Oklahoma; Harvey "Bud" Meyerhoff, Baltimore real estate magnate; Laurence Tisch, chairman of Loews Corp.; Max Fisher,
the Detroit oil magnate and Republican Party powerhouse; bagel magnate Max Lender; Leonard Abramson, the founder of U.S. Healthcare;
and hedge-fund manager Michael Steinhardt.
One of its so-called 'philanthropic' projects entitled "Wexner Analysis: Israeli Communication Priorities 2003," was leaked
to Electronic Intifada.
"...when they met in the Edgar Bronfman mansion in Manhattan. The head of the World Jewish Congress hosted a meeting of
the fifty richest and most powerful Jews of the US and Canada. There was no press coverage, no limelight, just a few lines
in the newspapers. The gathered multibillionaires discussed the ways to achieve Jewish unity, and strengthen the Jewish identity
of American Jews, tersely reported Shlomo Shamir for Haaretz. They also agreed to launch a PR program under the Orwellian codename
of 'Truth' with the purpose of influencing American public opinion regarding Israeli policies.
The megabucks call themselves 'Mega group'. This name appeared in the media a couple of years ago, as a name for the secret
Israeli mole in the upper reaches of the US establishment. It came up in an overheard phone conversation, later denied by the
Israeli embassy in Washington, DC. The newshounds and spook watchers got it wrong. 'Mega' was not an agent, Mega was the boss."
Defense Department Computer Network Among Top Sharers of Child Pornography
Defense Department computers are among the top distributors of child pornography. An untold number of Department of Defense
(DOD) employees and contractors have subscriptions to child pornography websites, and the problem is apparently so pervasive it
requires new technical solutions to address it.
"Hundreds of DoD-affiliated individuals" were recently identified as suspects in child pornography cases, according to
an investigation by the Defense Criminal Investigative Service.
So far, authorities have only looked into about 20 percent of these cases. But already, they've found "several" individuals
"using their government devices to download or share said pornographic material."
Last year, an investigation by the National Criminal Justice Training Program found DOD computers were among the top networks
nationwide for peer-to-peer sharing of pornographic images of minors. DOD's network ranked 19th out of 2,891 computer networks
studied.
To prevent such widespread abuse going forward, the "End National Defense Network Abuse Act" would "crack down on this activity
by upgrading the training and technical capacity of military criminal investigative organizations to confront the misuse of DoD
computers, facilities, and equipment," according to a press release. It would also arrange for DOD authorities to work more closely
with civilian law enforcement on these cases.
"The notion that the Department of Defense's network and Pentagon-issued computers may be used to view, create, or circulate
such horrifying images is a shameful disgrace, and one we must fight head on," said Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D -- Va.), who co-sponsored
the bill with Rep. Mark Meadows (R -- N.C.).
A companion bill in the senate has been introduced by Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R -- Alaska) and Brian Schatz (D -- Hawaii).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNue92Gta3s
2014 Aerial drone video of Little St. James. The island is owned privately by Jeffrey Epstein and is located southeast of St.
Thomas, United States Virgin Islands.
"... If you haven't heard of him, Epstein's the super-sleazy Palm Beach billionaire who was busted some time back and convicted for conspiring to bring underage foreign girls to his estates in the United States and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Or as his 2008 plea deal put it, to "knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage in prostitution." ..."
"... I've previously written about Epstein's ties to Bill Clinton and to Donald Trump . Neither Clinton nor Trump look come out of it looking good, to put it mildly, but in this case Clinton looks a lot worse. ..."
"... "Flight logs show Bill Clinton traveled at least 10 times on Epstein's private jet, dubbed the 'Lolita Express,' by tabloids, and he is widely reported to have visited Little St. James, Epstein's private island in the US Virgin Islands," I've previously written. "That's where, according to attorneys for Epstein's victims, many of the worst crimes against minors were committed by Epstein and friends who traveled there with him." ..."
"... In a 2011 interview with her attorneys, Virginia Roberts, one of the teenagers preyed upon by Epstein, said he had told her he had "compromising" information on Bill Clinton and that the former president "owes me a favor." ..."
"... Oh yeah, and by the way Epstein donated to the Clinton Foundation and multiple Democratic Party causes before and after being convicted for pedophilia. ..."
"... Federal and state investigators amassed a mountain of evidence against Epstein, but in the end Black and his other attorneys were able to draft and negotiate a bizarre plea deal. The terms of the agreement, which was secret at the time, capped damages against Epstein - reportedly worth about $2 billion - to between $50,000 and $150,000, depending on what year he had abused the girl, an attorney with direct knowledge of the case told me. ..."
"... So why write about Epstein now? First, as just noted, this creep got off easy. Second, Page Six recently spotted Epstein on the Upper East Side with young Russian "playmates." ..."
"... He said that Karin had two departments, one that was legal and sent girls to New York and elsewhere, and an illegal side that recruited underage girls for Epstein and other global clients. "They lured young girls [to Orgy Island], mostly from small towns in Brazil and Eastern Europe – with the promise of a fat modeling contract," this person said. "They told them they'd go to the island and meet the head of the modeling agency. Instead, they were coerced into pleasuring Epstein, Brunel and their guests." ..."
"... This source said Epstein's entire sex procurement operation was laid out to him by a former Karin bookkeeper, a Cuban-American woman who worked for the modeling agency's Miami office during the relevant period. ..."
Before heading out for the weekend, let's discuss Jeffrey Epstein, America's best connected political pedophile, shall we?
If you haven't heard of him, Epstein's the super-sleazy Palm Beach billionaire who was busted some time back and convicted for
conspiring to bring underage foreign girls to his estates in the United States and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Or as his 2008 plea deal
put it, to "knowingly and willfully conspiring with others known and unknown to persuade, induce, or entice minor females to engage
in prostitution."
I've previously written about Epstein's ties to
Bill Clinton and to
Donald Trump . Neither Clinton nor Trump look come out of it looking good, to put it mildly, but in this case Clinton looks a
lot worse.
"Flight logs show Bill Clinton traveled at least 10 times on Epstein's private jet, dubbed the 'Lolita Express,' by tabloids,
and he is widely reported to have visited Little St. James, Epstein's private island in the US Virgin Islands," I've previously written.
"That's where, according to attorneys for Epstein's victims, many of the worst crimes against minors were committed by Epstein and
friends who traveled there with him."
In a 2011 interview with her attorneys, Virginia Roberts, one of the teenagers preyed upon by Epstein, said he had told her he
had "compromising" information on Bill Clinton and that the former president "owes me a favor."
Oh yeah, and by the way Epstein donated to the Clinton Foundation and multiple Democratic Party causes before and after being
convicted for pedophilia.
Lately, however, the party has reportedly shunned Epstein. Indeed, he's so toxic,
recently released emails show , that Team Obama rejected the idea of having Epstein's chief attorney, Roy Black, host a fundraiser.
Black, by the way, is perhaps best known for winning an acquittal for William Kennedy Smith for allegedly raping a Palm Beach teenager.
Following that trial Black married a juror in the case.
Federal and state investigators amassed a mountain of evidence against Epstein, but in the end Black and his other attorneys were
able to draft and negotiate a bizarre plea deal. The terms of the agreement, which was secret at the time, capped damages against
Epstein - reportedly worth about $2 billion - to between $50,000 and $150,000, depending on what year he had abused the girl, an
attorney with direct knowledge of the case told me.
The agreement also barred victims from seeking any future financial redress. Roberts and a number of other "Jane Does" - Epstein's
underage victims- are currently suing to overturn the settlement. A number of attorneys with ties to the Obama administration were
involved in negotiating the deal, which was highly criticized and never publicly explained. (The astonishing story of the "sweetheart"
plea deal is laid out in
this article in the Palm Beach Daily News.)
Third, James Patterson, the best-selling writer, is
authoring a book about Epstein
that's coming out in October. It's a great time to pile on.
Fourth, I've been looking into the Epstein affair for over a year. I've interviewed dozens of sources in Florida, including several
of the Miami-area lawyers for the Jane Does, and have a lot of material in my files.
Interviews with key sources, documents and previously published accounts show that Epstein's closest friends and collaborators
included Ghislaine Maxwell, the daughter of disgraced British newspaper tycoon Robert Maxwell, and Frenchman Jean-Luc Brunel. The
latter ran a modeling agency called Karin, which is based in Paris but also has offices in New York, Miami, and Brazil.
Brunel, whose role in the Epstein case has been covered by Jezebel and others,
has a long and sordid record of abusing and pimping out young women. Back in 1988, 60 Minutes aired a segment that featured a dozen
models who said they had been sexually assaulted by Brunel.
Craig Pyes, an associate producer and chief investigator of the segment, said various witnesses told him that Brunel was "heavily
into cocaine and sex with young girls," and that he set-up parties for "his rich playboy friends" and invited girls to weekend parties
that "operated as meat markets for older men." Several models told 60 Minutes they had been drugged and raped by Brunel or his friends.
What's especially outrageous, attorneys tell me, is that neither Brunel nor Maxwell ever testified in Epstein's case. Both fled
the United States on the eve of their respective depositions with the flimsiest of excuses. (Page Six
recently reported
that Maxwell was finally going to be forced to testify in the ongoing Jane Doe trial, but I haven't been able to confirm that.)
Brunel lined up underage girls for Epstein's Virgin Islands hideaway through his modeling agency, several of the victims' attorneys
I interviewed said. A private investigator involved in the case backed those accounts.
He said that Karin had two departments, one that was legal and sent girls to New York and elsewhere, and an illegal side that
recruited underage girls for Epstein and other global clients. "They lured young girls [to Orgy Island], mostly from small towns
in Brazil and Eastern Europe – with the promise of a fat modeling contract," this person said. "They told them they'd go to the island
and meet the head of the modeling agency. Instead, they were coerced into pleasuring Epstein, Brunel and their guests."
This source said Epstein's entire sex procurement operation was laid out to him by a former Karin bookkeeper, a Cuban-American
woman who worked for the modeling agency's Miami office during the relevant period.
I've unsuccessfully tried to track this woman down. Anyone with information please email me at
[email protected].
I've reached out to Epstein, Brunel, Maxwell and Black on various occasions and never heard back from any of them.
Steve Pieczenik additional video on "Lolita express" HRottenC enabled/participated in pedophilia as well, more intel leaks to
come from US gov. insiders:
"... A blockbuster book detailing the exploits of the infamous billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein hits shelves on Monday. Sources close to the 63-year-old Brooklyn native have advised him to be "unreachable and out of the country" this weekend when the preliminary media blitz gets underway. ..."
"... Epstein is far deeper scum than a mere pedophile, while the Koch bros and Pence may have a truly fundamentalist moral streak. The period of time between now and the election could be very dangerous for Epstein. ..."
Lolita Express Monday - just another tequila sunrise:
A blockbuster book detailing the exploits of the infamous billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein hits shelves on Monday.
Sources close to the 63-year-old Brooklyn native have advised him to be "unreachable and out of the country" this weekend when
the preliminary media blitz gets underway.
"Filthy Rich," a collaborative effort between best-selling author James Patterson and investigator John Connolly, is set to
reopen old wounds for Epstein, who served 13 months in prison following a 2008 conviction for soliciting prostitution from a teenage
girl.
Epstein has reportedly settled numerous similar cases out of court. The blockbuster book is also expected to further embarrass
celebs who once partied with Epstein.
An absolutely remarkable aspect of this "news" article is that while it mentions Trump as a celebrity who partied with Epstein,
the name "Bill Clinton" is entirely missing. That's despite documentary proof that "Bill" took 21 flights on the Lolita Express.
Just another MSM advertorial for Hyena Rodent Clinton.
Hey Jim, I've got a comment in moderation that touches on this. Specific to Epstein, I'll say the Koch brothers are as close
to the White House as they will ever get, and that Epstein was adamant about getting evidence about the people he serviced.
Epstein is far deeper scum than a mere pedophile, while the Koch bros and Pence may have a truly fundamentalist moral streak.
The period of time between now and the election could be very dangerous for Epstein.
Now that the Politics of Personal Destruction are in full play, certain parties had better hope that Epstein's settlements,
compelling his victims to silence in exchange for hush money, hold up.
After all, if one of them has already spent all her settlement money, she's effectively judgment proof in case she tells her
story in violation of the settlement.
As ol' Saddam Hussein used to say, " Anything is possible now, my brothers. "
Epstein issue and his connection to Clinton mafia was raised by press in 2016 but went nowhere.
The fact that Trump campaign targeted Clinton for his connection with Epstein means that Trump is probably was not involved as a client of
Epstein brothel with underage prostitutes for high ranking politicians .
Notable quotes:
"... Now Bill Clinton is back in the press and not for his controversial relationship with Monica Lewinsky, but rather his friendship with Epstein. In fact, flight records indicate that Bill would frequent the island paradise during the 2002 and 2005 era while Hillary, Bill's wife, was a Senator in New York. ..."
"... The woman went on to say how orgies were a regular occurrence and that she recalled two young girls from New York who were always seen around the five-house compound but their personal back-stories were never revealed. ..."
"... Moreover, Epstein was invited to Chelsea Clinton's wedding in 2010 amongst 400 other guests, demonstrating his close friendship with the Clinton family. ..."
"... To top it all off blue blood, "Prince Andrew was allegedly one of the house's visitors. On Friday, the Duke of York was named in a federal lawsuit filed against Epstein, whom the FBI once reportedly linked to 40 young women. Filed in 2008 in the Southern District of Florida, the $50 million lawsuit claimed Epstein had a "sexual preference and obsession for underage minor girls gained access to primarily economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home and sexually assaulted these girls,"reported the Washington Post. ..."
Back in 2005 police conducted an 11 month-long undercover investigation into Epstein and his estate after the mother of a 14-year-old
girl went to police after suspecting her daughter was paid $300 for at least one sexual act on the island in which she was ordered
to strip, leaving on just her panties, while giving Epstein a massage.
Although police found tons of photos of young women on the island and even interviewed eyewitnesses, Epstein was hit with a mere
slap on the wrist after "pleading to a single charge of prostitution". Epstein later served 13-months of his 18-month service in
jail.
In 2008, Epstein was hit again, this time with a $50 million civil suit after another victim filed in federal court claiming that
she was "recruited" by Epstein to give him a "massage" but was essentially forced into having sexual intercourse with him for $200
which was payable upon completion. The women were coming out of the woodwork.
Now Bill Clinton is back in the press and not for his controversial relationship with Monica Lewinsky, but rather his friendship
with Epstein. In fact, flight records indicate that Bill would frequent the island paradise during the 2002 and 2005 era while Hillary,
Bill's wife, was a Senator in New York.
'I remember asking Jeffrey what's Bill Clinton doing here kind of thing, and he laughed it off and said well he owes me a favor,'
one unidentified woman said in the lawsuit, which was filed in Palm Beach Circuit Court.
The woman went on to say how orgies were a regular occurrence and that she recalled two young girls from New York who were
always seen around the five-house compound but their personal back-stories were never revealed.
"At least one woman on the compound was there unwillingly," reported the Daily Mail in a recent article. The woman was allegedly
forced to have sex with "politicians, businessmen, royalty, academicians" at the retreat. Just one of "more than 40 women" that have
come forth with claims against Epstein, showing the vast scale of the man's dark operations, which aren't limited only to Little
St. James.
Moreover, Epstein was invited to Chelsea Clinton's wedding in 2010 amongst 400 other guests, demonstrating his close friendship
with the Clinton family.
To top it all off blue blood, "Prince Andrew was allegedly one of the house's visitors. On Friday, the Duke of York was named
in a federal lawsuit filed against Epstein, whom the FBI once reportedly linked to 40 young women. Filed in 2008 in the Southern
District of Florida, the $50 million lawsuit claimed Epstein had a "sexual preference and obsession for underage minor girls gained
access to primarily economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home and sexually assaulted these girls,"reported the Washington
Post.
"... "I wanted to tell you that I have compiled a list of 34 confirmed minors," Villafana wrote to Lefkowitz. "There are six others,
whose name [sic] we already have, who need to be interviewed by the FBI to confirm whether they were 17 or 18 at the time of their activity
with Mr. Epstein." ..."
"... Epstein agreed to a 30-month sentence, including 18 months of jail time and 12 months of house arrest and the agreement to
pay dozens of young girls under a federal statute providing for compensation to victims of child sexual abuse. .the U.S. Attorney's
Office promised not to pursue any federal charges against Epstein or his Named and Un-Named co-conspirators. ..."
"... His legal team? Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Ken Starr, and Alan Dershowitz. ..."
"... The federal non-prosecution agreement Epstein's legal team negotiated immunized all named and unnamed potential co-conspirators
in Epstein's child trafficking network, which includes those who allegedly procured minors for Epstein and any powerbrokers who may
have molested them." ..."
LOLITA EXPRESS...ORGY ISLAND...ELITE PEDOPHILE RING ?-2006
* George W Bush President: January 20, 2001 – Jan. 20, 2009
* Alberto R. Gonzales, Attorney General USA: Feb. 3, 2005–Sept. 17, 2007
* Michael Bernard Mukasey, AG. USA: Nov. 9, 2007 – Jan. 20, 2009
* Eric Holder, A G. USA: Feb. 3, 2009 – April 27, 2015
* Loretta Lynch, Attorney General USA: April 27, 2015 – Present
* Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafana
* Epstein's Attorneys: Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz.
+ "He (Epstein) is an enthusiastic member of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations."
+ Bill Clinton...26 trips aboard the "Lolita Express"
Jeffrey Epstein's Boeing 727 is equipped with the necessary hardware for him to wake up, roll out of bed, and start trading.
+ Clinton shared more than a dozen flights with a woman who federal prosecutors believe procured underage girls to sexually
service Epstein and his friends and acted as a "potential co-conspirator" in his crimes.
+ Socialite Ghislaine Maxwell and Epstein's former assistant Sarah Kellen -- have been repeatedly accused in court filings
of acting as pimps. Oxford-educated Maxwell, recently seen dining with Clinton at Nello's on Madison Avenue. Manhattan-London
G. Maxwell, daughter of the mysteriously deceased media titan Robert Maxwell.
+ A new lawsuit has revealed how Clinton took multiple trips to Epstein's private island where he 'kept young women as sex
slaves'
+ Clinton was also apparently friends with a woman who collected naked pictures of underage girls for Epstein to choose from
+ Clinton invited her (pimp) to Chelsea's wedding
+ According to former child sex slave Virginia Roberts and a class action lawsuit against convicted billionaire pedophile Jeffrey
Epstein, former President Bill Clinton was present during sex parties involving up to twenty underage girls at Epstein's secluded
island in the Caribbean.
+ 20 girls between the ages of 14 and 17 said were sexually abused by Epstein, Palm Beach Police and FBI
+ 35 female minors sexually abused, Epstein settled lawsuits from more than 30 "Jane Doe" victims since 2008; the youngest
alleged victim was 12 years old at the time of her abuse.
..............................Source: FBI & Federal Prosecutors
+ flights on Epstein's planes 1997 to 2005, include Dershowitz (FOX NEWS, Harvard Law), former Treasury Secretary and Harvard
president Larry Summers, Naomi Campbell, and scientist Stephen Pinker.
+ In the most recent court documents, filed on December 30, Roberts further claims she was sex-trafficked to "many other powerful
men, including numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known Prime Minister,
and other world leaders." Roberts said Epstein trafficked children to politicians, Wall Streeters and A- listers to curry favor,
advance his business, and for political influence.
The FIX
2015 Doc Release by Judge:
Assistant U.S. Attorney Marie Villafana wrote to Epstein lawyer Jay Lefkowitz in a Sept. 19, 2007, email. "I will include our
standard language regarding resolving all criminal liability and I will mention 'co-conspirators,' but I would prefer not to highlight
for the judge all of the other crimes and all of the other persons that we could charge ... maybe we can set a time to meet, if
you want to meet 'off campus' somewhere, that is fine. I will make sure that I have all the necessary decision makers present
or 'on call' as well."
"I wanted to tell you that I have compiled a list of 34 confirmed minors," Villafana wrote to Lefkowitz. "There are six
others, whose name [sic] we already have, who need to be interviewed by the FBI to confirm whether they were 17 or 18 at the time
of their activity with Mr. Epstein."
In a December 2007 letter, the prosecutor acknowledges some notifications of alleged victims but says they were sent after
the U.S. Attorney's Office signed the plea deal and halted for most of the women at the request of Epstein's lawyers.
"Three victims were notified shortly after the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement of the general terms of that Agreement,"
Villafana wrote, again to Lefkowitz. "You raised objections to any victim notification, and no further notifications were done."
On Sept. 24, 2007, in a deal shrouded in secrecy that left alleged victims shocked at its leniency,
Epstein agreed to a 30-month sentence, including 18 months of jail time and 12 months of house arrest and the agreement
to pay dozens of young girls under a federal statute providing for compensation to victims of child sexual abuse. .the U.S. Attorney's
Office promised not to pursue any federal charges against Epstein or his Named and Un-Named co-conspirators.
"In 2006 the FBI counted at least 40 underage girls who had been molested by Epstein. Authorities searched his Florida mansion
and found two computers containing child *********** and homemade video and photographs from cameras hidden in bedroom walls which
had been used to film sex acts. The case was airtight for many counts of sexual crimes but Palm Beach State Attorney Barry Krischer
and the Justice Department stepped in and offered Epstein a plea deal. In 2008 Epstein pleaded guilty in a Florida court to one
count of soliciting underage girls for sex. His punishment was 13 months of "8 hour nights only" at a halfway house. No other
charges about raping underage girls nor running an underage sex trafficking ring were mentioned in the plea. His legal team?
Gerald Lefcourt, Roy Black, Ken Starr, and Alan Dershowitz.
The federal non-prosecution agreement Epstein's legal team negotiated immunized all named and unnamed potential co-conspirators
in Epstein's child trafficking network, which includes those who allegedly procured minors for Epstein and any powerbrokers who
may have molested them."
Lately, Jeffrey Epstein's high-flying style has been drawing oohs and aahs: the bachelor financier lives in New York's largest
private residence, claims to take only billionaires as clients, and flies celebrities including Bill Clinton and Kevin Spacey
on his Boeing 727. But pierce his air of mystery and the picture changes. Vicky Ward explores Epstein's investment career, his
ties to retail magnate Leslie Wexner, and his complicated past.
Jeffrey Epstein: International Moneyman of Mystery
So how do termite grouping patterns fare as an investment strategy? Again, facts are hard to come by. A working day for Epstein
starts at 5 a.m., when he gets up and scours the world markets on his Bloomberg screen -- each of his houses, in New York, St.
Thomas, Palm Beach, and New Mexico, as well as the 727, is equipped with the necessary hardware for him to wake up, roll
"... The children in some of these poor third-world 'orphanages' aren't really orphans as we understand the term but are just from poor families who can't take care of them. ..."
"... That a person with the stature of being a former president would hang around with a low-life like Epstein is really telling. He flew perhaps twenty-seven times on Epstein's plane which makes him more than just a passing acquaintance. Birds of a feather flock together. ..."
"... If a country next to us, so similar to ours in many ways but with a fraction of our population, has so many that can be exposed at one time then how many could the US have? ..."
"... The Burning Platform has featured a series of posts over the last few weeks that provide a volume of evidence that is impossible to discount. ..."
"... I have no doubt whatsoever that child sex abuse, trafficking and even sex-related murder may well be hung around the necks of very, very famous persons, and the horrors so bad that those persons (if still alive) will not even make it to trial before they're hung from a street lamp. ..."
"... What is clear is that the contention that there is "no evidence", a contention that is asserted or implied in seemingly every mainstream media discussion, is flatly false. There is a vast array of pertinent evidence, much of it circumstantial, but much of it also suggesting something of the mindset of some of the central figures. Anyone who denies this is utterly oblivious, or a liar, or a fool. ..."
"... As to what the evidence establishes, that is a different question. If skilled and intelligent investigators fail to take it up, then motivated and fervent - if not entirely competent - inquirers will surely rise up in their stead. ..."
"... Watch for the "fake news" sources' standard method for dealing with a large set of serious allegations like these from the internet's "real news" sources. They will take the most absurd/least likely allegations and dispose of them. They will then unobtrusively fail to address harder to dismiss allegations. Instead they will argue to the effect that, some of these allegations are false so obviously all must be. ..."
"... The "truther" site Snopes once had a perfect example, since taken down, I suspect because it made the technique so obvious ..."
The children in some of these poor third-world 'orphanages' aren't really orphans as we understand the term but are just
from poor families who can't take care of them. These international adoptions are a business where everyone along the line
gets paid with the child being the commodity being sold to the end purchaser, people in the west seeking to adopt a child to make
themselves feel good. As in the mentioned case, the agencies move around from country to country where people are poor and desperate
and legal safeguards are weak. Although the end receivers seem to be mostly naive and well-meaning people there's no telling how
many aren't.
That a person with the stature of being a former president would hang around with a low-life like Epstein is really telling.
He flew perhaps twenty-seven times on Epstein's plane which makes him more than just a passing acquaintance. Birds of a feather
flock together.
The Canadians pulled in over three hundred people. If a country next to us, so similar to ours in many ways but with a
fraction of our population, has so many that can be exposed at one time then how many could the US have? Yet we hardly ever
hear much, just of a few lone wolves here and there. Look at how Sandusky got away with it for so many years. People didn't want
to know, turned a blind eye to it, because he was too valuable.
This entire bunch who hobnob with each other have a very creepy vibe. There's all these 'coincidences' that seem to gather
together in one place.
This 'story' is complete horseshit / random confirmation bias. Scan the full social media accounts of any group of 100+
people and you could find just as much 'evidence' if you were determined to do so. This is scary -- the day that any social
media post involving children that uses the word "chicken" anywhere in it counts as evidence of pedophilia is the day anyone
could be smeared.
Ron Unz should be ashamed of himself for giving this kind of unhinged paranoid fear-mongering space.
Do some of your own research on this topic and you will come to a different conclusion if you can get beyond your massive bias.
The Burning Platform has featured a series of posts over the last few weeks that provide a volume of evidence that is impossible
to discount.
Most people cannot accept something like this would be real because they cannot fathom the depths of evil that exist in this
world ..why, I don't know. You'd think the fact that many of the people implicated have also been the ones fully on board with
unprovoked wars that have killed, maimed and displaced millions of people, including children, would be evidence enough.
Kudos to Ron Unz for exposing more people to this tragic, disgusting, horrendous story.
Socionomic Theory documents that the public's appetite for scandals is low when stocks and high and high when stocks are low.
Case in point: The "news" about Enron was favorable all the way down, until the stock had lost way over 90%. Only then did
"news" about criminality and malfeasance gain traction.
This being the case, with stocks at All Time Highs after an astonishing 7 year vertical rally, pizzagate's very existence
here tells us that when the next bear market (in social mood, as revealed by stock prices) is in full swing, the level of
sociopathic, demonic behaviors emerging into public consciousness will be unimaginable.
I have no doubt whatsoever that child sex abuse, trafficking and even sex-related murder may well be hung around the necks
of very, very famous persons, and the horrors so bad that those persons (if still alive) will not even make it to trial before
they're hung from a street lamp.
Public disgust with those who ran (and run) the Federal Government will in all likelihood be so pervasive that it will undermine
the very political cohesion of the United States.
This is by far the best survey of this topic that I've read.
What is clear is that the contention that there is "no evidence", a contention that is asserted or implied in seemingly
every mainstream media discussion, is flatly false. There is a vast array of pertinent evidence, much of it circumstantial, but
much of it also suggesting something of the mindset of some of the central figures. Anyone who denies this is utterly oblivious,
or a liar, or a fool.
As to what the evidence establishes, that is a different question. If skilled and intelligent investigators fail to take
it up, then motivated and fervent - if not entirely competent - inquirers will surely rise up in their stead.
Watch for the "fake news" sources' standard method for dealing with a large set of serious allegations like these from
the internet's "real news" sources. They will take the most absurd/least likely allegations and dispose of them. They will then
unobtrusively fail to address harder to dismiss allegations. Instead they will argue to the effect that, some of these allegations
are false so obviously all must be.
The "truther" site Snopes once had a perfect example, since taken down, I suspect because it made the technique so obvious.
One popular right-wing internet site claimed to link 100 or so suspicious deaths to the Clintons. Snopes attacked the obviously
absurd linkages and was left with about twenty cases of persons who (1) were involved or rumored to be involved with nefarious
activities involving the Clintons; (2) were scheduled to testify against the Clintons or rumored to be brokering plea deals; and
(3) died under suspicious circumstances soon after. Snopes dismissed these with a comment to the effect that all public figures
had numbers of known associates die like this; let's just move on, folks; nothing to see here.
200 Words @MQ This 'story' is complete
horseshit / random confirmation bias. Scan the full social media accounts of any group of 100+ people and you could find just
as much 'evidence' if you were determined to do so. This is scary -- the day that any social media post involving children that
uses the word "chicken" anywhere in it counts as evidence of pedophilia is the day anyone could be smeared.
Ron Unz should be ashamed of himself for giving this kind of unhinged paranoid fear-mongering space.
In one of my many different careers I worked for a couple of years as an outside consultant to the FBI's ViCAP (now VICAP)
program. About the time I was thus delving the depths of human depravity - and they are far deeper than the more fortunate readers
of this are ever likely to learn - a scandal similar to this broke in Belgium, involving the highest levels of society, politics,
and the EU bureaucracy in criminal conspiracies to kidnap children, sexually violate them, torture them, and even use them in
the production of snuff films. A full investigation dead-ended after many suicides and suspicious deaths and disappearances. IMHO,
based on some experience with criminal conspiracies of this type, the mass of material presented here is a pretty overwhelming
indication that something very bad is happening. That the MSM ("fake new") sources are not paying more attentionto this is scandalous.
I'm not going to commit myself to the idea that this is going to be as huge as Rotherham was.
Sorry, but you are deluded if you believe Rotherham was "huge" in the media - even after the story broke, the English media
did its best to downplay and underreport it - when they did report it, especially the BBC, it was always in a professional monotone,
with no hint of outrage, or how disgusting and appalling all of it was, including/especially the behavior of the authorities -
however let the BNP or EDL protest in front of the court where some of the Paki scum were being tried, and there you saw and felt
media outrage - at this point, Rotherham has practically disappeared from the news - which is pretty sad because as everyone knows,
it was just the tip of the iceberg.
And as currently being framed and investigatively fleshed out, if Rotherham was "huge", then Pizzagate will be a scandal of
positively galactic dimension.
People will not let this go the way they did with the Jeffrey Epstein sleaze.
Thank you for this article. It is well written and makes the point I have been trying to make. That the Wikileaks taken together
with the Instagram photos warrant an investigation. A person with a predilection to pedophilia (based on the Instagram photos,
choice of music, and music recordings at the Pizza Parlor premises) at the least, should not be running a "child-friendly" pizza
parlor without some kind of societal due diligence to ensure the safety of our children.
On the one hand, what is lost if an investigation occurs and it turns out there is no wrong doing? We would have wasted some
tax dollars and time of the law enforcement teams, but James Alefantis would in fact benefit from being exonerated. If
however, there is ANY truth and any harm has and is occurring to children, then the greater good resulting from the investigation
would be without price.
@Jus' Sayin'... In one of my many different
careers I worked for a couple of years as an outside consultant to the FBI's ViCAP (now VICAP) program. About the time I was thus
delving the depths of human depravity -- and they are far deeper than the more fortunate readers of this are ever likely to learn
-- a scandal similar to this broke in Belgium, involving the highest levels of society, politics, and the EU bureaucracy in criminal
conspiracies to kidnap children, sexually violate them, torture them, and even use them in the production of snuff films. A full
investigation dead-ended after many suicides and suspicious deaths and disappearances. IMHO, based on some experience with criminal
conspiracies of this type, the mass of material presented here is a pretty overwhelming indication that something very bad is
happening. That the MSM ("fake new") sources are not paying more attentionto this is scandalous.
The Belgian case, among other high-profile quashed investigations, is summarized here:
Furthermore, Tony Podesta's favorite artist is Biljana Djurdjevic, whose art heavily features images of children in BDSM
-esque positions in large showers.
Psychopathy in the Pedophile (From Psychopathy: Antisocial, Criminal, and Violent Behavior, P 304-320, 1998, Theodore Millon,
Erik Simonsen, et al, eds.--See NCJ-179236)
This paper argues that pedophilia may represent a special case or subcase of psychopathy and that the main aims of both
the psychopath and the pedophile are to dominate, to use, and to subjugate another person in service of the grandiose self.
[...] It notes that the major differences between psychopaths and pedophiles are that the object of the predation for the
pedophile is a child and that the overt behavioral manifestation of the pathology is sexual.
I just wanted to reemphasize Scott Adams' statement about the scandal:
Over on his blog, Scott Adams asks us to keep in mind cases where confirmation bias did lead to false allegations of
institutional pedophilia, to caution against excessive confidence.
These types of investigations and scandals can easily lead to 'witch hunts' and 'panics' and need to be handled with the greatest
care, prudence, and levelheadedness possible.
----
I wanted to add the following study/information, because as the study states ' These results provide further evidence
of the importance of distinguishing between these groups of offenders. '
This might just be an irrelevant distinction for most people appalled by this potential/alleged abuse of power and authority
of 'our' elites; but I believe we might mostly be looking at and dealing with psychopathy and not necessarily 'just' pedophilia
in this Pizzagate scandal.
This has several different implications for how this scandal might be handled or be covered up, etc., because psychopaths are
master liars, deflectors, charmers, etc., i.e. 'pillars of the community,' 'movers and shakers,' etc.
There is another curious connection here; Professor Robert Hare – the father of psychopathy research – said this:
Hare considers newspaper tycoon Robert Maxwell to have been a strong candidate as a corporate psychopath.[10]
Robert Maxwell is the father of Ghislaine Maxwell, who is close friends with Jeffery Epstein:
In an American court case that was made public in January 2015, a woman identified as 'Jane Doe 3′ said she was approached
by Maxwell in 1999, and claimed that Maxwell procured under-age girls to have sex with Epstein. Maxwell has always denied any
involvement in Epstein's crimes.[10] She said: "She [Ghislaine] said she'd hit hard times. Jeffrey offered her a job
and then, I guess, because of her ability to procure girls, she became a vital asset to him.
Abstract OBJECTIVE :
Among men who commit sexual offenses against children, at least 2 distinct groups can be identified on the basis of the age
of the primary targets of their sexual interest; pedophiles and nonpedophiles. METHOD :
In the present report, across 2 independent samples of both types of child molesters as well as controls, a total of 104 men
(53 pedophilic and 51 nonpedophilic) who had sexually offended against a child age 13 or younger were compared to each other
(and to 49 non-sex offender controls) on psychopathy as assessed by the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI). RESULTS :
In both samples of child molesters, the nonpedophiles scored as significantly more psychopathic than the pedophiles. CONCLUSIONS :
These results provide further evidence of the importance of distinguishing between these groups of offenders.
500 Words @MQ This 'story' is complete
horseshit / random confirmation bias. Scan the full social media accounts of any group of 100+ people and you could find just
as much 'evidence' if you were determined to do so. This is scary -- the day that any social media post involving children that
uses the word "chicken" anywhere in it counts as evidence of pedophilia is the day anyone could be smeared.
Ron Unz should be ashamed of himself for giving this kind of unhinged paranoid fear-mongering space.
Your comment sounds familiar to me. Are you writing from the UK perchance?
Back in the mid-Aughts I was surprised by how often I saw commenters at MSM news sites talking about the grooming and abduction
of white girls in cities in England. At the time I was regularly reading BBC, Guardian, Telegraph, and Times. The stories where
these comments appeared were diverse in topic.
Sometimes other comments would share similar experiences. Some would say they talked to someone who claimed similar experience.
Others would say they'd heard murmurs of such things.
These voices repeatedly called on the MSM outlet to investigate, or they wondered why no response was forthcoming from
elected officials or policymakers.
This was after–I later learned–Ann Cryer (MP for Keighley) had bravely stepped forward on behalf of girls whose parents had
approached her for help. IOW, the cat was emerging from the bag, but the MSM were trying to stuff it back in.
Dismissive responses to these comments frequently were framed as yours is here: nothing to see here, move along, it's confirmation
bias, you people are nuts, mods, step in and censor them!
In the Rotherham/etc. case, racism, Islamophobia, etc., were trotted out to inflict silence.
What was most noteworthy to me, and creepy, was how these comments would be removed from the comment streams of these outlets.
Sometimes the comments would be deleted but the response calling them racists or Islamophobes allowed to stand.
By the late Aughts I was convinced some sort of coverup was underway of something terrible indeed.
We now know that the MSM were key players in that.
Similar murmurings were afoot in Pennsylvania for many years prior to the revelations of the sexual abuse of children by Penn
State coach Sandusky. I knew men who steered their sons away from football in general, guiding them instead to hockey or lacrosse,
because the word on the street was that football camp was not a safe place for boys anymore. (Nor, increasingly, Boy Scouts or
church camps.)
The gig is up for the MSM acting as panderers and pimps in the Cathedragogue of their own degenerate Narrative-religion.
They won't go down without a fight. They have more power and money to lose than any of the kids victimized by pedocidal perverts.
But what those kids have to lose is a treasure of vastly more importance than power and money.
Thing is, truth and goodness of spirit will win. This is part of why these degenerates fight back as they do. They can put
truth and goodness on the run for only so long. They fight back not because they are losing, but because, by nature, they can
never join the winning side of truth and goodness. It's just not in them.
All the more reason they need to be found out and reined in hard.
One last thing, regarding some people's assertion that these symbols, in-jokes, etc., are all "just a game." Or, worse, "art."
(Which implies getting money and power by representing degeneracy to decorate rich people's businesses, homes and bedrooms.)
If pedophilia, grooming, and child rape are now matters to take lightly as shibboleths of entrance to circles of power, then
those circles of power need to be napalmed.
"In the beginning there were the swamp, the hoe, and Jussi."
I think the crux of the problem is that most people find two different things equally plausible.
1) That the people who are talking about this (pizzagate) are lunatics.
or
2) That Podesta and the rest actually are involved in things like this.
Personally I think a nation that has reached this point, that it is totally believable that our leaders and elites are a bunch
of monsters well that's a real problem.
Another problem is that the UK article a poster above linked to is two years old. Has anyone heard anything about that since?
Expect to?
How many members of the media political class, that are dismissing this as fake news have enjoyed "pizza" at Besta or at a
similar place?
What if criminal deviancy rather than disqualifying a person, is not instead some weird prerequisite for elite status? Don't
have to worry about rock throwers if they're inside the same glass house.
Blackmail seems as good an explanation as any for things like John Roberts sudden change of heart on the constitutionality
of the Obama care mandate.
This is a very good summary; thank you for publishing it.
The speed with which the old media have declared the entire thing false, far sooner than they possibly could have explored
all the latest information and come to that conclusion, is astonishing. In other cases of conspiracy theories they think are false,
they are willing to stand back and ridicule the theorists. Obama Birthers, 9/11 Truthers, Boston Bombing hoax, Sandy Hook . all
certainly called false and ridiculed, but that's all. I don't think I've ever seen them try to squelch an entire line of discussion
from the start like this before, even threatening lawsuits and prosecution.
There may be something to pizzagate but I'm very skeptical of accusations of widespread institutional pedophilia. I initially
fell for the "Satanic panic" of the 1980s; I learned my lesson.
I see that this case relies a lot on cryptic symbols. Reminds me of the people who see swastikas and white supremacy runes wherever
they look and try to make a case for a vast neo-Nazi underground. But the author states that 470,000 children "disappear" each
year in the US alone. Really? The link goes to "reported missing" which is a whole different thing. I once reported one of my
kids missing; he turned up shortly afterwards at a friend's house. He hadn't even run away, just overstayed and not informed us
where he was. That sort of thing happens all the time, but genuine disappearances? I don't know of a single case and I know plenty
of people with kids. In some third world country in a war, tens of thousands of missing kids might be believable, but even in
most such countries (Syria for example) 470,000 disappearances per year would be a stretch.
In the U.K., all the abuse took place by people in power. Catholic clergy over choirboys. Celebs over their fans. Pakistanis
targeted girls from broken homes. The wealthy and 'noble' preyed on the lesser born.
The worst though are the politicians, who have maximum power. I'm not sure I believe the pizzagate thing – the evidence is
not conclusive (show me a victim or witness). But I certainly believe it is possible.
The reliably excellent John Helmer provides an oblique reference to Pizzagate in the following linked piece about Propornot
and its marvellous 200 Putin Stoogesites:
200 Words @utu "What 'relatively obscure
charge'?" - Making payments in a manner hiding the detection of payments. Payments were not illegal but he was doing it in amounts
below the amounts that automatically would require reporting. In my opinion he did nothing illegal. The crimes he allegedly committed
were beyond the statute of limitation and paying hush money is not illegal either.
I kinda thought that's what you were referring to, but wanted to make sure.
His real crime was something else.
He was a high school coach years ago and was raping underage boys in his charge. The cash he was withdrawing was for payments
to one of the boys to keep him quiet. If memory serves, another one of his victims had committed suicide (not sure though). But
the one Hastert was paying off wanted to burn him.
In addition, Sibel Edwards, when she was working for the FBI and translating foreign language intercepts, picked up some conversations
by Turkish officials, who were bribing Hastert, and claimed they "owned him". He reportedly got $500K, but not sure for what.
FBI had courts put a gag order on Sibel, so she could not reveal any more details. The story was buried: probably because too
many high ranking swine were involved.
Hastert pleaded guilty to a Mickey Mouse charge so that there would no public child-rape trial, where the public might learn
all the lurid details of what the filthy swine did to those underage boys.
Hastert got away with destroying the lives of many boys.
Hopefully he will be savagely beaten and crippled in prison – but not killed – so he can suffer for years.
Like a lot of people I have gone from completely ignoring this story, thinking it was Alex Jones type fantasy to starting to
wonder if there might not be some truth to it after all. So far I haven't seen any definitive evidence that kids are actually
being molested, or worse. And because the accusations are so damning I would want to be very cautious about casually tossing them
around.
That being said, a lot of the stuff that's surfaced; the artwork, the cryptic messages, Spirit cooking, the odd choices of
entertainment for a family friendly pizza restaurant and the Instagram pictures are just flat out creepy .
Even with a presumption of innocence I wouldn't allow anyone under the age of 18 anywhere near the Podesta brothers, Alefantis
and everyone else involved without adult supervision.
I'm glad Unz has decided to publish this. I'm interested to see if anything more will come of it. It certainly warrants further
investigation.
@DanC Rotate the old logo for Besta Pizza
180 degrees. It is the pedophile BLogo symbol.
That's why when it got publicised, Besta's management immediately deleted the old one and converted to a new, BLogo-free symbol
on all their website and printed materials.
What is interesting to note in mainstream media "debunkings" of PizzaGate is that they focus on the doubtful evidence, things
that could be "interpreted either way" and they leave out the glaringly obvious pedophilia links, like the Besta Pizza logo.
Just look at all the "debunking articles." Do any of them mention the old Besta logo? I haven't seen any.
It seems to me this is the way to wean the public off the mainstream media. Hammer on the fact that the MSM insists on leaving
out the clear, obvious evidence and tries to imply that everything is doubtful and open to interpretation. Then people will start
to associate them with coverup and BS. The MSM can't recover from that.
Actually the logo issue is a prominent part of this Washington Post article (and a tweet by the fairly well-known Dave
Weigel highlighted that part in particular):
100 Words @Johnny Smoggins Like a lot
of people I have gone from completely ignoring this story, thinking it was Alex Jones type fantasy to starting to wonder if there
might not be some truth to it after all. So far I haven't seen any definitive evidence that kids are actually being molested,
or worse. And because the accusations are so damning I would want to be very cautious about casually tossing them around.
That being said, a lot of the stuff that's surfaced; the artwork, the cryptic messages, Spirit cooking, the odd choices of
entertainment for a family friendly pizza restaurant and the Instagram pictures are just flat out creepy .
Even with a presumption of innocence I wouldn't allow anyone under the age of 18 anywhere near the Podesta brothers, Alefantis
and everyone else involved without adult supervision.
I'm glad Unz has decided to publish this. I'm interested to see if anything more will come of it. It certainly warrants further
investigation.
Podesta is a creepy fuck period.
How did such a dweeb get to be such a big person in our national conversation?
He is an obvious hack , but not a particular clever one. He just comes off so "are you fucking kidding me?". Where do they get
these dudes? James Carville. Paul Begala. Bill Burton. Robby Mook. Even right has George Will, Buckley. Strange unnormal people.
I confess I don't get it. I can understand pizzagate as a brutal and nasty last minute campaign tactic, but the election is
over, drop it. A mighty tissue of "coincidences" woven together in a manner that would make Glenn Beck envious. I guess I need
to fashion a tin foil hat and then re-read the article. I think it just discredits the source more than the target.
If someone is actually raping children, then where are the children? The kids related to the socialite that she is bringing
to a pool party? Come on, that is what plebes are for. How are the children procured? Where do they live? There is necessarily
logistics to this kind of activity, and zero evidence of logistics, just some weird emails and weird art. Its like saying someone
is a coke head because they had a runny nose. tweet at early hours in the morning, and behave very alpha.
500 Words @Anonymous "Every aspect of
British society seems to have ties to pedophilia, from Parliament, to the elites, the City of London, the government, public schools,
Oxbridge, the universities, all the way down to Paki immigrant communities and even British soccer."
Why do pedos gain such power? Same reason why homos do? Since many of them don't have families and since they resent the Normal
World(from which they must hide their deviance or sickness), do they have extra time/energy for gaining power? Are they fueled
by resentment toward Normal Society? It seems like homos had a kind of revenge streak, and it all came out with New Normal. Homos
really want to rub our faces in their feces. They want to force us to accept the New Normal or be totally destroyed. They want
to turn us into their bitches. They are into Bitch-Hunting.
Working in the shadows, homos and pedos seemed to gained considerable power. And since they are associated with Vice Industry,
they have the dirt on everyone else and can blackmail them. Bill Clinton prolly never had sex with a minor, but surely homos and
pedos have a lot of dirt on him about his many affairs and orgies. And since they have many connections, they serve as essential
middlemen for those who seek power.
Also, there is a code of silence among the powerful. They watch out for one another. And homos and pedos are both pushy and
gushy. They are very demanding but also accommodating and supportive of the powerful and ambitious. They go all out to serve the
powerful and those on the up-and-up, but they also demand a cut of the pie.
The ambitious care most about power and privilege than about right and wrong. If their power depends on a coterie of people
committed to them 24/7, they will look the other way even when they know something is up. Also, there is the human factor. People
who work together closely develop an emotional bond. It's team politics, us vs them. And loyalty must be favored.
Since homos and pedos have more time on their hands and more energy(fueled by resentment), they might be more available to the
powerful or those who seek power.
Hollywood made the media the hero in the movie SPOTLIGHT. But the media seem eager to bury this as fast as possible.
Why did it take so long for the Hastert and Sandusky cases to come to light?
Homos seem to be closely allied with pedos, and the trajectory of our culture is to normalize pedophilia by sexualizing young
girls and boys. If young ones are sexualized, it means they can be objects of sexual desire. And then what?
And the scientific community is arguing pedophilia should be treated as a condition than a crime. This may be legit as long
as pedos didn't act on their impulses. But if they did, how can it not be a crime?
Rape is 'natural' too given that sexual feelings are natural. But we can't treat rape itself as a condition and not a crime.
Regrettably, though one may have grown old without ever feeling the wish to have sexual contact with a pre-adolescent or of
anyone of the same sex it hasn't been possible for a long time to deny the prevalence of socially disapproved sex drives and behaviours.
So one finds that the nice young presenter on the antique show has been arrested for downloading and keeping pedophile images.
And so on But isn't the idea of a large network, and what is needed to keep it covered up, a bit much to swallow? Nasty minds?
Conspiracy theories?
Well I suppose not. Sex as a drive and the perverse varieties of expression that we know to manifest themselves are enough
to make one accept the pedophile reality. Then the network and the cover up? The cover up, however difficult to make it reliable,
is just a consequence of the danger their behaviour exposes them to. And the network? Easy enough to explain once you are in it
– like knowing that you could attend mass in a number of aristocratic Elizabethan households. But the detail of why and how it
should grow from a very small group is obviously more complex. I guess that there are organisers and facilitators who seek various
rewards, some financial, some in young flesh, some in the obtaining of blackmailing power.
It's the age difference and the power equation that matters. If a fifteen year old is sexting a thirteen year old it's quite
different than a grown man like Anthony Wiener. I couldn't blame any father who administered a sound beating to an adult creep
who was sexting a minor. What kind of a society doesn't protect children?
"IMO this is yet another Jimmy Savile case: i.e. literally Satanic pedophilia on a vast scale, with the active collusion
of our political and media elites"
Savile case wasn't that at all – more like famous DJ/charity fundraiser with great PR taking advantage of his status with teenage
girls. How many of the post-death allegations are true, who knows, but we know some definitely aren't true – we know because long-time
blogger Anna Raccoon was a resident of a small children's home where Savile was claimed to have abused girls. She has a whole
series of seven posts called "Past Lives and Present Misgivings" on the allegations.
More "active collusion" is likely in the cases of Cyril Smith and Greville Janner, two pretty high-profile and connected MPs,
who seem to have managed to go to their graves scot free.
Flynn's tweet regarding this story was perfectly reasonable.
The story has been stamped "bogus" without any kind of investigation.
No response to questions about the weird content of emails by Podesta and others.
Stonewalling.
Makes one think the shotgun blast at Comet might even have been a false flag!!
For those wondering about the authenticity of the FBI document, here is the wikileaks page where it was revealed in 2007 and
they say "Wikileaks has verified the document":
I remember watching an excellent Australian film years ago that covered this very topic. It portrayed in a very realistic way
the whole homo/ pedo underground in the upper rungs of society, from posh public schools to university, where grooming of youngsters
occurred, to Parliament and Finance, where the powerful pederasts/homosexuals ruled. In this world, the shortest way to power
and riches for a young man was to seek out the protection and guidance of an older and powerful homo/pederast lover. It was shot
in Australia and in Australian settings and institutions, but it's all so British you'd think the film makers really intended
the story to reflect British society and were using Australia as a legal cover.
Sorry, I can't remember the title of the movie or the director. It was quite disturbing to watch but very interesting.
Perhaps Pat Hannagan or some other knowledgeable Australian reader can help.
Let's say there was no pedo-ring. I'm rather skeptical of it myself.
But just look at that pizzeria. What kind of freako place is that?
And why are some of the 'most powerful' people in DC such downright perverts and degenerates?
The fish rots from the head. Degenerates run government, institutions, and culture.
Government and judges push homo agenda. College push porn and 50 genders. Hollywood pushes drugs and tattoos. Disney turns
girls into whores.
And this isn't just a 'left' vs 'right' problem. A lot of Trump voters were ass-tattoo freaks. The working class grew up on
Jerry Springer, WWE, mentally deranged metal music, or Goth freakery.
And middle class kids grew up on the nerdy black magic of Harry Potter whose teacher is a happy ass-man.
Whether it's elites and their Pervert Pizza or the underclass with their degeneracy, it's ugly all around.
I'm not sold on the pedo-ring. Too much risk, though I think those 'elites' are a bunch of pervs.
If anything, this pedo-issue takes our eyes off the ball.
The real issue should be that the governing elites of this nation in government, colleges, cultural institutions, media and
even military(look at those tranny freaks) are a bunch of decadents, even degenerates. We are seeing the normalization of freakery
and grossness.
The fact that it is considered NORMAL for Hillary to invite Lena Dunham to the DNC speaks for itself. The fact that Newsweek
celebrated Obama with a gay 'halo' speaks for itself. The fact that churches hang 'homo flags' speaks for itself.
It is a sick nation.
A tolerant nation has room for decadence and even degeneracy. It belongs in the underground. They always existed.
But now, this underground stuff is the bobo cultural fixation of the elites who consider themselves 'hip' and 'edgy'.
And they even introduce their kids to this stuff from a young age.
Indeed, even without overt pedophilia, introducing sexuality to kids at a very young age is a kind of indirect pedophilia.
When homo-ness is promoted among kids, what is being done? Kids will ask 'what is homo stuff?' And an honest answer will have
to be, "some guys wanna stick pee pee into poo poo". But then, the kids will have to be told THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT,
and if anything, WE SHOULD BLESS THE HOMOS. But why? What is so great about pee pee in poo poo?
We really need Culturegate. The whole culture is a rotten scandal, and the fact that US globo-imperialism spreads this filth
around the world speaks volumes about how sick America has become. We don't need real pedo-rings of 'pizzagate' to accuse the
elites of filth and vileness. Their cultural life is garbage.
Just look at this: 'mainstream' culture has no problem with it. If anything, it is promoted as the New Norm.
As John Helmer points out, the new digital news business model doesn't provide any funds for investigative journalism.
So who is going to pay for a serious journalist to do the legwork and paperwork and FOIA requests, etc.?
Re "And why are some of the 'most powerful' people in DC such downright perverts and degenerates? "
I thought you were going to say:
What are the most powerful people in DC doing hanging out at this creepy pizza parlor and doing fundraising events there?
We all know where Hillary goes for "real" money: The Saudis, Goldman Sachs, billionaires' glitzy summer compounds in the Hamptons,
places like that-you know, where the money is.
So WTF is she doing in one of these pizza joints? Why would there be any real money there?
With creepy, tawdry "artwork" on the walls?
Something here does not pass the smell test.
I'm intrigued by the Anna Racoon stuff, but I found it completely incoherent. Could you explain what these claims are, and
why they should be taken seriously?
Re Sir Savile and Satanic child sex abuse, at least two victims gave entirely credible and consistent accounts. Here's a mainstream
source:
Agreed. Often one wonders why such outrageous decisions are made in politics that clearly contradict the public good and one
wonders, why? This topic goes a long way to explaining the why. I'm not so sure if the investigating of it is the hard part or
the broad exposure, but it needs to happen.
I am probably more tolerant of 'deviates' than most on here. Queers don't bother me much, though I would recommend that they
be more discreet and stop the promotion of their peccadilloes as normal. When it comes to children, even teenagers, I am very
strict about them not being able to give consent and should be treated with respect, if not revered, by all adults with no exceptions.
There is enough smoke here for a thorough investigation to be demanded and carried out. I hope nothing less ensues.
The fact that it is considered NORMAL for Hillary to invite Lena Dunham to the DNC speaks for itself. The fact that Newsweek
celebrated Obama with a gay 'halo' speaks for itself. The fact that churches hang 'homo flags' speaks for itself.
It is a sick nation.
Yep. I don't have to look any further then this perv Alefantis. This is what you get when sodomy is legal. Of course this craven
bastard makes all kinds of snarky degenerate comments about children on his instagram
Society has been desensitized to homosexuality- so they have moved on to the "prize".
You have hit it out of the park as usual, I enjoy and concur with your assesments.
I believe I saw the instagram account of Alefantis before it came down. The girl pictured in several images seems to be the
child of a family friend. I thought the taped to the table image and the other pic with #chickenlover tag were at a minimum indicators
of a dark humor or innuendo. Who finds this sort of thing funny?
There were more pics of infants and a doll with creepy tags like #hoetard and suggestive comments, again, indicating a level of
casual comfort with making implied references to pedophilia. ..wink wink.
Gross, at a minimum. But evidence of a ring? I don't understand why Alefantis doesn't just acknowledge that there is an "appearance"
of sick humor.
Regarding the use of supposedly known pedo symbols- I'm skeptical. These are shapes and motifs we see everywhere. It could
be that the pedo symbol inventors purposely chose designs that would easily coincide with innocent use so as to hide in plain
sight. Or hmm ?
Podesta is definitely using code in his emails but my read was that he's talking about drugs and partying. Didn't we all use
"pizza" at one time or another as a reference to party favors back in the day?
The Podestas have bad taste in art. Not a crime, just a general indicator of regular degenerately "hip" tastes so as to impress
the cool kids?
And yet no one clears the air. And this is disturbing. I have yet to read one Wapo or nyt article denouncing the "witch hunt"
but acknowledging that, yes, it looks bad. Because it really does.
Incidentally, if they haven't been faked, one of Alefantis' instagram commenters is the maker of child sized coffin coffee
tables. Nice.
"What if criminal deviancy rather than disqualifying a person, is not instead some weird prerequisite for elite status? Don't
have to worry about rock throwers if they're inside the same glass house.Blackmail seems as good an explanation as any for things
like John Roberts sudden change of heart on the constitutionality of the Obama care mandate."
This fits Occam's Razor. I would go so far as to say that pedophilia blackmail appears to have been a method of political control
since the days of the British Empire. Much like gang membership, participation is required for entrance into the inner circles
of political power, then used as blackmail to enforce conformity and secrecy.
Interestingly, there is a recent episode of "The Black Mirror," a Netflix show, that addresses this very psychology.
There is a rather informative article in the WaPo about Pizzagate and its potential (mass-)psychological origins.
It actually indirectly and temporarily "blames" over-zealous feminists with being the originators of the this moral panic. Quite
interesting, but of course the article/author reverts back to Trump-bashing, etc. in the end.
What the Pizzagate conspiracy theory borrows from a bogus satanic sex panic of the 1980s
Second, in both cases, social movements were involved in the weaponization of suspicion, although the political center of
gravity has shifted from one episode to the next. In the late 1970s, social workers and feminist activists had focused on
combating child sexual abuse; they sometimes developed extremely broad definitions of abuse or floated exaggerated estimates
of its occurrence in this quest. Such efforts have left deep cultural residues, and these include the acceptance of exaggerated
claims about the number of child trafficking victims, and the incidence and forms of organized child sexual abuse. Pizzagate
relies on these inflated fears to seem plausible, and it similarly relies on a viewpoint marked by extreme suspicion (of the
media, Washington "elites," politicians and the Clinton camp specifically) to decode ordinary events and statements into extraordinary
claims.
A moral panic is a feeling of fear spread among a large number of people that some evil threatens the well-being of society.[1][2]
A Dictionary of Sociology defines a moral panic as "the process of arousing social concern over an issue – usually the work of
moral entrepreneurs and the mass media."[3] – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic
We know all about "Hysteria", but why did the artist use a decapitated male if not to possibly conflate this in the
viewers mind with the atrocities of Dalmer?
What about the other degenerate art, such as the child bondage spankees posing in the easy- to -clean tiled torture chambers?
Some of us will never accept homosexuality as an "alternative" lifestyle.
The fact that Alefantis is a homo; who by dint of his perverse sexuality- has achieved some level of notoriety prior to pizzagate-
is certainly part of the underlying rancor towards him.
Incredibly generous of you to quote WaPo as a credible source. I would have done the same at one time but that was ages ago.
BB753 asks why haven't the Posdestas sued? I would ask why haven't they at the very least stepped forward to offer a simple
explanation for what most agree is code in the emails?
I would suggest a possibility that blowing the lid off on this exposes exactly how certain "lobby" groups maintain control
of the wheelhouse of the US ship of state, and have consistently steered it into troubled waters against the national interest.
Wiz, a simple typo that my computer ran with (very observant of you).
Pizzagate is not "fake news" at all. It needs to be investigated.
The MSM says it does not disseminate "fake news". However, the MSM will often simply not cover events that ARE real news.
Thus, the MSM is disseminating the opposite of "fake news", namely NO NEWS. The MSM keeps people in the dark because there
things that it does not want people to know about. For example, the MSM will often not cover stories about how the LGBTQ movement
is brainwashing kids in even the lowest grade in public elementary schools. That's because the MSM does not want people to become
upset at the penetration (no pun intended) of the LGBTQ agenda.
In reality, there is relatively little "fake news" out there. Most alternative websites that people visit, such as Unz, simply
provide a different perspective on issues that the MSM won't cover at all, or cover in a cursory manner.
Classic disinfo technique, to seed the truth with a few lies that are provably false so that then the whole thing can be claimed
to be false and written off.
I don't know about the Podestas but as others here have rightly stated, there's enough smoke for a thorough, open investigation.
Coincidently, the anti-Russian rhetoric has escalated to an even more absurd degree alongside the Pizzagate news. I wonder
if the result will be even less people believing the blatant lies of mass media or if people will just demonstrate that there
are no limits to gullibility.
I saw a headline on CNN.com claiming Russia was attempting to smear people by 'planting' child pornography on their computers.
I didn't bother reading it, as CNN is a Gawker level news source these days, but it seems like they may attempt to blame this
stuff on Russia – along with everything else.
Here's another sex scandal (and a certifiably real one) involving a prominent Canadian who turned out to be a pedaphile. There's
a lot in this story that's revealing and fascinating.
Such a disturbing story. But instructive. In particular the information, or perhaps it is a speculation, that the pedophiliac
sexual drive develops early on. This drive must be incredibly strong-stronger than what would be considered normal sexual desire?
I don't know. But I have read that it is so strong that pedophiles make major life choices in terms of finding a way to get access
to children to use sexually. Such as marrying: so they can father their own children and have them handy for abuse. Or entering
a profession, such as the priesthood, or pediatrics, or education, etc. so that they have access to children. Or becoming sports
coaches, where they spend a lot of time in locker rooms and also have blandishments to offer young boys such as sports career
advances. Etc.
I think this point-the power of the drive-should be taken into account when people such as some commenters on this thread say:
"These people [such as Podesta} are too intelligent to risk their careers blah blah." If the pedophilia drive is as strong as,
say, a heroin addiction, then the addiction is in the driver's seat, not "intelligence." The more you feed an addiction, the stronger
it gets, and the more stimulation it takes to get the charge.
As for the sprinkling of a few lies in with a story that is targeted for debunking: In a normal police investigation the police
solicit leads from the public. (It is true that in this case there is not an obvious victim, so that must also be taken into account;
but this was also the situation with the Ben Levin [Toronto] case; nevertheless what he did was criminal and dangerous.) They
examine the leads and follow them up. This is detectives' job.
Often an obscure lead does lead to further useful information needed to build a hypothesis of the motive-means-opportunity
for the crime and widen the scope of an investigation. Every American with a TV set has seen hundred of such police procedurals
showing how crimes have been solved, often cold cases. Bona fide detectives who get leads from the public don't immediately start
to smear the source of leads as looney-tunes. In this case the public, in the face of apparent inaction by law enforcement to
follow up on this case, is responding by posting ideas and hypotheses and possible leads.
An honest law enforcement agency would be conducting an aggressive investigation and checking out any useful info and ideas
that members of the public come up with, whether online or off. Honest news outlets should either be calling for a thorough investigation,
or staying mum if they have been informed that an investigation is ongoing. The fact that the MSM, absent any sign of an investigation,
are blaring out the "nothing here; move on; blogger are rabid fools" message is in itself suspicious and suggests that someone
is being protected. The MSM have put out just enough info to warn the possible wrongdoers to get their act together, change their
signage, and run for cover.
The fact that the MSM, absent any sign of an investigation, are blaring out the "nothing here; move on; blogger are rabid
fools" message is in itself suspicious and suggests that someone is being protected. The MSM have put out just enough info
to warn the possible wrongdoers to get their act together, change their signage, and run for cover.
My feeling exactly. Too much volume, no doubts, too orchestrated and nothing being investigated, in fact just like WMD, and
9/11.
I believe that Pizzagate is a Trojan Horse being pushed into Alt-Right internet circles by Hillary/Soros' former CTR trolls
in order to help the Democrats and the MSM continue to flog the "fake news" narrative. The idea behind it is to enable them to
say, "Look, you see what kind of crazy conspiracies those Alt-Righters consume and repeat amongst themselves? This is the kind
of fake news believing nutjobs we're up against." If you think back upon the history of the meme (I hate that word, but I have
no other to use in its place), you'll find that its original and most vocal proponents were exhibiting clear trolling behavior.
Given their flaky commenting histories, their pretended expertise on this then-obscure topic, their ostentatious expressions of
optimism that this breaking news would ensure a Trump victory (itself a rather obsequious and scarcely believable attempt to paint
themselves as one of our number), and their single-minded determination to talk about (and to get us talking about) nothing else,
one can only suspect the presence of some sort of agenda behind their sudden exuberance over Pizzagate.
I believe we are up against a new and rather sophisticated sort of Concern Troll here-a veritable Stuxnet of concern trolling.
A perfect example here at the Unz Review is the poster "anonguy". Look at his commenting history. Look at the sudden acceleration
of his offerings as Election Day neared. And then look at his militant megaphoning of the Pizzagate narrative all over Sailer's
blog in the days immediately preceding the election. Furthermore, pay attention to his unusual style, i.e. how he structures
his comments as detached musings about the goings-on in the "infosphere" (his word), how he jejunely assures us the "the narrative
is forming" (yes, he actually said that, and at a time when there was no narrative to speak of), and his links to literally
fake news sites (the Denver Guardian? Give me a break). Now tell me that this is the behavior of someone who actually has
the health of the body politic as his primary objective.
Now, after having sifted all that, do try to remember that the larger general public really doesn't know or care anything at
all about Pizzagate, and that the leaked Podesta emails (all 37,000 of them, or whatever the final tally was) influenced the vote
of precisely no one who did not have the time or inclination to read through them all, which is practically every one of us. Remember
that the only people talking about this in the first place are the Alt-Right bloggers and their followers, the very venues of
"fake news" whom the Left is attempting to discredit and sully. Remember that the Clintons and Soros specialize in public deception
and that they employ all sorts of people for that very purpose. Now consider who is rendered vulnerable by all of this. It isn't
going to be the Clintons or Podesta. If Hillary Clinton was not prosecuted for trafficking in state secrets from her private server-a
crime for which she should have been executed- then Podesta is not going to be investigated for this. But you all, on the other
hand, have been tainted with it. You have been successfully associated in the public mind with a "conspiracy theory," with the
"fake news."
My conclusion: Pizzagate is a "thought worm" designed to infect, distract, and destroy the Alt-Right, and most of you have
been infected with it. This is not to say that there is no pedophilia going on in Podesta's circle. There may be or there may
not be, I really don't know. The point is that there isn't anything you can do about it. The accusations will be turned
against the accusers instead-classic Clinton behavior. It would be better not to take the bait anymore. Recent history has demonstrated
over and over again that the public is not going to rise up with one voice and clamor for the punishment even of credibly accused
child molesters unless there is something more to be gained from doing so, and in this case there clearly isn't. What this says
about the spiritual state of the modern West or the psychology of fallen mankind are subjects I will leave for another discussion.
For now it is simply a fact of life with which we have to account. The only way to beat these people is the Chicago Way: hit them
harder than they hit you. We dealt them a stunning blow by electing Donald Trump, but now we are in danger of losing our advantage
by immersing ourselves in a mire of toothless recriminations, and this is exactly what they want. Let's not fall for this again;
let us rather rekindle the spirit that got us this far, and take these vile people down once and for all.
The Washington Post found the funds to assign 27 investigative reporters for over a year to dig dirt on Trump, and bragged
about it. Judging by what they came up with, it wasn't too fruitful.
First you say the entire pizzagate meme is fake and it's fakery will undo the alt-right. Then you say that you can't do anything
about pedophilia anyway, pizzagate or otherwise.
Which is it? Is the story fake and thereby discrediting to those who support it, or is it real but pointless to cover because
you can't do anything about it?
Then you suggest we do this "the Chicago way" which is hitting harder than them whatever that means. If you are not going to
open investigations against these people, then what does "hitting harder" entail?
There is no way that Soros or anyone else is going to construct an elaborate criminal conspiracy out of whole cloth and tag
one of his own loyal operatives.
I agree.
Intelligent's comment looks to me like an elaborate misdirection.
All such blah blah gets no one any closer to an answer as to what is behind the coded language in the Wikileaks emails.
It is a classic example of throwing up a convolution of dust to obscure the smoking emails.
Stick to the evidence.
Ignore irrelevant baroque musings.
You make some good points but have missed the real issue entirely. Whilst I and many others here DO care about pedos and want
them locked away from society, what makes this matter much more important is that it involves many top level power brokers in
politics.
Pedophilia is more of a compulsion rather than addiction, why matters less than the fact that recidivism is the norm and society
deserves protection both from the crime itself and from the crimes of blackmail that can result from knowledge of it..
Blackmail is a very powerful tool in the work of pure evil and is the reason why even Marines and Embassy guards have restrictions
on who they may or may not consort with whilst on active foreign postings. I would estimate that there is no greater threat of
exposure than one of sexually exploiting children. Even hardened criminals have contempt for such perverts who are usually granted
special protection when incarcerated.
I would venture the suggestion that people with a compulsion towards sexual contact with children are identified early in their
careers and consequently put forward for rapid progress within government institutions by those working behind the scene to exercise
control over others with decision making capacity in the highest levels of government.
This is not a matter to be swept away if the swamp is to be drained, rather, this may well be where the "plughole" to the swamp
itself is to be uncovered. It will require a special investigation team but not one like the Warren Commission or 9/11 "Investigation",
a real investigation. Americans should settle for nothing less and it is incumbent of them to demand it.
This is not a matter to be swept away if the swamp is to be drained, rather, this may well be where the "plughole" to the
swamp itself is to be uncovered.
I'm willing to believe something pretty sordid is required to keep the bung hole as tightly plugged as it is and I can't imagine
anything else creating a more tightly woven, impenetrable web of mutual blackmail. Imagine what they have on each other, and imagine
what foreign intelligence services could do with same if they got hold of it. Come to think of it, maybe they have
America must get to the bung, dislodge it and deal with the stench that will cover the country for a generation. Until then,
America can't hope to be great again.
This makes a lot of sense.
That string pullers are on the lookout for rising political stars who can be compromised along the way.
Hmmmmm . . .
Seems like a lot of political families have dynastic aspirations. That would mean that such offspring might be natural targets
for monitoring for any "quirks."
Craig Spence's call boy business in Washington clearly involved high civilian and military officials. And Spence was able to
take friends on midnight tours of the White House.
Spence's house was provided by the Japanese ruling party. The house they provided him had at least one bedroom wired for audio
and video. I'm sure the Japanese didn't know that.
The Washington Times covered it for two or three weeks and it was never mentioned again.
Kids from Boys Town in Nebraska were allegedly used.
Unpack that and hope your hair doesn't turn white.
"Nobody is suggesting a rush to judgement here but clearly a prompt and thorough investigation is called for especially given
the supporting evidence, as other commenters have pointed out."
Really.
If the putative "circumstantial evidence" that Russia-no! Putin himself!!-interfered in the American election suffices to launch
the CIA on a nutty investigation whose purpose is, obviously, to "prove" that this is the case to the satisfaction of enough electors
for them to become "faithless," then I think the Pizzagate emails plus "circumstantial" Pizzagate evidence are by comparison much
more compelling and really scream for an investigation. In the Pizzagate case the investigating agency would presumably be the
FBI. Which *might* be grounds to expect a genuine investigation.
No reasonable person would think that the emails really are about Podesta's playing dominos and having cheese for dinner. quite
apart from the fact that cheese is usually mixed in with pasta!! Come on. I bet Podesta doesn't know how to play the game of dominos.
What are these people really emailing about?
For U.S. readers to gauge whether something like this COULD be happening in an advanced country, look to other countries where
such incidents ARE known to have happened.
In Belgium, the Marc DUTROUX scandal led to political consequences and appears to be ongoing.
In the UK, the claims against Ted Heath and Cyril Smith (see picture of both in article linked below) are broadly seen as having
at least some factual basis, and were reported in a number of newspapers including the Independent, the Guardian and the Daily
Mail (see link below). Other names were rumored about.
There were also years of investigations and cover-ups involving various orphanages such as KINCORA (in Northern Ireland) and
HAUTE GARENNE (on the Isle of Jersey). Both were conveniently located in somewhat remote locations outside the direct reach of
English law.
There were also extensive rumors regarding several locations in London. Investigations were accompanied by the usual fortuitous
deaths of potential witnesses, mysterious disappearance of documents, etc.
To reiterate a point that should be clear to the more astute reader, my goal in this series (part 1, part 2) has not been
to defend "Pizzagate" as such. My goal has been to defend the people who want to investigate it against specific accusations
levied against them by people who think Pizzagate has revealed no intriguing information at all-for a specific reason, which
I will be honing in and focusing on much more directly in this closing entry.
Whereas the mainstream critics of Pizzagate would have you believe that the world is divided between paranoid conspiracy
theorist followers of "fake news" and level-headed people who follow trustworthy news sources and rely on cold, hard reason
to determine the truth, my goal has been to show that-whatever is or is not happening with Pizzagate itself-this framing of
the issue is arrogant, insulting, and the product of extremely narrow tunnel vision. [...]
And if the media is telling you only about the most bizarre, reaching accusations without telling you any of the more
interesting points that have been uncovered (which it is), it is not doing its proper job."
If in fact making all the "elite" blackmailable is the object of the exercise and at the same time being blackmailable is the
requisite entry ticket to the elite, then not all the people taking part in all this sinister deviancy need be actual pedophiles!
Some of them could be "merely" psychopaths furthering their careers. (Not that that makes them any better.)
If this story is what it appears to be – the tip of a very nasty and very large iceberg, then it could be the mechanism by
which the "Deep State" keeps its control of the US government. That would make getting an investigation by official investigators
going, very difficlt indeed.
If in fact making all the "elite" blackmailable is the object of the exercise and at the same time being blackmailable is
the requisite entry ticket to the elite, then not all the people taking part in all this sinister deviancy need be actual pedophiles!
Some of them could be "merely" psychopaths furthering their careers.
Well, I don't really have anything to contribute to the "Pizzagate" discussion myself, except to say that some of the supposed
evidence plus the behavior of the media makes me very, *very* suspicious.
However, here's a somewhat related paragraph from one of the articles I published a year or two ago:
An obvious problem with installing puppet rulers is the risk that they will attempt to cut their strings, much like Putin
soon outmaneuvered and exiled his oligarch patron Boris Berezovsky. One means of minimizing such risk is to select puppets
who are so deeply compromised that they can never break free, knowing that the political self-destruct charges buried deep
within their pasts could easily be triggered if they sought independence.
I have sometimes joked with my friends that perhaps the best career move for an ambitious young politician would be to secretly
commit some monstrous crime and then make sure that the hard evidence of his guilt ended up in the hands of certain powerful
people, thereby assuring his rapid political rise.
This is ALL about the child trafficing that the Clinton-Bush Foundation was doing in Haiti. It is the weakpoint in a global
child trafficing network and it is why the Clinton-Bush Foundation has taken down their website and are attempting to cover up
any traces of it as we speak. Trump knows.
Anyone who believes that it is ludicrous to think that pizzerias could be used for such nefarious operations, I 'd like to
point out to you the case of "The French Connection" which later became known as "The Pizza Connection" in which a huge global
network of pizzerias were being used to distribute drugs in the 1980′s.
Anyone who believes that the pedophile code is purely circumstantial needs to take a look at the Katy Perry video "This Is
How We Do" which appears to be an homage to Comet Pizza. It is absolutely rife with the code words from the Podesta emails revealed
by Pizzagate. They prance around with convicted sex offender, who plea bargained out of a child porn charge, Pee-Wee Herman(
http://people.com/celebrity/pee-wee-actor-settles-kiddie-porn-case/
) singing about "this is how they do" and "it's no big deal".
Here is a video "Kids" by the group MGMT. The quote at the beginning of the video is from the quintessential Satanist Nietzsche("Free
spirits", by contrast to the philosophers of the past, are "investigators to the point of cruelty, with rash fingers for the ungraspable,
with teeth and stomach for the most indigestible"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Good_and_Evil ). The video shows them bragging about how prevalent they are through our
community. The "do as thou wilt" bastards are laughing at us about how they control positions of authority like policemen(3:36
of video) and how childrens TV programs are filled with their garbage of wolves in sheeps clothing(4:24 of video). And of course
the Pizza and Hot Dog symbology throughout the end which culminates with them eating the child. This trash has 77 million views
on Youtube.
Here is the video "Criminal" by Fiona Apple. It is all about placing the blame on the victim, by saying that the victim enticed
the pedo scum, instead of the perpetrator. This homage to Child Porn makes great pains to highlight Pizza(:21 and :38 of the video)
and tiled kill rooms with easy clean-up(:45 of the video and blood stains on carpet at :48 and :54).
The lyrics from "In Bloom":
Sell the kids for food. Weather changes moods. Spring is here again. Reproductive Glands. We can have some more. Nature is
a whore. Bruises on the fruit. Tender age in bloom . But he don't know what it means when I say "Yummmmmm"
It should be noted that there are two versions of this song. The original one has the Yummmmm heard at the end at 4:15 in this
version.
Some potential victims of James Alefantis have been identified and one gave an anonymous testimony.
What James Alefantis allegedly did here is not illegal, but speaks volumes about his character, in my opinion, if the story
indeed is true:
[...]
It turns out that Carole's son, who is +/-18 at this time, is also working at the restaurant. I think his name is Dylan/Dillon.
He grew up without a father and turned to James Alefantis often for advice.
One night Carole walked into the comet pizza kitchen, and saw James Alefantis fucking her son in the kitchen. She was furious
because she immediately knew how completely James had taken advantage of her son. She quit immediately and denounced James
viciously in private, unwilling to do so publicly for professional reasons.
The story checks out, so far: Carole Greenwood is a single mom and has a son named Dylan, who was 13 years old/young in
2003. [...] [–] daj 16 points (+16|-0) 11 hours ago (edited 10 hours ago)
Disclaimer : I have absolutely no idea if this person is authentic, but since many Pizzagate critics argue
that the scandal has not a leg to stand on, because no victims have come forward so far, I believe this testimony is important
to share.
[...]
This is how he answered one of the questions on a voat comment thread. He seems to know/be aware of Dylan Greenwood
[...]
Here is one of the email exchanges between he and James Alefantis, that he did not delete:
http://archive.is/8423t
[...]
After a little while when it was nearing the final exams, I was stressed out, exhausted and let my guard down and went out
for some drinks with James a few times after work to get stuff off my chest. James would drug me up and then take advantage
of me. When I threatened to go to the police he implied that he would harm me physically and said he would sue me. He had so
many friends around DC that I believed him, I really was afraid, and just kept it all bottled up. I ended up getting PTSD,
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, from what were effectively rapes, and later I began to realize that I likely had Stockholm
Syndrome. I eventually quit the job, but James would send me lewd photos and texts for another 2 or three years at the rate
of once about every 2 to 3 months, I think 6 months was the longest in that period. I had to kick him out of the place I worked
when he came in every other month or so for about a year. Let this be a lesson: do not trust sociopaths and pathological liars.
Note: I have personally verified this person's identity and backstory. I obviously cannot verify his accusations. He
wishes to remain anonymous.
By now, most people are at least vaguely familiar with the so-called "fake news" story known as Pizzagate. For those that
aren't, the brief version is that self described "internet investigators" caught wind of some strange wording in the John Podesta
emails released by Wikileaks, and went down the largest internet rabbit hole in recent history.
The story was quickly written off as mass hysteria, a conspiracy theory, and fake news by nearly all of mainstream media,
and censored from the internet forum site Reddit. The theory, which has a plethora of circumstantial evidence, lacked one key
factor: a victim. [...] The anonymous nature of internet forums leads to skeptics demanding proof of any seemingly outrageous
claim. The publication of these emails adds credibility to his story.
"... A judge threw out Guiffre's motion in 2015, but Guiffre stands by her claims and is suing Ghislaine Maxwell, whom she claims acted as Epstein's madam. ..."
"... Buckingham Palace has also denied the allegations against Prince Andrew, calling them "categorically untrue. ..."
"... Requests for comment to Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Clinton Foundation were not returned. The former president, who flew on the "The Lolita Express" at least 26 times from 2001 to 2003, has never addressed his ties with Epstein, a onetime major Democratic donor, according to Federal Election Commission records, who also gave millions to the Clinton Foundation even after his arrest for abusing underage girls. ..."
Trump's supporters have long wondered whether he'd use billionaire sicko Jeffrey Epstein as ammo against the Clintons-until a
lurid new lawsuit accused The Donald of raping one of Epstein's girls himself. Editor's note: This article has been updated to
reflect the withdrawal of Virginia Roberts Guiffre's allegations against Alan Dershowitz and the striking of the allegations from
the court record by a federal judge. For Jeffrey Epstein and his famous friends, the Aughts were a simpler time, when the businessmen,
academics, and celebrities who counted themselves among the playboy philanthropist's inner circle could freely enjoy the fruits of
his extreme wealth and connections. Epstein's
little black book
and flight
logs read like a virtual Who's Who: Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Larry Summers, Kevin Spacey,
Prince Andrew , and Naomi Campbell all hitched rides on Epstein's private planes. Socialites and distinguished scientists went
to visit Epstein's island in St. Thomas, and cavorted at
epic dinner parties at his palatial townhouse-then
the largest privately owned residence in New York, as
he liked to brag .
There, they picked at elaborate meals catered by celebrity chefs like Rocco DiSpirito, marvelled at Epstein's opulent decor, and
noted the pack of very, very young model-types with whom Epstein always seemed to surround himself. But a darker story was going
on underneath the glamour. In 2008, Epstein was convicted of soliciting
sex from an underage girl and quietly paid settlements to scores of alleged victims who said he serially molested them.
But the girls kept coming out of the woodwork-in 2014, another young woman filed a lawsuit claiming that Epstein used her as a sex
slave for his powerful friends-and that she'd been at parties on his private island with former President Clinton. And just last
week, yet another "Jane Doe" filed a suit in New York accusing Epstein and Donald Trump of raping her at a series of sex parties
when she was only 13.
... ... ...
By the time Epstein was arrested in 2008, police in Palm Beach County, Florida, had already
spent months monitoring his movements, rifling through his trash, and interviewing potential victims and witnesses. Police
reported to prosecutors that they had gathered
enough evidence to charge the money manager with several felonies: lewd and lascivious molestation and four counts of unlawful sexual
activity with a minor. Epstein's freedom, his wealth, his little black book full of famous folk-including princes, presidents, and
prime ministers-all were seemingly at stake.
So Epstein did what the mega-rich do in these situations: hired star attorneys Gerald Lefcourt and Alan Dershowitz, who defended
their client vigorously, reportedly having witnesses followed and discrediting the alleged victims by offering their MySpace pages
as evidence of supposed drug use and scandalous behavior.
Prosecutors said Epstein's dream team made successful prosecution unlikely. "Our judgment in this case, based on the evidence
known at the time, was that it was better to have a billionaire serve time in jail, register as a sex offender, and pay his victims
restitution than risk a trial with a reduced likelihood of success," U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta explained in a 2011 letter.
And so, despite a decade of alleged serial sexual abuse and rape of an unknowable number of girls, some as many as 100 times according
to court filings, the notoriously secretive financier was offered a deal. For the alleged systematic victimization of young girls-most
of whom were plucked by Epstein's assistants from Palm Beach's poorer neighborhoods and groomed to adore or acquiesce to him-he was
slapped with a 2008 conviction on a single charge of soliciting a minor; and sentenced to an 18-month stay in a Palm Beach county
jail-of which he served only 13 months and was allowed to leave six days out of every week for "work release." He also agreed to
a few dozen confidential, out-of-court payoffs to his accusers, the most recent of which was finalized in 2011.
Epstein's "potential co-conspirators," as the U.S. Attorney called them-women who allegedly procured girls for Epstein-also received
immunity from prosecution as a condition of the 2007 agreement that enraged the local police force for its leniency. As of 2015,
according to The Guardian, two of these women had changed their names, and were operating businesses out of a building owned by Epstein's
brother, where it was alleged in court documents that Epstein had housed young women.
Though Epstein must register as a sex offender for life, and arguably suffer the world's most revolting Google presence, he has
seemingly retained his collection of elite academic and media friends as well as his fortune. Since his release in 2009, Epstein
has gone about his business, running a mysterious money management firm (clients unknown, income unknown, investments and activities
unknown) from his private 70-acre island in the U.S. Virgin Islands and spending time at his Uptown stone mansion. The palace was
gifted to Epstein, some say, by its previous owner-Epstein's guardian angel and the founder of The Limited Inc., Leslie Wexner.
... ... ...
In December 2014, just as the Palm Beach lawsuits were winding down, another alleged victim emerged and her claims were salacious:
Epstein, she said, had loaned her out as an underage sex slave to his famous friends -- including Britain's Prince Andrew and Epstein
defense attorney Dershowitz (both men denied the charges). Coming forward in Britain's
Daily Mail in 2011, Virginia Roberts Guiffre-called Jane Doe #3 in a related lawsuit (
PDF )-claimed that
Epstein and his "girlfriend,"
alleged
madame Ghislaine Maxwell, forced her to have sex with the pair's powerful pals and gather intel that Epstein could later
use. In court documents,
Guiffre testified, "Epstein and Maxwell also told me that they wanted me to produce things for them in addition to performing
sex on the men. They told me to pay attention to the details about what the men wanted so I could report back to them."
Guiffre noted that
Epstein appeared to be collecting information on Prince Andrew-particularly on his alleged foot fetish-and claimed, "Epstein also
trafficked me for sexual purposes to other powerful men, including politicians and powerful business executives. Epstein required
me to describe the sexual events I had with these men presumably so that he could potentially blackmail them. I am still very fearful
of these men today." A judge threw out Guiffre's motion in 2015, but Guiffre stands by her claims and is suing Ghislaine Maxwell,
whom she claims acted as Epstein's madam. Meanwhile, the men named by Guiffre seem eager for her to go away. "It's as if I've
been waterboarded for 15 months," Dershowitz told the
Boston Globe after the settlement of a defamation case related to Guiffre's claims. "This has taken a terrible
toll on my family, on my friends " Buckingham Palace has also
denied the allegations against Prince Andrew, calling them "categorically untrue."
UPDATE: This April, Giuffre's lawyers withdrew her allegations against Dershowitz and said that it was a "mistake" to have
filed the accusations in the first place. A federal judge later struck her allegations against Dershowitz from the court record.
At Dershowitz's request, Louis Freeh, the former head of the FBI, also conducted an independent investigation of her claims and published
a statement noting, "Our investigation found no evidence to support the accusations of sexual misconduct against Professor Dershowitz."
In her lawsuit, Guiffre had claimed that during trips to Epstein's private island, she'd also encountered another very famous
person: former President Bill Clinton. Guiffre
alleges the former
U.S. president visited Epstein's "Orgy Island" when there were underage girls present, but added that she never had sex with him
and never saw him have sex with any of the young women. Still, it's these sorts of allegations that have journalists and Clinton-haters
circling. Just last month, pundits on MSNBC's
Morning Joe were speculating about Bill Clinton's oft-discussed friendship with Epstein and whether it would
be the go-to play for a Trump campaign looking to combat Hillary Clinton's claims that Trump is
bad for women .
Requests for comment to Hillary Clinton's campaign and the Clinton Foundation were not returned. The former president, who
flew on the
"The Lolita Express" at least 26 times from 2001 to 2003, has never addressed his ties with Epstein, a onetime major Democratic donor, according
to Federal Election Commission records, who also
gave
millions to the Clinton Foundation even after his arrest for abusing underage girls.
"I invest in people-be it politics or science. It's what I do," Epstein has
reportedly said to friends. "There's a 100 percent
chance [Trump] is going there," said former McCain strategist Steve Schmidt on Morning Joe , referring to Clinton's friendship
with the pervy moneyman.
"... At the center of it all is former President Bill Clinton, listed twenty-six times on the Lolita Express's flight manifest -- though the ex-Prez said last week in a statement that it was only four times. (Consider the source.) ..."
"... A raft of unsealed documents in the matter has been court-ordered to drop any day, and power-players all over the world -- especially in our nation's capital and on Wall Street -- are rumored to be chewing their fingernails down to the nubbins as they wait for it. ..."
... Every candidate in the first Democratic “debate” raised a hand in favor of providing free medical
care to illegal border-jumpers. I wonder how that sits with the Americans who now pay
$12,000 a year for health insurance with a $5,000 deductible.
Of course, this policy of
unfettered illegal immigration does not economically favor the sizable demographic of poor
Americans, many of whom are people-of-color. In theory, the border-jumpers are taking
away an awful lot of jobs. But I think the argument there is that 300 years of slavery gives
bonafide US citizens-of-color a pass on manual labor - so it is not against their interests to
ally with the open border advocates - while both groups have an interest in getting any free stuff
the government may offer.
... ... ...
Finally, there is the walking time-bomb known as Jeffrey Epstein, Democratic Party poohbah
and impresario of an underage sex racket featuring the "Lolita Express" airplane service to his
private "Orgy Island" in the Caribbean, with auxiliary party shacks in New York City and the
New Mexico Desert. Rogue reports have been styling Epstein's doings as an international
blackmailing operation associated with the CIA and other Intel outfits, including the UK's MI6
and Israel's Mossad, for the purpose of keeping international bigshots on a short leash. Who
knows?
At the center of it all is former President Bill Clinton, listed twenty-six times on the
Lolita Express's flight manifest -- though the ex-Prez said last week in a statement that it
was only four times. (Consider the source.)
A raft of unsealed documents in the matter has been court-ordered to drop any day, and
power-players all over the world -- especially in our nation's capital and on Wall Street --
are rumored to be chewing their fingernails down to the nubbins as they wait for it.
What a cargo of wickedness is borne by the garbage barge called the Democratic Party as it
chugs out to sea toward a sickening, slightly radioactive orange sunset for what is looking
like its final voyage.
The extent of Israeli spying directed against the United States is a huge story that is
only rarely addressed in the mainstream media. The Jewish state regularly tops the list for ostensibly friendly countries that
aggressively conduct espionage against the U.S. and Jewish American Jonathan Pollard, who was imprisoned in 1987 for spying for
Israel, is now regarded as the most damaging spy in the history of the United States.
Last week I wrote about how
Israeli spies operating more-or-less freely in the U.S. are rarely interfered with, much less arrested and prosecuted, because there
is an unwillingness on the part of upper echelons of government to do so. I cited the case of Arnon Milchan, a billionaire Hollywood
movie producer who had a secret life that included stealing restricted technology in the United States to enable development of
Israel's nuclear weapons program, something that was very much against U.S. interests. Milchan was involved in a number of other
thefts as well as arms sales on behalf of the Jewish state, so much so that his work as a movie producer was actually reported to
be less lucrative than his work as a spy and black-market arms merchant, for which he operated on a commission basis.
That Milchan has never been arrested by the United States government or even questioned about his illegal activity, which was
well known to the authorities, is just one more manifestation of the effectiveness of Jewish power in Washington, but a far more
compelling case involving possible espionage with major political manifestations has just re-surfaced. I am referring to Jeffrey
Epstein, the billionaire Wall Street "financier" who has been arrested and charged with operating a "vast" network of underage girls
for sex, operating out of his mansions in New York City and Florida as well as his private island in the Caribbean, referred to
by visitors as "Orgy Island." Among other high-value associates, it is claimed that Epstein was particularly close to Bill Clinton,
who flew dozens of times on Epstein's private 727.
Alex Acosta (L) Jeffrey Epstein (R)
Epstein was arrested on July 8th after indictment
by a federal grand jury in New York. It was more than a decade after Alexander Acosta, the top federal prosecutor in Miami, who
is now President Trump's secretary of labor, accepted a plea bargain involving similar allegations regarding
pedophilia
that was not shared with the accusers prior to being finalized in court. There were reportedly hundreds of victims, some 35 of whom
were identified, but Acosta deliberately denied the two actual plaintiffs their day in court to testify before sentencing.
Acosta's intervention meant that Epstein avoided both a public trial and a possible federal prison sentence, instead serving
only 13 months of an 18-month sentence in the almost-no-security Palm Beach County Jail on charges of soliciting prostitution in
Florida. While in custody, he was permitted to leave jail for sixteen hours six days a week to work in his office.
Epstein's crimes were carried out in his $56 million
Manhattan mansion and in his oceanside villa in Palm Beach Florida. Both residences were equipped with hidden cameras and microphones
in the bedrooms, which Epstein reportedly used to record sexual encounters between his high-profile guests and his underage girls,
many of whom came from poor backgrounds, who were recruited by procurers to engage in what was euphemistically described as "massages"
for money. Epstein apparently hardly made any effort to conceal what he was up to: his airplane was called the "Lolita Express."
The Democrats are calling for an investigation of the Epstein affair, as well as the resignation of Acosta, but they might well
wind up regretting their demands. Trump, the real target of the Acosta fury, apparently did not know about the details of the plea
bargain that ended the Epstein court case. Bill and Hillary Clinton were, however, very close associates of Epstein. Bill, who flew
on the "Lolita Express"
at least 26 times , could plausibly be implicated in the pedophilia given his track record and relative lack of conventional
morals. On many of the trips, Bill refused Secret Service escorts, who would have been witnesses of any misbehavior. On
one lengthy trip
to Africa in 2002, Bill and Jeffrey were accompanied by accused pedophile actor Kevin Spacey and a number of young girls, scantily
clad "employees" identified only as "massage." Epstein was also a major contributor to the Clinton Foundation and was present at
the wedding of Chelsea Clinton in 2010.
With an election year coming up, the Democrats would hardly want the public to be reminded of Bill's exploits, but one has to
wonder where and how deep the investigation might go. There is also a possible Donald Trump angle. Though Donald may not have been
a frequent flyer on the "Lolita Express," he certainly moved in the same circles as the Clintons and Epstein in New York and Palm
Beach, plus he is by his own words roughly as amoral as Bill Clinton. In June 2016, one
Katie Johnson filed lawsuit in
New York claiming she had been repeatedly raped by Trump at an Epstein gathering in 1993 when she was 13 years old. In a 2002
New York Magazineinterview
Trump said "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy he's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful
women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it – Jeffrey enjoys his social life."
Selective inquiries into wrongdoing to include intense finger pointing are the name of the game in Washington, and the affaire
Epstein also has all the hallmarks of a major espionage case, possibly tied to Israel. Unless Epstein is an extremely sick pedophile
who enjoys watching films of other men screwing twelve-year-old girls the whole filming procedure smacks of a sophisticated intelligence
service compiling material to blackmail prominent politicians and other public figures. Those blackmailed would undoubtedly in most
cases cooperate with the foreign government involved to avoid a major scandal. It is called recruiting "agents of influence." That
is how intelligence agencies work and it is what they do.
That Epstein was perceived as being intelligence-linked was made clear
in Acosta's comments when being
cleared by the Trump transition team. He was asked "Is the Epstein case going to cause a problem [for confirmation hearings]?" "Acosta
had explained, breezily, apparently, that back in the day he'd had just one meeting on the Epstein case. He'd cut the non-prosecution
deal with one of Epstein's attorneys because he had 'been told' to back off, that Epstein was above his pay grade. 'I was told Epstein
belonged to intelligence and to leave it alone.'"
Questions about Epstein's wealth also suggest a connection with a secretive government agency with deep pockets. The New York
Timesreports that
"Exactly what his money management operation did was cloaked in secrecy, as were most of the names of whomever he did it for. He
claimed to work for a number of billionaires, but the only known major client was Leslie Wexner, the billionaire founder of several
retail chains, including The Limited."
But whose intelligence service? CIA and the Russian FSB services are obvious candidates, but they would have no particular motive
to acquire an agent like Epstein. That leaves Israel, which would have been eager to have a stable of high-level agents of influence
in Europe and the United States. Epstein's contact with the Israeli intelligence service may have plausibly come through his associations
with Ghislaine Maxwell, who allegedly served as his key procurer of young girls. Ghislaine is the
daughter of Robert Maxwell , who
died or possibly was assassinated in mysterious circumstances in 1991. Maxwell was an Anglo-Jewish businessman, very cosmopolitan
in profile, like Epstein, a multi-millionaire who was very controversial with what were regarded as ongoing ties to Mossad. After
his death, he was given a state funeral by Israel in which six serving and former heads of Israeli intelligence listened while Prime
Minister Yitzhak Shamir eulogized
: "He has done more for Israel than can today be said"
Trump (left) with Robert Maxwell (right) at an event
Epstein kept a black
book identifying many of his social contacts, which is now in the hands of investigators. It included fourteen personal phone
numbers belonging to Donald Trump, including ex-wife Ivana, daughter Ivanka and current wife Melania. It also included Prince Bandar
of Saudi Arabia, Tony Blair, Jon Huntsman, Senator Ted Kennedy, Henry Kissinger, David Koch, Ehud Barak, Alan Dershowitz, John Kerry,
George Mitchell, David Rockefeller, Richard Branson, Michael Bloomfield, Dustin Hoffman, Queen Elizabeth, Saudi King Salman and
Edward de Rothschild.
Mossad would have exploited Epstein's contacts, arranging their cooperation by having Epstein wining and dining them while flying
them off to exotic locations, providing them with women and entertainment. If they refused to cooperate, it would be time for blackmail,
photos and videos of the sex with underage women.
It will be very interesting to see just how far and how deep the investigation into Epstein and his activities goes. One can
expect that efforts will be made to protect top politicians like Clinton and Trump and to avoid any examination of a possible Israeli
role. That is the normal practice, witness the 9/11 Report and the Mueller investigation, both of which eschewed any inquiry into
what Israel might have been up to. But this time, if it was indeed an Israeli operation, it might prove difficult to cover up the
story since the pedophile aspect of it has unleashed considerable public anger from all across the political spectrum.
Senator Chuck Schumer , self-described
as Israel's "protector" in the Senate, is loudly calling for the resignation of Acosta. He just might change his tune if it turns
out that Israel is a major part of the story.
Philip M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational
foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is
councilforthenationalinterest.org, address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is[email protected]
aanirfan.blogspot.com in an article entitled " Epstein , Trump, 9/11 ' has identified Epstein's links not only to Mossad
but to his business relationships with CIA controlled airlines and perhaps to the false flag attacks on 9/11 .According to Aangirfan
, Epstein is a member of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission. The CIA and Mossad have strong
ties resulting from the efforts , according to the Wall Street Journal no less, of former CIA chiefs William Casey and James
Angleton . As Acosta has confirmed , Epstein has links to "intelligence " .
The presence of Ghislaine Maxwell is proof of Mossad's ownership of Epstein's kompromat operation. Ghislaine's father, Robert
Maxwell, created the Neva network -- a consortium of technology companies, banks, and Russian and Bulgarian organized crime
networks -- for his Mossad masters. Keeping up the family business, Ghislaine was running Epstein for the Israelis.
Speculation or scenario: the highest levels of the CIA and Mossad have been closely allied since the late 1940s (see especially
the role of James Angleton) and are pursuing common strategic objectives.
The New York Post remarked in March 2000:
"Epstein is an enigmatic figure. Rumors abound -- including wild ones about a career in the Mossad and, contrarily, the CIA."
Perhaps Epstein has been sponsored, funded, directed and protected by both agencies working in combination.
"Those blackmailed would undoubtedly in most cases cooperate with the foreign government involved to avoid a major scandal.
It is called recruiting "agents of influence." That is how intelligence agencies work and it is what they do."
But would not a single intelligence agency typically target and trap one isolated person, not a whole set of interconnected
people? That is, this is more like the way the P2 lodge worked in Italy, that is, a society.
With all the mystery surrounding how Epstein obtained such great wealth, I can't help but think it may be a global money
laundering operation connected to the global drug trade.
Books have been written about the CIA's involvement in cocaine and heroin distribution. Whether it's HW Bush and Iran Contra(cocaine)
and Bill Clinton with Mena, AR airport complicity in same or the explosion in poppy (HW's nickname just a coincidence ) production
in Afghanistan since the 2001 invasion, drugs seem to connect all these dots and more.
And, let's not forget the Israeli "Art Student" operation that targeted DEA offices.
A way for Epstein to get out from under this with the CUFI crowd might be to point out Mary, mother of Jesus, was pregnant
out of wedlock at 14 so what's the big deal?
NYT and Bloomberg have been writing about the mysterious source of Epstein's wealth. Epstein's hedge fund is established
offshore and has a hush-hush list of "clients". He was once sued by a guy named Michael Stroll who said he lost all $450k of
his money investing with Epstein, and he told an interviewer that everyone thought Epstein "was some kind of genius, but I never
saw any genius, and I never saw him work. Anyone that wealthy would have to work 26 hours a day, Epstein played 26 hours a day."
Bloomberg estimated that at best his net worth is $77m, which obviously is not enough to support his lavish lifestyle with 12
homes, a private island, private jet, 15 cars.
Epstein was "let go" by Bear Sterns because of his involvement in an insider trading case involving Edgar Bronfman, whose
firm Seagram was in a hostile takeover bid of another firm. Bronfman, former president of World Jewish Congress, and his two
daughters are investors in NXIVM which was recently charged with sex trafficking and other corruptions. Bronfman and Les Wexner,
the single largest investor in Epstein's "hedge fund", were co-founders of the Zionist org. Mega. All these people are in one
way or another connected with Israel.
I suspect Epstein and Bronfman were in fact running an international sex trafficking-racketeering ring on behalf of Mossad.
That would explain his mysterious source of wealth. His little black book is rumored to include 1,500 names of who's who in
politics, business and arts, and includes royalty, several foreign presidents and a famous prime minister.
Acosta needs to show some integrity and resign. But of course, if he had any, he would never have signed that plea bargain
to begin with.
First Mueller, now Epstein, two chances for Barr to turn the Deep State inside out, upside down once and for all. Will he
do it? I have my doubts. William Barr's father, Donald Barr, was the one who recruited Jeffrey Epstein, a two time college dropout,
to be a calculus and physics teacher at the prestigious Dalton School in NYC when he was the headmaster there. Donald Barr,
born Jewish but "converted" to Catholicism, was later ousted by a group of "progressive" parents at Dalton for being too conservative.
But he was the one who gave Epstein the foot in the door. From there he got to teach the son of Bear Stern's CEO Ace Greenberg,
and was recruited by the latter to work at Bear Sterns.
I wouldn't count out the CIA here. It is telling that one of Epstein's havens was overseas, several of them. These are locations
where the CIA could legally operate. After collecting dirt, they could then funnel some of it selectively to the Israelis for
distribution so the CIA could maintain plausible deniability while having a wall of separation between themselves and the Mossad-picked
third party that leaked the info.
In fact, this is the most plausible scenario; it fits with everything we know: 1) "intelligence" reportedly told Acosta to
back off 2) Epstein has been linked to the CIA 3) some of these locations were overseas, giving the CIA a legal justification
for spying 4) these were largely American politicians and American allies 5) the CIA reportedly threatened Trump when he came
into office by implying they would leak stuff on him: the Micheal Wolfe book, Fire and Fury I believe it was, related a story
of Trump being pressured to set up a meeting with the CIA where he'd speak to them and, essentially, pledge loyalty to them
because they would be his enemies otherwise (that's treason, btw); Trump dutifully complied 6) Epstein's mysterious wealth and
property management would have attracted CIA attention long ago, meaning they should have been aware of this unless they helped
set it up, including the guy's fake wealth (a front to get close to the powerful) anyone got a tax return for this guy?
This smells like CIA-Mossad joint op. If it were solely Mossad, the CIA should have stepped in and broken up this guy's little
operation considering his targets. They should have followed up by either eliminating Epstein as a message to Mossad not to
leak any of their dirt or threatened Epstein with punishment if he leaked or continued his activities. Tellingly, they covered
for the guy.
Also, does this sorry state of affairs make it more likely that Trump will "Wag the Dog" on Iran? Would the Epstein arrest
have even happened if Trump had done Bibi's bidding and attacked Iran when the False Flag of the drone shoot down had been teed
up for him like a driver smacking a golf ball. Conspiracy Theories is all we have left in the crumbling Empire of Lust and Greed.
Perhaps I'm just paranoid.
Milchan was involved in a number of other thefts as well as arms sales on behalf of the Jewish state
One of many apparently.
The scum described here was rewarded with becoming the mayor of Jerusalem.
We've been involved in everything we've been asked to do [re Israel].
[Dad] went and he bought all of the equipment from the plant. It ended up being shipped to Israel. Because you know at
that time, there was a complete embargo from the United States, and what little [the Israelis] got– well Most of what
they got were smuggled in.Most of them were illegal, all the arms. That's what Teddy Kollek did. That was his job before
he became a mayor [of Jerusalem]. He was a master smuggler. And he was good. Oh was he good! [laughter]
The honey trap is one of the most powerful (and legitimate) ways to compromise public officials, including heads of state.
Epstein is almost certainly Mossad.
This has been the talk and pretty obvious conclusion now for some time. Of COURSE Epstein was/is a MOSSAD asset if not agent.
What's more his usefullness to them isn't over yet, especially if Trump is one of the names he has.
I think if Trump caves next false flag and has a go at Iran, it will imply that Trump is dirty and Epstein can prove it.
I'm saying MOSSAD could be behind Epstein going down now as it makes his blakmail potential an imperitive. Hopefully Trump is
clean and there are indications he is. If not then he just lost any ability to resist whatever the zippers now want of him.
The sort of influence Zionist "Israel" needs to wield and does requires exactly such an interconnected and multilayered stable
of highly placed assets. Redundancy built in and how else do you think they manage to control so much AND avoid accountability?
They cast a wide net. But you knew that I think.
@Tired
of Not Winning deal with one of Epstein's attorneys because he had "been told" to back off, that Epstein was above his pay
grade. "I was told Epstein 'belonged to intelligence' and to leave it alone," he told his interviewers'
#4 Offshore Tax Schemes / Money Laundering
Deutsche Bank seems to be the Gordian Knot of financial filth and corruption. Epstein was a client of Deutsche Bank's 'special
services department' same as Trump and Kushner ..same Deutsche bank as already fined for money laundering.
Possible Epstein and whoever was behind him engaged in all of these. If congress is going to question Acosta .first question
should be who told him Epstein belonged to intelligence.
That 2002 New York piece Phil mentioned has some great tid-bits:
For more than ten years, he's been linked to Manhattan-London society figure Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the mysteriously
deceased media titan Robert Maxwell
He is an enthusiastic member of the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations.
Indicative of globalism, Zionism and Jewish group interest.
those close to him say the reason he quit his board seat at the Rockefeller Institute was that he hated wearing a suit.
Obviously a falsely contrived reason, wonder what the deal was here
"I invest in people – be it politics or science. It's what I do," he has said to friends. And his latest prize addition
is the former president [Bill Clinton].
Certainly suggestive of an intelligence operative mindset.
Before Clinton, Epstein's rare appearances in the gossip columns tended to be speculation as to the true nature of his
relationship with Ghislaine Maxwell. While they are still friends, the English tabloids have postulated that Maxwell has
longed for a more permanent pairing and that for undetermined reasons Epstein has not reciprocated in kind. "It's a mysterious
relationship that they have," says society journalist David Patrick Columbia. "In one way, they are soul mates, yet they
are hardly companions anymore. It's a nice conventional relationship, where they serve each other's purposes."
Friends of the two say that Maxwell, whose social life has always been higher-octane than Epstein's, lent a little pizzazz
to the lower-profile Epstein. Indeed, at a party at Maxwell's house, her friends say, one is just as apt to see Russian
ladies of the night as one is to see Prince Andrew.
Another interpretation is that his combination with Ghislaine was bringing a bit too much public attention to Epstein and
his activities and therefore it was decided to let things die down a bit.
in 1976, he dropped everything and reported to work at Bear Stearns, where he started off as a junior assistant to a
floor trader at the American Stock Exchange. His ascent was rapid.
At the time, options trading was an arcane and dimly understood field, just beginning to take off. To trade options,
one had to value them, and to value them, one needed to be able to master such abstruse mathematical confections as the
Black-Scholes option-pricing model. For Epstein, breaking down such models was pure sport, and within just a few years he
had his own stable of clients. "He was not your conventional broker saying 'Buy IBM' or 'Sell Xerox,' " says Bear Stearns
CEO Jimmy Cayne. "Given his mathematical background, we put him in our special-products division, where he would advise
our wealthier clients on the tax implications of their portfolios. He would recommend certain tax-advantageous transactions.
He is a very smart guy and has become a very important client for the firm as well."
In 1980, Epstein made partner, but he had left the firm by 1981. Working in a bureaucracy was not for him
Obviously, important facts are being left out. He is a talented options analyst but they have him advising clients on investment
structures to save taxes? Why wouldn't they put him on principal trades for Bear if he was such an options whiz?
And why did he leave? Trading firms are notoriously NOT bureaucracies, and anyone with a talent for making money, especially
in the early 80s, would find few fetters. Whole story not given here.
In 1982, according to those who know Epstein, he set up his own shop, J. Epstein and Co., which remains his core business
today. The premise behind it was simple: Epstein would manage the individual and family fortunes of clients with $1 billion
or more. Which is where the mystery deepens. Because according to the lore, Epstein, in 1982, immediately began collecting
clients. There were no road shows, no whiz-bang marketing demos – just this: Jeff Epstein was open for business for those
with $1 billion–plus.
Getting clients in asset management is a cut-throat business. But Epstein did not even have to make a pretense of competing
for business?
His firm would be different, too. He was not here just to offer investment advice; he saw himself as the financial architect
of every aspect of his client's wealth – from investments to philanthropy to tax planning to security to assuaging the guilt
and burdens that large sums of inherited wealth can bring on.
the conditions for investing with Epstein were steep: He would take total control of the billion dollars, charge a flat
fee, and assume power of attorney to do whatever he thought was necessary to advance his client's financial cause. And he
remained true to the $1 billion entry fee. According to people who know him, if you were worth $700 million and felt the
need for the services of Epstein and Co., you would receive a not-so-polite no-thank-you from Epstein.
Minimum $1b invested, no track record by the asset manager, and he claims the clients give him carte blanche? This is not
normal wealth management.
Turning down giant new stakes just because they fall short of $1b? Nonsense. The name of the game on the buy side on Wall
Street is size, because that gives you negotiating power with the sell side.
Epstein runs a lean operation, and those close to him say that his actual staff – based here in Manhattan at the Villard
House (home to Le Cirque); New Albany, Ohio; and St. Thomas, where he reincorporated his company seven years ago (now called
Financial Trust Co.) – numbers around 150 and is purely administrative. When it comes to putting these billions to work
in the markets, it is Epstein himself making all the investment calls – there are no analysts or portfolio managers, just
twenty accountants to keep the wheels greased and a bevy of assistants – many of them conspicuously attractive young women
– to organize his hectic life. So assuming, conservatively, a fee of .5 percent (he takes no commissions or percentages)
on $15 billion, that makes for a management fee of $75 million a year straight into Jeff Epstein's pocket.
Epstein makes all the daily investment decisions on $15b, yet no one on the sell side knows him? In other words Epstein does
not invest in new issues. But new issues are the gravy for making money on the buy side – think IPO discount. This is not normal
asset management.
some have speculated that Wexner is the primary source of Epstein's lavish life – but friends leap to his defense. "Let
me tell you: Jeffrey Epstein has other clients besides Wexner. I know because some of them are my clients," says noted m&a
lawyer Dennis Block of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. "I sent him a $500 million client a few years ago and he wouldn't
take him. Said the account was too small. Both the client and I were amazed. But that's Jeffrey."
You can always trust the word of an M&A lawyer. They would never mislead anyone for advantage.
he found himself spending there [in Santa Fe], talking elementary particle physics with his friend Murray Gell-Mann,
a Nobel Prize–winning physicist and co-chair of the science board at the Santa Fe Institute.
his covey of scientists that inspires Epstein's true rapture. Epstein spends $20 million a year on them
Gerald Edelman won the Nobel Prize for physiology and medicine in 1972 and now presides over the Neurosciences Institute
in La Jolla. "Jeff is extraordinary in his ability to pick up on quantitative relations," says Edelman. "He came to see
us recently. He is concerned with this basic question: Is it true that the brain is not a computer? He is very quick."
Stephen Kosslyn, a psychologist at Harvard. Epstein flew up to Kosslyn's laboratory in Cambridge this year to witness
an experiment that Kosslyn was conducting and Epstein was funding. Namely: Is it true that certain Tibetan monks are capable
of holding a distinct mental image in their minds for twenty minutes straight?
Epstein has a particularly close relationship with Martin Nowak, an Austrian biology and mathematics professor who heads
the theoretical-biology program at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton. Nowak is examining how game theory can
be used to answer some of the basic evolutionary questions – e.g., why, in our Darwinian society, does altruistic behavior
exist?
Danny Hillis, an MIT-educated computer scientist whose company, Thinking Machines, was at the forefront of the supercomputing
world in the eighties, and who used to run R&D at Walt Disney Imagineering
An intelligence operative would certainly have no interest in cultivating, buying or blackmailing scientists in the fields
of nuclear physics, controlling human behavior or supercomputers!
And by the way, the need to explain "altruism" in terms of game theory is a tip-off that Epstein and Nowak have no spiritual
life and cannot comprehend of it in other people. No surprise to find "do what thou wilt" as his guiding principle.
Strangely enough, given his scientific obsessions, he is a computer-phobe and does not use e-mail.
Before taking a big position, Epstein will usually fly to the country in question. He recently spent a week in Germany
meeting with various government officials and financial types, and he has a trip to Brazil coming up in the next few weeks.
On all of these trips, he flies alone in his commercial-jet-size 727.
Friends of Epstein say he is horrified at the recent swell of media attention around him
He has never granted a formal interview, and did not offer one to this magazine, nor has his picture appeared in any
publication.
The final straws. If he's not an intelligence operative, he's doing everything he can to give that impression!
He "flies alone." LOL! Poor Jeffrey, he so ronery!
When Bob Maxwell died at sea or disappeared it turned out that he had used or stolen every penny of ALL the pensions of his
employees .which were never recovered. After her father was given a state funeral in Israel (not England where he and his family
lived and worked) there followed a 2 year court case in which his 6 children were finally excused from any responsibility for
these pensions, despite inheriting his money and two of them working in his companies.
And now Ghislaine turns up as a US socialite, multi-decade pedophile procurer and international human trafficker. Nice family
.nice values! ...
Since the Little SAINT James pedo-island
that was allegedly owned by Jeffery Epstein did not have an airport (the closest one being
Curil E King airport in St. Thomas (about ten miles away)) that
means the 'guests' would either have to take a boat trip or a helicopter trip. Since Little SAINT James does have a
clearly marked helicopter landing site at the north central east part of the island (when viewed on google maps in satellite
view) one would suspect that is how these so-called 'guests' arrived at this pedo-island.
Those activities are not mutually exclusive. It could be #5: All of the above. We all know how Mossad operates. Nothing is
beyond them. The end justifies the means.
Acosta is a distraction .and possibly innocent since he did what he was told which was to go easy on an intelligence asset.
Forget the small fry and concentrate on the real criminals please.
Senator Chuck Schumer, self-described as Israel's "protector" in the Senate, is loudly calling for the resignation of
Acosta. He just might change his tune if it turns out that Israel is a major part of the story.
Schumer would already have been tipped of if is was an Israeli operation. It's an anti Trump thing.
The fact that the case has been moved to the Southern District of New York validates your cynicism.
Has the Only Democracy in the Middle East decided to sacrifice Epstein (he can be sprung later, his jig was up anyway) so
that an Epstein circus can replace Russiagate?
From renfro, the following great point:
"If congress is going to question Acosta .first question should be who told him Epstein belonged to intelligence."
, renfro! Thanks & my respect.
Because I have special enthusiasm for renfro's advice to "Congress," such will not fly with "congress."
Quote: "It will be very interesting to see just how far and how deep the investigation into Epstein and his activities goes."
Reply: We'll get a glistening kabuki show, with lots of wailing [walls], thunder and lightening, twists and turns, but, in
the end [as this case will go on and on – Harvey Weinstein, anyone?] people will forget about it.
I fear that this is all rapidly turning into a modified limited hangout. A whole lot of dirt will be inconclusively exposed
and, even though everyone will have a pretty good idea of what happened, there won't be enough will to do anything about it.
The caveat will be when the financial system finally implodes. A horde of jobless and desperate people will rapidly lose
their patience for being governed by a bunch of incompetent pedophile oligarchs, but until then everyone will just go with the
flow.
@Rabbitnexus
ut it looks more like a millionaire club. Intelligence agencies prefer to use secretaries and other less visible people as spies.
I would look for some association of friends of Israel, something that has lots of money, wants lots of power, spies on people,
both enemies and friends, and has some special love for Israel.
I maybe wrong, but this does not seem to me to be a single intelligence agency of any country. It operates in an age old
method of a secret society, like mafia or masons. It is neither mafia nor masons, but some that especially likes to help Israel
and probably created it. I guess there are such friends of Israel organizations, several.
In social science it is often assumed that people are selfish. The attempt to show that altruism contributes positively to
the prospects for survival and reproduction is important in defeating the presumption of underlying selfishness. It's not a
very deep idea. If ten people carry a gene that causes one of them to throw himself on a hand-grenade, thereby saving the other
nine, that gives the gene a better chance of being passed along than if the grenade goes off and most or all of the carriers
are killed. If interested, see the book Evolution of the Social Contract by Brian Skyrms.
First a question: who says the telephone numbers were the sort only an intimate or ultimate insider would have? Queen Elizabeth's
would surely have had to be the Buckingham Palace, Windsor Castle, Sandringham or Balmoral switchboard.
Then there is what a sleazy or dangerous guy like Epstein might be expected to do, namely toss in a whole lot of names (with
or without true up to date direct line numbers) to confuse and provide diversion and cover. Cute though isn't that he was supposed
still to be using an old fashioned address book in the 21st Century rather than an encrypted or at least password protected
smartphone.
The Palm Beach mansion Epstein owned was rigged with hidden cameras in some of the guest bedrooms according to an article
I read a couple of years back.
Im glad we have forums like this so the word can get out: honeypot operations are not a thing of just the KGB/Cold War past,
but of the Soros/intel orgs/globalist/Establishment present.
Future politicians and wealthy businesspersons need to be aware of this. The Bible has a great old verse that goes something
like, "Be sure your sins will find you out".
"Pedophilia"? Has anyone accused Epstein of mistreating pre-pubescent girls? I don't think so. If Mr. Giraldi wants to deplore
what Epstein is accused of, fine. But don't try to confuse us by suggesting that he attacked children rather than underage teens.
@follyofwar
even Israel understand this would not be regime change business as usual.
U.S. war gamers for years have been saying there's no way the U.S. could significantly "win" the war. It would surely drive
gas prices way up, and wake up the American public, creating a probably insurmountable political problem for Trump. Israel is
liable to get pelted from all sides -- Hezbollah has promised to attack in the event of war, and there are probably ways of
striking from Syria and Iran. Then there are the wild cards of Russia and China. No one knows for sure what Putin would do if
Iran were attacked, but he could certainly turn Israel into a parking lot very quickly if he wanted to.
Well founded scepticism. Still, now we know the extent of what Bernie Madoff got away with perhaps someone who was clever
and charming and appealed to those who wouldn't have invested with Madoff just might have put together enough billion dollar
portfolios to be able, as long as he managed his tax affairs well to become very rich during the 80s. It would be interesting
to know how he handled the October 1988 melt down.
One aspect of this entire Epstein Talmudic child abuse saga that really p*sses me off is the active participation of the
IRS. It was the same with Madoff and Maxwell. None of these talmudic ponzi's could have gotten off the ground if these gangsters
had been correctly filing all the correct tax forms like all the other goy schmucks.
Since 2012, with the Statute of Limitations retroactively extended 3 years to a total of 6 years backwards to 2006, all undeclared
foreign bank accounts of US persons or green card holders on IRS FBAR forms (Foreign Bank Account Report), and since 2012 form
8948 (Statement of Specified Foreign Financial Assets), which is even more intrusive, face IRS penalties of 50% of the highest
annual balance, and many tax sinners have been forced to pay more in taxes than these bank accounts ever contained. This is
the tip of the iceberg compared to jewish charity and foundation and estate fraud.
Epstein supposedly was "gifted" the NY mansion from his "mentor" at the defunct and fraudulent money changer Bear Stearns
for what must have been more than 50 Million. Rick Wiles drilled down in detail into this gift on
Thursday .
These kinds of shenanigans, like flying "friends" around the world to your various child abuse temples in your private jets,
are taxable gifts. In fact double taxed, taxed first as income and second with the gift tax. The Lolita Express could never
be declared as a business expense either.
The entire rotten affair stinks on every level and it gets more putrid at every layer of talmudic control is peeled bank.
At each level more Jews and Zionists come wiggling out and scurrying off to disappear from social and dinosaur media. But also
as each layer gets peeled bank we get closer to the core, which with ever more certainty is ritual child sacrifice used for
talmudic control.
Forget the small fry and concentrate on the real criminals please.
It's going to be difficult
Maurene Comey, one of the lead prosecutors who is handling the Epstein case, happens to be James Comey's daughter, the ex
FBI boss.
It remains to be seen if she will be giving Bill Clinton special treatment, just like her father gave to Hillary's "lock her
up".
Moreover, Judge Berman who preside the case, happens to be also a Clinton appointee (in 1998).
In 1982, according to those who know Epstein, he set up his own shop, J. Epstein and Co., which remains his core business
today. The premise behind it was simple: Epstein would manage the individual and family fortunes of clients with $1 billion
or more. Which is where the mystery deepens. Because according to the lore, Epstein, in 1982, immediately began collecting
clients. There were no road shows, no whiz-bang marketing demos – just this: Jeff Epstein was open for business for those
with $1 billion–plus.
The fly in the ointment of this carefully cultivated cover story:
"Statistics published in Forbes magazine's annual survey of America's billionaires expose this little known but shocking
reality. In 1982 there were 13 billionaires; in 1983 15″
There's no need for anything so crude as either the head of the CIA or FBI reporting directly to the Mossad when both agencies
are riddled from top to bottom with de facto Israeli espionage agents.
It's a Fool's Errand to think you can solve Epstein like a puzzle. Most, like Giraldi, are engaged in bias confirmation.
That isn't to say his speculations are entirely wrong but that we're all part of the play in one way or another.
In my view timing is rarely if ever coincidental. That seems glaringly obvious here. The Epstein scandal was resurrected
now for a reason. I suspect that like the Academic Admissions scandal the Permanent Government is throwing its weight around.
Warning (once again) that it can inflict casualties if exposing its 2016 malefactions is taken too far.
Weinstein served the same function -- with poor Meryl Streep the Sgt. Schultz headliner.
Put yourself in the mind of the various filth (e.g. Brennan) implicated in attempting to throw the election to Hillary and,
failing that, frame-up and destroy the duly elected POTUS. They think they're entitled to a pass given all they've turned a
blind eye to over the years.
Epstein's arrest strikes me as a shot across the bow in the context of the upcoming IG Report/Durham Investigation. I'm not
picking on Giraldi but all of his fans here should note he's been Mumble Mouth at best on those malefactions. Nor am I saying
that isn't the wise move for him.
The scandal that needs to be buried is that they built a global surveillance (and storage) apparatus, including of the American
people. There was widespread, systematic abuse of it during the Obama Administration ('000s of people). Whatever limitations
there were, effectively Mutually Assured Destruction with the establishment factions keeping an eye on each other, collapsed
as they all united to stop Trump.
Epstein, like Weinstein and the Academic Admissions scandal, is both distraction and a warning to the Governing and Business
Classes -- keep you heads down and mouths shut about these powerful intelligence/national security entities.
I generally think waiting to see how matters fall out is a very good idea. But when I read the information of Mr. Acosta's
interview, I sank a bit. Because it strongly suggested vested interest by the government – not to get to the truth.
That even the circus that usually comes to surround even credible cases will so muddy the waters as to avoid a rendering
of what actually took place.
And given how compromised the collusion matter is was or will continue to be – the stakes may be higher here such that muddying
the waters will be some relief for those involved.
Myth of brilliance has been created to explain origin of his wealth . But even that shit was not enough , more myths had
to be created like capacity of having brilliant discussions with Nobel laureate ( Physics) or with great educators , and with
world renowned economist .
I guess authorities can get away with saying what F lies they can say until it blows up on their faces . Jew thinks goym
are stupid , so tell them whatever come to mind like having a great autonomous brain that doesn't depend on education or training
or publicly visible job to figure out the finances , economy, hard computer , physical and cognitive sciences and earning millions
,
while busy with
1 taking nude picture and storing them in 3-4 different areas
2 ferrying big guns from 3 different continents to Orgy Islsnd
3 Getting their intimate information , charting them connecting them and storing them
4 having parties with semi nude girls but attended by celebrities
5 holding message parkour parties from girls procured from shanty , trailer park ,
6 having serial girl friends
– there are more .
Oh yeah!!! No wonder people under pressure , lack of information , from removal of connecting dots , undue respect for glory
money power , fear for being seen as ' naysayer ' or pessimist or low IQ uninformed , and fear of public ridicule can believe
or can feign to believe the wildest whoopers / lies/ plaint shit dished out by the upper echelon of the society .
( then we wonder why people believe in UFO , big foot ,
, personal angels , apparitions, or America is a force for good )
Epstein in my opinion is a mossad officer whose agenda is to compromise zio/US politicians for the benefit of Israel and
in this he is just one of many in the zio/US and in fact the zio/US gov is infested with dual Israeli citizens whose first and
only loyalty is to Israel.
Read the book Blood in the Water by Joan Mellen about the attack on the USS Liberty by Israel and the US government to see
how intertwined the mossad and the CIA are and remember the joint Israeli and zio/US gov attack on the WTC on 911, the zionists
rule America!
"CIA and the Russian FSB services are obvious candidates, but they would have no particular motive to acquire an agent like
Epstein."
This is an assertion with nothing to back it up. The CIA, in particular, has every reason to use an 'Epstein' for its nefarious
purposes as it IS the deep state or at least a major part of it.
The CIA owns the drug trade in Afghanistan and Mena, Arkansas can easily be connected to CIA activities along with gun running
in Mexico. The CIA is the official criminal organization within the US gov't and it went rogue decades ago. It can afford to
have multiple 'Epstein' clones running around to make sure it can control the US political class to not investigate its activities
too closely.
The CIA and Israel are indistinguishable from each other. Israel runs US foreign policy via the CIA and their own Mossad.
Come on, Phil Giraldi. Do you believe in an independent American justice system? What a joke. It's corrupt to the bone. Weinstein,
Epstein, Maxwell, Adelson, Saban, Koch you name it, have America in their pocket like Sharon used to say. During a furious beef
between Sharon and Shimon Peres, Sharon turned toward Peres, saying "every time we do something you tell me Americans will do
this and will do that. I want to tell you something obvious, don't worry about American pressure on Israel, we, the Jewish people,
control America, and the Americans know it."
Could anyone but an intelligence agency get away with all of the following: 1) harassing witnesses (forcing their cars off
the road public highways), 2) searching the trash of police officers in an attempt to find dirt on the officers and 3) obtaining
a sweet heart plea bargain when the police had dozens of victims (who didn't even know each other) telling the exact same story
and ready to testify – as well as photos of nude adolescents seized in a search.
Who could have done such things and got away with it.
Epstein must have been an operative. The only question is: for whom did he work?
Gasp!!! Are you suggesting sweet, innocent Monica was blowing Slick Willie for reasons other than his taking advantage
of her?
In his book Gideon's Spies the late Welsh author Gordon Thomas claimed Mossad had tapes of the same for blackmail
reasons. However, this has never been confirmed.
Epstein will "cop a plea" and avoid a trial. That is certain.
A couple of things I'd like to ask the brilliant Epstein: Why did you engage in your nefarious sexual activity in New York
State and Florida? The "age of consent" in both states is 18. In New Jersey, PA and other states, it's 16. Now US federal law
prohibits sex between people 12 to 16 if one of the participants is 4 years or more older than the other. The law says "between"
not inclusive of 16. So 16 might be OK. That's young enough.
Also Jeffrey, why didn't you take your "Lolita Express" to Tel Aviv? It's legal in Israel and no one checks up of the actual
ages of the "working girls." And most are the tall blond/blue and slim types from Eastern Europe.
"Pedophile" is incorrect, as a commenter noted. The age cutoff is 13 for pedophilia. DSM-5. These escapades comprise different
serious felonies. However, the Epstein colleagues can rest easy, if Rush's instinct about prosecuting Hillary is correct. Rush
has said that prosecuting Hillary will not happen, because it would "roil" the nation. Same here. I expect to see a lot of MSM
passive voice, and intransitive verbs, but no roiling. "The car drove off the side of the bridge."
Asimov's father once wrote a book called "The Sensuous Dirty Old Man." Hmm .
More seriously, did it ever occur to you that someone might want to know your source before accepting your claim that Mueller
"supposedly classified Epstein as an informant"? Supposed by whom?? Eh????
believes Epstein allegedly preyed on Araoz when she was 14 because she was vulnerable.
"She had just transferred to a new school and didn't know anybody," attorney Kimberly Lerner said in an interview. "She
didn't have a father. Her mother was very poor. She was from a single-parent home. She was really struggling, and she wanted
to be a model and an actress. He absolutely preyed upon the most vulnerable."
@Lou123
n Ring' which supposedly was providing child prostitutes to high level US politicians who in turn were then being blackmailed
by the existence of surreptitious recordings having been made of these incidents by US intelligence agencies.
The below newspaper article explains what ultimately happened to the lead investigator of the case. Gary Caradori had been
hired by the Nebraska state legislature to find out what had actually transpired regarding the alleged Nebraska based ring.
Needless to say his investigation was unexpectedly 'cut short'.
What if .Acostoa is just a stooge, In fact he probably insisted on SOME jail time here. Otherwise the rest of the US "justice"
system could care less. Even NYC is complicit. It's a snow job of theater, this democracy is. It's a joke. It only looks like
a democracy on tv.
Mossad, CIA, FBI, MI5, who cares? All of these are criminal enterprises, just like the governments providing them cover and
"legitimacy".
Really interesting aspect of any elite in-fighting is that it exposes an "uncomfortable truth" that there is only one elite
running the show. That there is only Republicratic party, which regularly organizes (for the benefit of sheeple still believing
in "democracy") puppet shows called elections, where ostensibly Democrats battle Republicans. In fact, both are just two hands
of the same puppet master. That's why the same criminals are prominent at all "Republican" and "Democratic" functions.
The other thing that the story of that Epstein character clearly shows is that all those "respectable people" are nothing
more than rich criminals, and the only reason they aren't in jail is that they have enough money to get away with any crime.
@Talha
refully scripted to identify girls who could be vulnerable to manipulation, have a chaotic family life, need money, need social
connections for career advancement . The female procurer would report to Epstein and receive instructions to abandon or continue
to recruit the "candidate". A female procurer is used as she will not arouse suspicion in a young girl. These are simple techniques
that have been used for centuries worldwide. A father must cultivate a close relationship with his daughter, know when she is
OK or not OK, and most importantly be an example of a quality man that his daughter will compare to every man she meets(being
overprotective merely makes her more vulnerable).
Meh. Get ready for a tidal wave of MSM articles talking about how the deranged, alt-right internet conspiracy theorists are
having a field day with the Epstein case, after which your average American moron will be programmed to just smirk and roll
his eyes whenever the facts touched on in this article are brought up.
Ms. Aroaz's father was deceased before she met the female procurer
Well, then I take back what I said – obviously can't blame a dead man for not being there.
A father must cultivate a close relationship with his daughter, know when she is OK or not OK, and most importantly be
an example of a quality man that his daughter will compare to every man she meets
I don't know if Giraldi is a plant or not. However, the first law of understanding "intelligence agents" or ex spooks is
to always be suspicious of everyone. The group he belongs too seems legitimate enough but we have been set up before. I've be
reading Giraldi a long time and he has a similar "theme" in every piece but he also leaves small things out that should be in
his articles. The Devil is in the Details and man with his experience should be "Detailed Oriented."
He should know about Epstein and Muller and a few other things since this is the stock and trade of all intelligence agencies.
The interesting thing about this case is, the left wants it exposed because they think it'll take down Trump, the right wants
it exposed because they think it'll take down Bill Clinton. My guess is, more Dems will go down than Republicans. Trump was
a Democrat and a big supporter of Clintons and Chuck Schumer before he decided to run as a GOP in 2016. He could've gone either
way.
Sex scandals tend to plague the left, especially sexual perversions like porn, prostitution, child sex or gay sex. It's coz
the left is dominated by Jews who are prone to sexual perversion, and also because liberals believe feelings and passion trump
all, anything you do is not your fault as long as you are just following your feelings.
One reason Trump is so pro-Israel and hell bent on attacking Iran could be because the Jews have something on him, which
is not too hard since he's been in business with them for a lifetime and is as unctuous and unscrupulous as any of them. They
might be getting impatient with him on Iran and wants someone who can get the job done like Mike Pence to take over. Epstein
could take down both Clinton and Trump, Clinton has outlived his usefulness to them since Hillary didn't win, he'll be the sacrificial
lamb while they take out Trump for Pence.
Republic asked the following critical question which should not be cast away:
"If Epstein worked for Mossad, why wasn't he tipped off in Paris not to return to the US?"
! Mossad deception is sophisticated & patterns of telling a lie upon another improved lie ar characteristic.
Also, Mossad's implemented practices/techniques are adaptable to circumstances which seem supportive of what dumb goyim consider
"justice served," but they actually benefit Israel.
A thought. I figure Epstein knew what fate awaited him prior to landing at Teterboro Airport tarmac.
Well, Giraldi did work there and would have heard people complaining about the presence and influence of Israeli spies. Colonel
Kiatowoski's book about the presence of Israeli spies in the Pentagon made it clear Pentagon personnel resented the Israeli
spies but could do nothing about it.
@Talha
ing to a recently divorced man whose x-wife hates him (nothing new), and who has two teenage daughters. The x has poisoned the
daughters against him, (nothing new), and because he was trying to be strident with his elder daughter vis-a-vis drugs, (nothing
new), he now is not allowed to have any contact with them via the skewed courts, (nothing new).
They're doing a Weimar regime redux. That was the apex of their heyday, when the children of Germany were their playthings,
and Berlin was a giant brothel- girls and boys for sale, especially the ones whose fathers had died in their holocaust
that was WWI.
@j2
has maybe 10 Israeli immigrants or American Jews who work for him. Each has 10-15 American Jews who can be called upon. So it's
a wide network.
You're right that clerks secretaries accountants have great access to information. But the Israeli system is widespread.
Plus, the information needn't always come from Jews.
It really does exist. There's an Israeli who hosts sabbath dinners in Los Angeles. He invites American Jews to be briefed
on what's going on in Israel. I'm positive he also recruits agents in place he spots at those dinners. Guests who have no access
to anything useful at least get to feel they're participating in the cause.
@AnonFromTN
he only reason they aren't in jail is that they have enough money to get away with any crime.
True. And this Epstein coverage is bringing out more nooks and crannies of how the really rich control systems for their
own benefit.
Like why was Epsteins tax rate on his NY mansion only 0.6% .why is Bill de Blasio tax rate on his mansion only 0.2% ..when
other NY'ers taxrate is 12%.
@ChuckOrloski
howed the original twelve members in indecent poses . At the entrance to the abbey, there was an inscription which read Fay
ce que voudras – do what thou wilt – a term which Aleister Crowley borrowed nearly 200 years later. "
Ben Franklin likely would have been a prominent visitor to Little St. James, just as he was to
West Wycombe in his day.
Thomas Paine too.
There is regular sex and "deviation", pornography, pedophilia
There is drugs, illegal and legal, hard and soft
Then there is finance, always pimping, always on exploitation, abuse of minors, as young as not yet born, globally, and to
be comitted legally. Pedophilia and drugs are soft core, barely leveling at the sock suspenders of our financiers.
A few hundred of the top tier Wall Street-ers belong in jail, as rats eating their own tail, they only can be administered
there. Starting with Mnuchin. Epstein should be let alone, so he can decoy a little longer, and await his turn, pecking order
obliges. Ah, the public sector, the ones with faces, real fungi are minding the dark.
Linked on this same site today, Michael Hudson, seems to attribute Empire and financial capitalism, debt, the demise of the
dollar, to Trump. ?. Of all men, another scripted clown gets the blame. The shredding is spoiling the carpet.
If unz.com is so willingly pointing out the third liners, as Maya sacrifices to the deities in the shades, then there you
have one more reason the rag is impervious to censorship.
Gardner's and retail store clerks have personal phone numbers of the rich and famous. For instance, clerks at high
end retail clothing stores are supposed to cultivate shoppers on a personal level so they can call them up with the great news
of items they'd like to buy.
Actors producers directors numbers and home addresses can be obtained from people who work at their agents accountants PR
and attorney offices
Police departments have access to all phone numbers. Most of the Find a Number websites don't have the private number of
celebrities. But there are plenty of people who can access all the cell phone records.
How to get away with blackmailing without blackmailing.
First, you need to recruit people in. Have lots of massive parties at your spacious home for wealthy men. Have lots of women
mostly teens and under aged.
Sooner or later there will be some mingling going on. Some billionaire will get handsy and end up in a room with a girl ..and
hidden cameras.
Epstein informs him later the girl was really 15, but offers him a nice, neat way to buy silence: a large allocation to his
hedge fund, which charges 5% ..with power of attorney for himself.
To ease the pain for the black mailee Epstein puts the money in something as safe as treasury notes or money market fund.
Then Epstein collects his 'fees' ..x millions on the interest from treasury notes or etc..
Soooo no traceable blackmail payoff checks or wire transfers from his fellow pedos.
Epstein may also try this on other important political figures, mayors, prosecutors, etc. He doesnt blackmail them to 'invest'
in his fund but has them in his pocket.
The evidence would probably be in a deposit box in his offshore Caribbean bank.
One reason Trump is so pro-Israel and hell bent on attacking Iran could be because the Jews have something on him, which
is not too hard since he's been in business with them for a lifetime and is as unctuous and unscrupulous as any of them.
They might be getting impatient with him on Iran and wants someone who can get the job done like Mike Pence to take over.
Epstein could take down both Clinton and Trump, Clinton has outlived his usefulness to them since Hillary didn't win, he'll
be the sacrificial lamb while they take out Trump for Pence.
Just what I was going to write, but you got there first.
Thank you very much. pedophilia stops at the victims 13th birthday. Then it's various degrees of molestation of a minor .
It's usually 13 and 14, then 15. Then 16 and 17. In some states the age of consent is 16. Epstein's activities weren't just
molestation of minors. They were procuring for prostitution as well.
I have been meaning to ask this for a while, Dr. Giraldi, let’s say stuff you write about Israel is all true, you are ex-CIA,
then can we assume there are many like you or is that not the case? If that’s the case, then why none of them stand up and oppose?
Or are they too afraid of standing up for their country?
There are at least nine factions in the CIA concerning Israeli politics:
1. anti-Israel for emotional reasons (instinctive hostile feelings towards Jews, Judeophobia)
2. anti-Israel for ideological reasons (reasoned opposition towards Judaism and Zionism as doctrines)
3. anti-Israel for strategic reasons (bad for long-term American interests)
4. pro-Israel for emotional reasons (warm feelings towards Jews)
5. pro-Israel for ideological reasons (for instance, Christian Zionists)
6. pro-Israel for occult reasons (the world’s most powerful secret society mandates support as part of a grand mystical scheme)
7. pro-Israel for reasons of personal self-interest (issues concerning bribery, blackmail, careerism, etc.)
8. pro-Israel for strategic reasons (good for long-term American strategic interests)
9. pro-Israel for strategic reasons AND hostile to Jews (Jewish nationalists provide a counterweight to Jewish leftists in
the Diaspora, divide and conquer tactics)
Since the late 1940s, the pro-Israel factions in the CIA have easily dominated the anti-Israel (or Israel-skeptical) factions.
By the way, most CIA employees, including many high level employees, don't have a full understanding of what is going on
in the CIA, including knowledge of the most influential players and operations and their connections.
This debauchery is a part of the crisis of neoliberalism. It does increases the level of de-legitimization of neoliberal elite.
As one commenter pointed out: we need the names of scum, wealthy perverts from the United States who travelled to Epstein
island-sized rape dungeon off the coast of Saint Thomas.
Notable quotes:
"... This appears to be something of a pattern. "What is so amazing to me is how his entire social circle knew about this and just blithely overlooked it," Ward says of Epstein's pederasty. "While praising his charm, brilliance and generous donations to Harvard, those [I] spoke to all mentioned the girls as an aside." ..."
"... The Epstein case is first and foremost about the casual victimization of vulnerable girls. But it is also a political scandal, if not a partisan one. It reveals a deep corruption among mostly male elites across parties, and the way the very rich can often purchase impunity for even the most loathsome of crimes ..."
"... our elites still love Epstein, even if he does rape little girls ..."
"... This is how America is. This is how our ruling class works: Democrat, Republican, whatever. As the inimitable Matthew Walther points out , there's a reason people believe in Pizzagate. The Hellfire Club is real. And for decades, we've emboldened them considerably. ..."
"... Surely I'm not the only one who noticed that the Epstein sex abuse timeline is nearly identical to the Catholic Church sex abuse timeline. Both investigations were initiated in the early 2000s. Both revealed that the exploitation of children was an open secret in the highest echelons of power. Both investigations were closed a few years later, though not resolved. We assumed justice would take its course, and slowly began to forget. And then within two years of each other, both scandals emerged again, more sordid than ever. And on both occasions, we realized that nothing had changed. ..."
"... Of course, we know where that leads us. For two centuries, conservatives have tried to dampen the passions that led France to cannibalize herself circa 1789. ..."
"... Yes: those passions are legitimate. We should feel contempt for our leaders when we discover that two presidents cavorted with Epstein, almost certainly aware that he preyed on minors. We should feel disgust at the mere possibility that Pope Francis rehabilitated Theodore McCarrick. And we should be furious that these injustices haven't even come close to being properly redressed. ..."
"... This isn't about politics. This is about common decency and respect for the most vulnerable. Clinton? Trump? Who cares? If--and that's a big "if"--it comes to pass that either or both were involved in the Epstein festivities then either or both are scum and should be punished accordingly --along with the rest of their playmates at the Epstein playground. ..."
"... Does the author have some evidence to prove that President Trump is a pedophile, as he suggests in this article? Are all persons who may have been friends with Epstein perverts and criminals? ..."
"... If our decadent elite falls at all, it will be from imperial over-reach and losing a major foreign war, not from pedophilia, which is rapidly being normalized along with the rest of LGBTQWERTYUIOP. ..."
"... The so called elites seem above reproach. Our morality has been skewed through the soul. ..."
"... I applaud the courageous outliers like Ryan Dawson and Phil Giraldi that have considerably more guts than me. Blessings ..."
"... I don't think there is going to be a revolution, whether in UK or US, at most people would be outraged for couple of weeks and then forget. ..."
"... Excellent article. But off the mark on one key point. The corruption of the elites and Ruling Class -- and they are sickeningly corrupt -- is only a reflection of, or if you will a leading indicator, of a related corruption of the body politic. ..."
"... So Trump simply makes a comment, has no record of any flights, attendance or participation and this article would have you believe that it equates as despicable as a frequent flyer on the Lolita Express? This author is no different than the fake news. ..."
"... Trump did allegedly make one flight on the plane, from the NY area to Florida. No records show him flying to the "orgy island". ..."
"... Actually, the logs don't show that he was on the plane. Epstein's brother CLAIMS he was on the plane...the most anybody else has said to support that is that Trump looked at the plane on the ground. ..."
"... It's a Trump problem insofar as he continues to defend Acosta. This is the Sec of Labor who effectively let Epstein walk and who now oversees anti-human trafficking efforts (which he has repeatedly tried to gut the funding for). ..."
"... Did you see Acosta's press conference? The local State DA wanted to let Epstein walk - on a lesser state charge through a Grand Jury. Acosta's US Attorney office stepped in to get the charges increased as much as they could so that Epstein would do SOME jail time and - more importantly - have to register as a sex offender. ..."
"... I agree. As much as I detest Trump, I don't think that he was involved with Epstein's debauchery. However, I do believe the women that claim being assaulted, because he is on tape claiming to do what they describe. And there is so many of them. And he has had multiple documented affairs while married to every one of his wives. But no evidence yet of him with underage girls. ..."
"... Right, because those Kavanaugh accusers were so credible, right? No evidence, decades later? Nope. Unlike Kavanaugh, Trump was on a big stage for decades and was a pretty easy target with the tabloids looking for dirt...but none of them came forward. ..."
"... Trump owes America an apology, reading his comments it is obvious he was aware of, and disapproved of, Epstien proclivities, but didn't have the guts to stand up. (I do not believe the stories of Trump being involved, but if it turns out I am wrong on that, fry him ) ..."
Our elites cavorted with a pedophile, almost certainly aware of what he was up to. This is how revolutions begin.
Bill Clinton (Wikipedia Commons); Jeffrey Epstein mugshot (public domain) and Donald Trump
(Gabe Skidmore /Flickr)
For once, I'm with New York Times writer Michelle Goldberg: Jeffrey Epstein is the ultimate symbol of plutocratic rot.
In her
latest column , Goldberg interviews Vicky Ward, who covered the 2003 revelations of Epstein's sex abuse for Vanity Fair
. Ward's editor, Graydon Carter, allegedly ran interference for the high-flying pervert, nixing her discussion with two women
who claimed to have been assaulted by Epstein. "He's sensitive about the young women," Carter explained to Ward.
This appears to be something of a pattern. "What is so amazing to me is how his entire social circle knew about this and
just blithely overlooked it," Ward says of Epstein's pederasty. "While praising his charm, brilliance and generous donations to
Harvard, those [I] spoke to all mentioned the girls as an aside."
Back to Goldberg:
The Epstein case is first and foremost about the casual victimization of vulnerable girls. But it is also a political
scandal, if not a partisan one. It reveals a deep corruption among mostly male elites across parties, and the way the very rich
can often purchase impunity for even the most loathsome of crimes. If it were fiction, it would be both too sordid and
too on-the-nose to be believable, like a season of "True Detective" penned by a doctrinaire Marxist.
Of course, Goldberg -- being a Democrat -- doesn't want us to think of this as a partisan scandal. Yet Nancy Pelosi's daughter
conspicuously tweeted that it's "quite likely
that some of our faves are implicated." We all know by now that President Bill Clinton was a
frequent flyer on the Lolita Express, Epstein's
private jet, which ferried wealthy perverts from the United States to his island-sized rape dungeon off the coast of Saint Thomas.
Still, a few Republicans will almost certainly be implicated, too. Now, look: I voted for President Donald Trump in 2016. If
I don't vote for him in 2020, it will be because I've lost faith in the whole democratic process and have moved to a hole in the
ground to live as a hobbit. Having said that, Trump is definitely tainted by Epstein. In a 2002 interview with New York Magazine
, the president called him a "terrific guy." "It
is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do," Trump said, "and many of them are on the younger side."
Don't pretend that's an innocent remark. It's like when Uncle Steve passes out face-down on the kitchen floor at the family Christmas
party and Uncle Bill says, "I guess that one likes to drink." We still love Uncle Steve, even if he does overdo it on the
fire water. And our elites still love Epstein, even if he does rape little girls. None of us is perfect, after all.
This is how America is. This is how our ruling class works: Democrat, Republican, whatever. As the inimitable Matthew Walther
points out ,
there's a reason people believe in Pizzagate. The Hellfire Club is real. And for decades, we've emboldened them considerably.
Remember how Democrats and centrist Republicans mocked conservatives for making such a stink about Monica Lewinsky's blue dress?
The media elite competed to see who could appear the most unfazed by the fact that our sax-playing president was getting a bit on
the side. "I mean, heh heh, I love my wife, but, heh, the 1950s called, man! They want their morality police back."
Well, look where that got us. Two confirmed adulterers have occupied the White House in living memory; both are now under fire
for cavorting with a child sex slaver on Orgy Island. Go ahead and act surprised, Renault.
♦♦♦
Surely I'm not the only one who noticed that the Epstein sex abuse timeline is nearly identical to the Catholic Church sex abuse
timeline. Both investigations were initiated in the early 2000s. Both revealed that the exploitation of children was an open secret
in the highest echelons of power. Both investigations were closed a few years later, though not resolved. We assumed justice would
take its course, and slowly began to forget. And then within two years of each other, both scandals emerged again, more sordid than
ever. And on both occasions, we realized that nothing had changed.
Whew. Now I get why people become communists. Not the new-wave, gender-fluid, pink-haired Trots, of course. Nor the new far Left,
which condemns child predators like Epstein out one side of its mouth while
demanding
sympathy for pedophiles out the other.
No: I mean the old-fashioned, blue-collar, square-jawed Stalinists. I mean the guy with eight fingers and 12 kids who saw photos
of the annual Manhattan debutantes' ball, felt the rumble in his stomach, and figured he may as well eat the rich.
Of course, we know where that leads us. For two centuries, conservatives have tried to dampen the passions that led France to
cannibalize herself circa 1789.
Nevertheless, those passions weren't illegitimate -- they were just misdirected. Only an Englishman like Edmund Burke could have
referred to the reign of Louis XIV as "the age of chivalry." Joseph de Maistre spoke for real French conservatives when he said
the decadent, feckless aristocracy deserved to be guillotined. The problem is, Maistre argued, there was no one more suitable to
succeed them.
Yes: those passions are legitimate. We should feel contempt for our leaders when we discover that two presidents cavorted
with Epstein, almost certainly aware that he preyed on minors. We should feel disgust at the
mere
possibility that Pope Francis rehabilitated Theodore McCarrick. And we should be furious that these injustices haven't even
come close to being properly redressed.
"Us Democrats"??? This isn't about politics. This is about common decency and respect for the most vulnerable. Clinton? Trump?
Who cares? If--and that's a big "if"--it comes to pass that either or both were involved in the Epstein festivities then either
or both are scum and should be punished accordingly --along with the rest of their playmates at the Epstein playground.
The only question is whether or not those who participated in this apparent debauch will ever be brought to justice--so,
on that note--let the dissembling begin!
Does the author have some evidence to prove that President Trump is a pedophile, as he suggests in this article? Are all
persons who may have been friends with Epstein perverts and criminals?
You are as my grandfather told me repeatedly: "You are your associates & colleagues, their morality or lack thereof, will
in time infect you as well, despite all protests to the contrary; choose wisely."
If our decadent elite falls at all, it will be from imperial over-reach and losing a major foreign war, not from pedophilia,
which is rapidly being normalized along with the rest of LGBTQWERTYUIOP.
In France, the generation of aristocrats and especially
the royal family who were guillotined were relatively conservative in their sexual habits compared to the bloodthirsty sexual
revolutionaries who murdered them. And the libertine aristocrats of Great Britain (I believe that's where the actual hellfire
club was from) led the war against Napoleon and the temporary victory of the old order which followed his defeat.
The so called elites seem above reproach. Our morality has been skewed through the soul. Tribalism is alive and well. Wars,
diversity, erasing of our most cherished values, and a mainstream media that is in lockstep the rulers and those who see fit
to erase Freedom of Speech and make arbitrarily decisions as to what we can and cannot say. It is like living a bad dream.
I
applaud the courageous outliers like Ryan Dawson and Phil Giraldi that have considerably more guts than me. Blessings
It's the mainstream media that forced this into the light. The elites and the justice system did all they could to cover
it up, same as with the Catholic Church.
As for "our most cherished virtues", this has all been going on forever. Kings and courtiers, masters and slaves, the son
of the manor and the serving girls. Give me a break.
The only thing that is changing it is a shift in power to women.
"Paederasty" is better reserved for relationships between patrician
men, and boys, in which there was an expectation that the boy would
eventually approximate the social rank of his lover. Not to be applied
to a man running a little-girl brothel.
In UK thousands of girls were raped and nobody lost their job over it. Well, correction, people who tried to bring attention
to the horrific crimes happening lost their jobs or were prosecuted. After the scandal could no longer be contained and arrests
were finally made, there was no reckoning. No people marching in the streets, demanding heads of the goverment. I don't think
there is going to be a revolution, whether in UK or US, at most people would be outraged for couple of weeks and then forget.
Or might possibly be that upon examination, it became abundantly clear that the allegations were highly exaggerated as is
typically the case in these matters.
It might be a good idea to keep a clear head and hope that evidence "actual evidence" will determine events as opposed to
the salacious hysetria that usually surrounds these cases.
"...the decadent, feckless aristocracy deserve to be guillotined. The problem is...there is no one suitable to replace them."
100%. And I work as a psychiatric RN in a busy Emergency Room. Believe me, depravity in this country is not in the least
bit confined to 'elites'. They just make convenient scapegoats. I can tell you hundreds of stories. But conservatively, I would
estimate that anywhere from 50% to 75% of the women I care for were abused as children. And I have cared for literally thousands
of women over the years.
"This is how revolutions are born."
Not so fast. The French peasants were rioting over bread, not aristocratic decadence. In 21st Century America, no one is
starving. The poor in this country are obese, for Chr-sakes! And half the country is implicated in so-called 'aristocratic decadence',
through online porn.
And like John Lennon once wrote, "You say you want a revolution?" Be careful what you wish for...
Prosecutors will tiptoe around anything that puts them in an awkward position vis-a-vis the rich and powerful.
These are people that prosecutors want to owe you favors, and these are also people that can ruin the lives and career prospects
of law enforcement.
This explains why, to give instance, Comey engaged in comically tortured legal reasoning to justify not bringing charges
against HRC for servergate, when she would be cooling her heels in a SuperMax if she were a normie. According to conventional
wisdom, HRC was going to be the next president, already anointed practically, and that meant that she was someone that would
be in a position to do Comey big favors, and at the same time, someone that you did not want to make an enemy of.
Excellent article. But off the mark on one key point. The corruption of the elites and Ruling Class -- and they are sickeningly
corrupt -- is only a reflection of, or if you will a leading indicator, of a related corruption of the body politic.
The Clintons, for example, have been getting away with sordid and even criminal behavior for a long time. It didn't stop
a major political party from putting one of them at the top of its presidential ticket only a few years ago nor a majority of
voters from pulling the lever for her.
In fact, going back to the Lewinsky saga, it was not only the elites who pooh-poohed the whole thing; it was also the citizenry.
Check the record. Yeah, the Clintons are Exhibit A of the Real Problem. Anyway, there ain't gonna be a revolution, at least
not the kind that Michael Warren Davis warns of.
"In fact, going back to the Lewinsky saga, it was not only the elites who pooh-poohed the whole thing; it was also the citizenry.
Check the record. "
The equivalent today would have been if Mueller's replacement spent a few more years 'investigating' Trump, only to set him
up with a perjury trap over whether or not he committed adultery.
This piece at the very least is not well researched hit piece on Trump but seems more to be a rabble rousing class warfare
type click bait filler. James Patterson reports that Trump kicked Epstein out of Maro-a-Lago 15 years ago after there were complaints
that he was abusive to women and more recently has said he is not a fan of Epstein. I've seen no evidence that Trump participated
in the abuse of underage girls with Epstein. Trump is no saint but sensationalizing this story and implicating Trump to sell
your copy is not journalism.
So Trump simply makes a comment, has no record of any flights, attendance or participation and this article would have you
believe that it equates as despicable as a frequent flyer on the Lolita Express? This author is no different than the fake news.
And it was a comment made three years before the first known report to police about Epstein's behavior.
I read Trump's comment as Trump being Trump. Unless he is responding to a personal attack, Trump tends to layer on the compliments
and tries to speak positive about people.
Trump did allegedly make one flight on the plane, from the NY area to Florida. No records show him flying to the "orgy island".
Actually, the logs don't show that he was on the plane. Epstein's brother CLAIMS he was on the plane...the most anybody else
has said to support that is that Trump looked at the plane on the ground.
The author throws around "revolution" so casually... The guillotine definitely needs a resurgence; unfortunately, it's not just the aristocracy that needs it; moreover, there
are still none better suited to take over after they chopping has stopped.
And throws without not even a thought but also without care to learn or now.
It is funny that American journo is now invoking Stalin's ghost, but.... Stalinists were COUNTER-revolutionaries.
And he says he is sure he knows who they felt?
.
Inflation, words means nothing today for journos, being merely a click-bait
It's a Trump problem insofar as he continues to defend Acosta. This is the Sec of Labor who effectively let Epstein walk
and who now oversees anti-human trafficking efforts (which he has repeatedly tried to gut the funding for).
Also, Trump supposedly told a campaign aide that he barred Epstein. Perhaps that's true. Hard to know with this inveterate
liar.
Did you see Acosta's press conference? The local State DA wanted to let Epstein walk - on a lesser state charge through a
Grand Jury. Acosta's US Attorney office stepped in to get the charges increased as much as they could so that Epstein would
do SOME jail time and - more importantly - have to register as a sex offender.
Now, should the Feds have interfered in a State case is a matter for another discussion. But Actosta's office did MORE than
what they should and everything they could with the evidence at the time.
As to Trump banning Epstein - it isn't "Trump told some aide", it is in the court records of the trial. Trump was subpoenaed
and talked voluntarily to the attorney for the girls. The attorney for the girls researched it and he says, and it is in the
court record, that Trump banned Epstein.
This is not a "Trump problem" as the media is trying to make it...this is a Dem problem.
I agree. As much as I detest Trump, I don't think that he was involved with Epstein's debauchery. However, I do believe the
women that claim being assaulted, because he is on tape claiming to do what they describe. And there is so many of them. And
he has had multiple documented affairs while married to every one of his wives. But no evidence yet of him with underage girls.
Right, because those Kavanaugh accusers were so credible, right? No evidence, decades later? Nope. Unlike Kavanaugh, Trump
was on a big stage for decades and was a pretty easy target with the tabloids looking for dirt...but none of them came forward.
THAT is your biggest clue that their claims are, as the judge recently said in dismissing one of these laughable cases, ""As
currently stated, the Complaint presents a political lawsuit, not a tort and wages lawsuit,"
Then, of course, the Trump lawyers just released a video of what happened that shows he gave her a peck on the cheek during
a conversation as he was leaving. She lied.
I think some conservative, maybe Rubio, needs to stand up and simply state they are going to lead on this, and then do so.
Simply go after anyone that is involved and make the casual nature of peoples knowledge of this kind of behavior into a something
that has to be repented of.
Trump owes America an apology, reading his comments it is obvious he was aware of, and disapproved of, Epstien proclivities,
but didn't have the guts to stand up. (I do not believe the stories of Trump being involved, but if it turns out I am wrong
on that, fry him )
For a republican leader to stand up as I am suggesting, would force the left to make a decision. Either abandon their current
attitudes towards sexual permissiveness, or defend them. Either way conservatives win.
That comment was from three years before Epstein was charged. But YOUNG does not mean TOO young, always, and Trump was obviously
speaking of what OTHERS say, not what he knew for a fact.
Davis--and many TAC readers--voted for Trump even though the then-candidate sexually assaulted women and got caught bragging
about it.
While I welcome conservatives to the #metoo era, it must be acknowledged that their "outrage" didn't come to life until they
could attach the dirty deeds to Bill Clinton and other "elites" (whatever that overused term means).
No, it came with Weinstein...who proved what Trump ACTUALLY said on the bus to be true. Not that HE, Trump, HAD grabbed women,
but that young women seeking fame would LET the rich and famous grab them. Shortly after we found out that this was true when
we found out about Weinstein and what those young starlets allowed. What people knew, all good Hollywood liberals and Dems,
and LET continue while accepting Weinstein's political contributions and working with him professionally.
Essentially Epstein run a brothel for influential politicians and other stars. Girls were paid so they were hired prostitutes.
That fact that he did it with impunity for so long suggest state sponsorship.
Notable quotes:
"... In fact, the case against Epstein seems so overwhelming that it's already been reported , albeit not confirmed, that his lawyers are seeking a plea bargain. Yet even if Epstein doesn't "flip," it's a cinch that many luminaries -- in politics, business, and entertainment -- will at least be named, if not outright inculpated. ..."
"... Yet perhaps the most aching parallel to Epstein is the NXIUM sex slave case, which has already led to guilty pleas and entangled not only Hollywood stars but also heirs to one of North America's great fortunes, the Bronfmans. ..."
"... In 1944, film legend Charlie Chaplin, too, found himself busted on a Mann Act rap. Chaplin was accused of transporting a young "actress" across state lines; he was acquitted after a sensational trial, but not before it was learned that he had financed his lover's two abortions. Chaplin's career in Hollywood was effectively over. ..."
"... In fact, if one takes all these horrible cases in their totality -- Varsity Blues, NXIUM, Epstein -- one might fairly conclude that the problem is larger than just a few rich and twisted nogoodniks. ..."
"... Hardly. It merely puts it into historical perspective. Epstein is but one of a long line of serial sexual predators through the ages. ..."
"... Biological parentage is no guarantee of virtue towards children. Predatory behaviour towards children is most likely to come from within the family. ..."
"... Bill Clinton had at least 26 international trips on Epstein's private plane, including 18 to Epstein's private Caribbean island, which was reportedly staffed with dozens of underage women, mostly from Latin America. It was referred to as "Orgy Island" or "Pedo Island" by the locals. ..."
"... I disagree show me where the Progressives have any morals after all look at Clinton. Even the so called fake republicans are guilty. Our country is in the toilet . The schools are hotbeds of moral decay teaching kids LGBT sex education etc. ..."
"... Marx himself understood, capitalism is a fundamentally chaotic, disruptive, even revolutionary force that destroys everything that conservatives value the most (and want to "conserve.") The free-market fundamentalism that so many conservatives accept as gospel truth really is nothing more than a "false consciousness." ..."
"... If ever a situation called for rendition, this is it. I've been following this since 2007, and my intuition tells many more important people are involved than those we know. ..."
"... Be very skeptical. Why is DOJ suddenly resurrecting a case that was settled 10 years ago? I can't help to wonder if this isn't yet another part of the coup attempt. ..."
"... Trump also gave other evidence and information he had gleaned to prosecutors during the first Epstien trial. ..."
"... We should point this out as often as possible because liberal media is trying to smear Trump by including his name next to Epstien in every article. ..."
Jeffrey Epstein's trial may do what no other could: Bring populists and progressives together against predatory elites.
By JAMES P. PINKERTON •
July 10, 2019
Jeffrey Epstein mugshot (public domain)
The legal proceedings against financier Jeffrey Epstein are going to be spectacular. The sober-minded New York Times is
already running
headlines such as "Raid on Epstein's Mansion Uncovered Nude Photos of Girls," describing the victims as "minors, some as young
as 14." So, yes, this story is going to be, well, lit .
Epstein is the pluperfect "Great White Defendant," to borrow the phrase from Tom Wolfe's 1987 novel The Bonfire of the Vanities.
In Epstein's case, even the left, normally indulgent on crime, is going to be chanting: lock him up.
In fact, the case against Epstein seems so overwhelming that it's already been
reported , albeit not confirmed, that
his lawyers are seeking a plea bargain. Yet even if Epstein doesn't "flip," it's a cinch that many luminaries -- in politics, business,
and entertainment -- will at least be named, if not outright inculpated.
Which is to say, the Epstein case is shaping up as yet another lurid look at the lifestyles of the rich, famous, and powerful,
sure to boil the blood of populists on the right and class warriors on the left. In this same vein, one also thinks of the "Varsity
Blues" college admissions scandal, as well as the post-Harvey Weinstein #MeToo movement.
Yet perhaps the most aching parallel to Epstein is the
NXIUM sex slave case, which has already led to guilty pleas and entangled not only Hollywood stars but also heirs to one of
North America's great fortunes, the Bronfmans.
In that NXIUM case, it's hard not to notice the similarity between "NXIUM" and "Nexum," which was the ancient Roman word for
personal debt bondage -- that is, a form of slavery.
The Romans, of course, were big on conquest and enslavement, and such aggression always had a sexual dimension, as has been the
case, of course, for all empires, everywhere. Thus we come to a consistent theme across human history, namely the importation of
pretty young things from the provinces for the lecherous benefit of the rich and powerful.
It's believed that Saint Gregory the Great, the pope in the late sixth and early seventh centuries, gazed upon English boys at
a Roman slave market and remarked, non Angli, sed angeli, si forent Christiani ; that is, "They are not Angles, but angels,
if they were Christian." Gregory's point was that such lovely beings needed to be converted to Christianity, although, of course,
others had, and would continue to have, other intentions.
If we fast-forward a thousand years or so, we see another kind of enslavement, resulting, at least in part, from profound economic
inequality. William Hogarth's famous prints , "A
Harlot's Progress," follow the brief life of the fictive yet fetching Moll Hackabout, who comes from the provinces to London seeking
employment as a seamstress -- only to end up as a kept woman, then as a prostitute, before dying of syphilis.
Interestingly, a traditional song about descent into earthly hell, "House of the Rising Sun,"
made popular again in the '60s , also makes reference
to past honest work in the garment trade -- "my mother was a tailor."
If we step back and survey civilization's sad saga of exploitation, we see that it occurs under all manner of political and economic
systems, from feudalism to capitalism to, yes, communism. As for ravenous reds, there's the notorious case of Stalinist apparatchik
Lavrenti Beria, whom one chronicler
says enjoyed "a Draculean sex life that combined love, rape, and perversity in almost equal measure."
In the face of such a distressing litany, it's no wonder that there have been periodic reactions, some of them violent and extreme,
such as the original "bonfire of the vanities" back in the 15th century, led by the zealously puritanical cleric, Savonarola.
Yet for most of us, it's more cheering to think that prudential reform can succeed. One landmark of American reform was the
White-Slave Traffic Act , signed into law in 1910
("white slavery," we might note, is known today as "sex trafficking"). That law, aimed at preventing not only prostitution but also
"debauchery," is known as the Mann Act in honor of its principal author, Representative James R. Mann, Republican of Illinois, who
served in Congress from 1897 to 1922.
Mann's career mostly coincided with the presidential tenures of two great reformers, Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. And
it's hard to overstate just how central to progressive thinking was the combatting of "vice." After all, if the goal was to create
a just society, it also had to be a wholesome society; otherwise no justice could be sustainable. Thus when Roosevelt served
as police commissioner of New York City in the mid-1890s, he focused on fighting vice, rackets, and corruption.
Of course, Mann, Roosevelt, and Wilson had much more on their minds than just cleaning up depravity. They saw themselves as reformers
across the board; that is, they were eager to improve economic conditions as well as social ones.
So it was that Mann also co-authored the Mann-Elkins
Act , further regulating the railroads; he also spearheaded the
Pure Food and Drug Act
, creating the FDA. It's interesting that when Mann died in 1922, The New York Times ran an entirely admiring
obituary , recalling him as "a dominating figure in the House [a] leader in dozens of parliamentary battles." In other words,
back then, the Times was fully onboard with full-spectrum cleanup, on the Right as well as the Left.
To be sure, the Mann Act hardly eradicated the problem of sex-trafficking, just as Mann's other legislative efforts did not put
an end to abuses in transportation and in foods and drugs. However, we can say that Mann made things better .
Of course, the Mann Act has long been controversial. Back in 1913, the African-American boxer Jack Johnson was convicted according
to its provisions. (Intriguingly, in 2018, Johnson was posthumously
pardoned
by President Trump.)
In 1944, film legend Charlie Chaplin, too, found himself busted on a Mann Act rap. Chaplin was accused of transporting a
young "actress" across state lines; he was acquitted after a sensational trial, but not before it was learned that he had financed
his lover's two abortions. Chaplin's career in Hollywood was effectively over.
Cases such as these made the Mann Act distinctly unpopular in "sophisticated" circles. Of course, criticism from the smart set
is not the same as proof that the law is not still valuable. That's why, more than a century after its passage, the Mann Act is
still on the books, albeit much amended. Lawmakers agree that it's still necessary, because, after all, there's always a need to
protect women
from wolves .
Now back to Epstein. If we learn that he was actually running something called the "Lolita Express," that would be a signal that
prosecutors have a lot of work to do, rounding up the pedophile joyriders. So it was interesting on July 6 to see Christine Pelosi,
daughter of the House speaker, posting a stern
tweet : "This Epstein case is horrific and the young women deserve justice. It is quite likely that some of our faves are implicated
but we must follow the facts and let the chips fall where they may -- whether on Republicans or Democrats."
So we can see: the younger Pelosi wants one standard -- a standard that applies to all.
In fact, if one takes all these horrible cases in their totality -- Varsity Blues, NXIUM, Epstein -- one might fairly conclude
that the problem is larger than just a few rich and twisted nogoodniks.
That is, the underlying issues of regional and social inequality -- measured in power as well as wealth -- must be addressed.
To put the matter another way, we need a bourgeoisie that is sturdier economically and more sure of itself culturally. Only then
will we have Legions of Decency and other
Schlafly-esque activist groups to function as counterweights to a corrosive and exploitative culture.
Of course, as TR and company knew, if we seek a better and more protective American equilibrium, a lot will have to change --
and not just in the culture.
Most likely, a true solution will have "conservative" elements, as in social and cultural norming, and "liberal" elements, as
in higher taxes on city slickers coupled with conscious economic development for the proletarians and for the heartland. Only with
these economic and governmental changes can we be sure that it's possible to have a nice life in Anytown, safely far away from beguiling
pleasuredomes.
To be sure, we can't expect ever to solve all the troubles of human nature -- including the rage for fame that drives some youths
from the boondocks. But we can at least bolster the bourgeois alternative to predatory Hefnerism.
In the meantime, unless we can achieve such structural changes, rich and powerful potentates will continue to pull innocent angels
into their gilded dens of iniquity.
James P. Pinkerton is an author and contributing editor at . He served as a White House policy aide to both Presidents
Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
"Most likely, a true solution will have "conservative" elements, as in social and cultural norming, and "liberal" elements,
as in higher taxes on city slickers coupled with conscious economic development for the proletarians and for the heartland."
Neither of which will happen with the blue megacities having political control.
"(T)here's always a need to protect women from wolves." It should be noted that boys who are sex-trafficked also fall under
the Mann Act. This may not be clear from Wikipedia.
Wow! What a wonderful article! The compassion for the young victims just jumps off the screen along with the disgust at the
corruption that has allowed this predator to damage so many lives over at least three decades.
No, the fact is that your dispassionate, detached, political assessment objectifies and dehumanizes the girls that
were abused by Epstein and by the stupidly named "justice system" and reflects the obnoxious rot at the root of our society
when it comes to the abuse of women and children.
When it comes right down to it, this doesn't really matter to you, it is just another political amusement.
"Most likely, a true solution will have "conservative" elements, as in social and cultural norming, and "liberal" elements,
as in higher taxes on city slickers coupled with conscious economic development for the proletarians and for the heartland.
Only with these economic and governmental changes can we be sure that it's possible to have a nice life in Anytown, safely far
away from beguiling pleasuredomes."
Liberal "social and cultural norming" (as in feminism, consent, discussion of sexual matters (gasp!) in the public sphere,
#MeToo, etc.) is what is making a difference more because such things are encouraging victims and giving them support. The (cough)
"justice" system needs reform so that rape kits get processed, victims are listened to instead of shamed, cases are actually
investigated, rapists aren't let off because "he comes from a good family" etc. The Nevada Legislature with it's recent legislation
is leading the way, because it has a female majority. THAT is what will change things FINALLY.
His "historical perspective" is just more of the same sh*t we have heard for millennia as are his prescriptions for solutions.
A key conclusion of the article is that Epstein and other recent scandals about the abuse of power mean "issues of regional
and social inequality -- measured in power as well as wealth -- must be addressed."
So if all regions and all social classes were equal, this would go away? First, gifts have always been and will always be
distributed unequally, so this egalitarian utopia will never be obtained -- leading to the indefinite justification "we have
more work to do" to force people and society into an unattainable intellectual ideal, and justifying endless injustices in the
process. Second, the article itself points out that the Soviets who ostensibly pursued an egalitarian state had a famous abuser
among the ranks of their political bosses (and likely had others we don't known about).
Ultimately, kids are best cared for and defended in family with their biological parents -- the very unit of society that's
been under unceasing attack for decades. Support the family and support small business which is responsible for something like
80% of new jobs created in the US. Then vigorously enforce the laws that are already on the books. A key problem with Epstein
was the law was for years or decades not enforced against him, I strongly suspect because he had very highly placed political
connections, probably several of which were sexually abusing young girls (and/or boys?) Epstein "introduced" them to. What amount
of social engineering or experimentation is going to eliminate that kind of political corruption? I highly doubt any will. Once
it's discovered, everyone involved should be prosecuted and exposed -- and any other cases of sex slavery rings discovered in
the process likewise have all their members prosecuted & exposed.
Lavrenti Beria as the prescient symbol of Soviet Babbitry v. worldwide immorality! So was Ernst Rohm! Thank god for the KGB
and SS as harbingers of true moral concern over sex abuse!
"Ultimately, kids are best cared for and defended in family with their biological parents "
LMAO. Historically the family and biologoical parents were part and parcel in many of the deals involved with these trades.
Biological parentage is no guarantee of virtue towards children. Predatory behaviour towards children is most likely
to come from within the family. I can't remember the family name but there was a family that made a big thing of their
"Proper Christian Family" even while one son was abusing his younger sister/s and the Parents protected and shielded him.
"In Epstein's case, even the left, normally indulgent on crime, is going to be chanting: lock him up." - You almost lost
me on that one. The Left is not normally 'indulgent on crime'. However, The Left is resistant to making 'immorality' (pot smoking,
sodomy, gambling, gay marriage, etc) criminal, given how driving 'vice' underground and making it illegal has unintended consequences
(such as creating the mafia and Latin American drug cartels) that are worse than 'the crime', but I decided to read on.
"That is, the underlying issues of regional and social inequality -- measured in power as well as wealth -- must be addressed."
- All in for that one. Glad to see your 'wokeness'. Please send a check to Bernie.
"In the meantime, unless we can achieve such structural changes, rich and powerful potentates will continue to pull innocent
angels into their gilded dens of iniquity" - Like Donald Trump, Roger Ailes, Roy Moore, David Vitter, Dennis Hastert, Chris
Collins, Duncan Hunter, Michael Grimm, and on and on.
The Democrats have shown they are more than willing to ostracize members of their own team (Al Franken) for alleged and actual
wrongdoing. The Republicans, not so much, since they usually overlook all kinds of deviance if a politically expedient. Such
as Tim Murphy from PA and Scott DesJarlais from TN, both married 'anti-abortion' zealots caught urging their mistresses to have
abortions.
"The Democrats have shown they are more than willing to ostracize members of their own team (Al Franken) for alleged
and actual wrongdoing."
Like Bill Clinton. The same Team D Wokemon champions who insisted that any form of sexual or romantic contact between a male
supervisor and a female subordinate was by definition sexual harassment suddenly changed their tune when Bill Clinton was the
supervisor.
Not only that, but they came up with the most hilarious tortured redefinitions of "perjury" in order to justify their hero.
For the record: I am not a Team R fan either, but I am not so naive as to think the problem is limited to one team.
It is not. Bill Clinton was a cad. No doubt. But I find it very interesting that Juanita Broaddick recanted her allegations
against Clinton when Ken Starr put her under oath.
The only outrage Democrats will actually express over Epstein is to again tar and feather Trump in the usual fashion: Nibble
at the toes of hapless political operatives and bureaucrats like Acosta, and then accuse the President of colluding in his own
purported ignorance and self-enrichment.
There is an elephant in the room I think many conservatives are ignoring right now. A real big one...
"President Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, the 66-year-old hedge fund manager charged this week with sex trafficking and
conspiracy to commit sex trafficking, were the only other attendees to a party that consisted of roughly two dozen women at
his Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, according to a New York Times report."
"In 1992, the women were reportedly flown in for a "calendar girl" competition that was requested by Trump, The Times said.
"At the very first party, I said, 'Who's coming tonight? I have 28 girls coming,'" former Trump associate George Houraney
reportedly said. "It was him and Epstein."
"I said, 'Donald, this is supposed to be a party with VIPs. You're telling me it's you and Epstein," he recalled saying."
"Houraney claimed to have warned Trump about Epstein's behavior and said the real estate tycoon did not heed his notice.
Houraney, a businessman, reportedly said Trump "didn't care" about how he had to ban Epstein from his events."
This is an old elephant. It raised its head during the campaign and did not make much in the way of waves. Will it come back
to bite the president today -- one hopes that its all rumor hearsay and gossip.
I am willing to grant that the president may have been a "masher" in his day. Whether that means relations with children
is another matter.
Bill Clinton had at least 26 international trips on Epstein's private plane, including 18 to Epstein's private Caribbean
island, which was reportedly staffed with dozens of underage women, mostly from Latin America. It was referred to as "Orgy Island"
or "Pedo Island" by the locals.
One is a retired politician. The other is the current POTUS. If Bill is guilty, lock him up. If Trump is guilty - we need
to know ASAP and he can no longer be the president.
If Jeffery Epstein is such a monster then what is one to make of a man who has been quoted as saying "You can do what ever
you want, grab them by the *****." and then during a presidential debate shamelessly state "I have great respect for women.
Nobody has more respect for women than I do."?
Laughing good grief --- First I have to get passed the suggestion that guys bragging nonsensically about their female conquests
is the same hiring teens to for relations.
Good grief . . . these types of issues are ripe for hysterics.
excuse my politically incorrect suggestion of making the categorical distinctions
I disagree show me where the Progressives have any morals after all look at Clinton. Even the so called fake republicans
are guilty. Our country is in the toilet . The schools are hotbeds of moral decay teaching kids LGBT sex education etc.
Cultural Marxism is at play and next they will soften up and normalize pedophile. As far as the women's movement they are bitter
progressives who on there Facebook moaning about how they make less money then men. Who is taking of the kids? There are no
real men any more they have become boys!! Sex is every where and no one cares they all going along with the new world order!
You forgot to mention our current thrice divorced President who cheats on his wife with porn stars and pays them to stay
quiet. Strong moral leadership....
If this happened, my faith in the "rule of law" and in prosecutors and law enforcement treating everyone equally might be
restored. But, alas, we all know this is not going to happen.
"...the younger Pelosi wants one standard -- a standard that applies to all."
Don't we all. But if history teaches us anything it teaches that the higher up the socioeconomic food chain we go, the more
"flexible" that standard becomes.
So we'll see about Epstein--and all the other big shots who were in on this debauch.
"...the younger Pelosi wants one standard -- a standard that applies to all."
Does she want that single standard to apply to people that flaunt our laws by having, say, a clandestine and illegal email
server that was used for classified correspondence?
Mr. Pinkerton apparently (like many) needs to learn what the definition of pedophile is (hint: It's doesn't mean any and
all sex under he legal age of consent). However illegal (to say nothing of distasteful and immoral) Epstein's actions may have
been, based on the claims I've seen, he is not a pedophile.
I also find it hard to believe that Clinton and others didn't know. Rumours of Epstein's proclivities, and his plane being
called "Lolita Express," have been around for along-time, but Epstein has been protected by his connections and wealth. Clinton
flew nearly 30 times on Epstein's private jet. Is he the only person in the world who never heard the stories about him? What
did he know and when did he know it?
If you're asking that question about Clinton- a 90s has-been politician whose own party has moved on past him, then I hope
you're also asking it about the current president who was also a bosom buddy to Epstein.
According to flight manifests, Trump flew one time, from New York to Palm Beach, on Epstein's plane. Clinton took at least
26 international trips on the Lolita Express, including 18 trips to Epstein's private Caribbean island, where he supposedly
had dozens of underage women from Latin America kept. The locals referred to it at 'Orgy Island" and "Pedo Island". We're not
exactly comparing apples to apples here, are we?
Compare the Mueller soap opera. The characters in that story were sleazy international fixers and blackmailers who worked
for everyone. Same type as Epstein. They worked for KGB, CIA, Clinton, Trump, Mossad, Saudi. Despite the universality of the
crimes, Mueller meticulously "saw" only the crimes that involved Trump and Russia. FBI always works that way. Any accusation
or evidence that doesn't fit the predefined story disappears.
Muller had a specific investigatory mission. He was not empowered to look into every government scandal since Alexander Hamilton
was blackmailed by Maria Reynolds.
Part of what doomed the post-WWII "Right" was the "fusionism" between conservatism and capitalism. While the latter got real
policy results, the former was merely pandered to during elections but otherwise ignored. As a result, leftists and centrists
mistakenly came to believe that being "right-wing" means being a corporate shill lobbying to cut taxes for the rich and pay
for it by cutting programs for the poor.
At the same time,
as Marx himself understood, capitalism is a fundamentally chaotic, disruptive, even revolutionary force that destroys
everything that conservatives value the most (and want to "conserve.") The free-market fundamentalism that so many conservatives
accept as gospel truth really is nothing more than a "false consciousness."
Many traditionalists (such as Russell Kirk) resisted fusionism for placing too much emphasis on markets and not enough on
the conservative commitment "to religious belief, to national loyalty, to established rights in society, and to the wisdom
of our ancestors." And many libertarians (such as F.A. Hayek) explicitly rejected conservatism for being too nationalistic
and hostile toward open systems.
If conservatives want any political future in this country, then they're going to have to "de-fuse," so to speak, with capitalism,
which has been exploiting their support in order to advance policies against their own interests and values. If
"Woke Capitalism" isn't the final straw, then what will it take? Conservatives could learn a lot from the Progressive Movement
of the 1890s-1920s, which despite its name was far more conservative than the David-Frenchist National Review is nowadays.
Indeed, the Progressives' reformist playbook (which recognized that the rapid changes brought by industrialization, immigration,
and urbanization had caused corruption, poverty, and vice) could and should be dusted off for today.
As far as Epstein goes, I'm rather pessimistic that he'll ever be punished and that the public will ever learn the full extent
of his crimes. While Nancy Pelosi's daughter may be principled (and good for her), the fact that so many wealthy and powerful
people may be incriminated is precisely why he'll be let off easy and the evidence will be covered up, just like last time.
I have zero confidence in our justice system, particularly in the hyper-politicized SDNY.
If ever a situation called for rendition, this is it. I've been following this since 2007, and my intuition tells many
more important people are involved than those we know. Anyone involved would be terrified; they'll have to break someone
to get the facts. As someone who was almost abducted at age 9, I say get on it.
Be very skeptical. Why is DOJ suddenly resurrecting a case that was settled 10 years ago? I can't help to wonder if this
isn't yet another part of the coup attempt.
Twisted sisters will do what they do with or without social disparities. All you can do is bury them when you catch them.
If the rich and famous get caught up, no ones fault but their own.
The Mann Act mainly served to enforce Roman Catholic ideas about marriage's being somehow special. The Bible offers no such
thing as an example of a religious marriage, whether Muslim, Catholic or Protestant, unless it be that of Job.
You expect a free pass for this term paper theory that downright American types are going to unite to stop sexual predation,
and their brains will swirl with reminiscences of St. Gregory and Sen. Mann?
I am unaware that Chaplin's career was "effectively over" after his sex trial. Chaplin made "Monsieur Verdoux" in 1947 in
good time after the modern Bluebeard of France, Marcel Petiot made headlines (this predator swindled Jews of safe passage money
out of France, poisoned them, and burned their bodies in his home. No time of reckoning for France or Francophiles here). Five
years later he released "Limelight", which could be called a loving tribute to vaudeville and silent film at the same time (Buster
Keaton appeared, and it is said that many omitted segments were his finest hour in the sound era. Note that financially and
at box office, Keaton was as ruined and burned out as countless others, but was in the end a hard working trouper who even made
it to Samuel Beckett!). Chaplin flagged thereafter, but made films at exactly the pace he wished, as characterized by the slow
linger from "Modern Times" to "The Great Dictator".
Errol Flynn on the other hand was boosted by his sex scandal as alleged with a 15 year old. His release "They Died With Their
Boots On" made reference to the allegation that Flynn was naked except for a pair of boots. And remember the original Hollywood
Confidential scandal that rounded up dozens of celebrities including Lizbeth Scott in a prostitution ring? All forgotten.
So if your going to make big analogies between Hollywood, celebrity, and yet another paroxysm of soon to evaporate Puritan
righteousness, at least know what you're talking about.
For the record, I believe that if Epstein punched 8 years above his weight in his choice of femmes, he might never have been
caught.
The article is way to long and I read the first paragraph and after the words "The sober-minded New York Times" I jumped
to the comments. The headline was enough for me...I agree, Lock Him Up.
"... Bear Stearns -- the bank that had given Mr. Epstein his start -- was still among his investments when the crisis hit. According to a lawsuit he later filed against the bank, Mr. Epstein controlled about 176,000 shares of Bear Stearns, worth nearly $18 million, in August 2007. ..."
"... Mr. Epstein sold 56,000 shares at $101 each that month. He sold the remaining 120,000 shares in March 2008 as the firm was collapsing -- 20,000 at $35 and the rest at $3.04, losing big. He also lost about $50 million in one of Bear's hedge funds. ..."
"... By the time Bear Stearns came apart, Mr. Epstein was at the center of his first abuse case. He pleaded guilty to prostitution charges in 2008, receiving a jail sentence that allowed him to work at home during the day but also required him to register as a sex offender ..."
"... The court document alleges: "Epstein also sexually trafficked the then-minor Jane Doe (a name used in US legal proceedings for people with anonymity), making her available for sex to politically connected and financially powerful people. ..."
"... "Epstein's purposes in 'lending' Jane Doe (along with other young girls) to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself with them for business, personal, political, and financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail information. ..."
"... Journalist George Webb, watch his Youtube channel, has been following Epstein 'activities' for decades, connecting him all the way back to the Bush Sr. and Jr. Boys Town White House peadophile ring. Epstein was the 'go to guy' for rat line trafficking missions, into Kosovo, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, every war zone across the world one can think of, to move dark ops in and out of, closely linked to DynCorp, which core business is 'aviation security services' and infamous for enabling and promoting underage transgressions of all of its personnel in Yugoslavia where Bill Clinton has murdered many thousands unbeknownst to the gullible and rather retarded Americuh public ..."
Jeffrey Epstein's wealth has long been a topic of discussion since becoming known as a 'billionaire pedophile' and other similar
monickers. Described by prosecuitors this week as a "man of nearly infinite means," a
2011 SEC filing has
provided a window into the registered sex offender's elite Wall Street links, according to the
Financial Times .
Epstein, who caught a lucky break tutoring the son of Bear Stearns chairman Alan Greenberg before joining the firm, left the
investment bank in 1981 to set up his own financial firm. While he reportedly managed money for billionaires for decades, most of
Epstein's dealings have been done in the shadows.
A 2011 SEC filing reveals that Epstein's privately held firm, the Financial Trust Company , took a 6.1% stake in Pennsylvania-based
catalytic converter maker Environmental Solutions Worldwide (ESW) backed by Leon Black, the billionaire founder of Apollo Global
Management .
ESW itself has a checkered past. In 2002, its then-chairman Bengt Odner was accused by the SEC of participating with others in
a $15 million "pump and dump" scheme with ESW stock. The case was settled a year later according to FT , with Odner ordered to pay
a $25,000 civil penalty. Of note, ESW accepted Epstein's investment several years after he had registered as a sex offender in a
controversial 2008 plea deal in Florida.
Epstein's connection to Black doesn't stop there - as the financier served as a director on the Leon Black Family Foundation
for over a decade until 2012 according to IRS filings. A spokeswoman for the foundation claims that Epstein had resigned in July
2007, and that his name continued to appear on the IRS filings "due to a recording error" for five years. A 2015 document signed
by Epstein provided to the Financial Times appears to confirm this.
Epstein also built his wealth with Steven J. Hoffenberg and Leslie H. Wexner, the former of whom was convicted of running a giant
Ponzi scheme, and the latter a clothing magnate.
Mr. Epstein's wealth may have depended less on his math acumen than his connections to two men -- Steven J. Hoffenberg, a
onetime owner of The New York Post and a notorious fraudster later convicted of running
a $460 million Ponzi scheme , and Leslie H. Wexner, the billionaire founder of retail chains including The Limited and the
chief executive of the company that owns Victoria's Secret.
Mr. Hoffenberg was Mr. Epstein's partner in two ill-fated takeover bids in the 1980 s, including one of Pan American World
Airways, and would later claim that Mr. Epstein had been part of the scheme that landed him in jail -- although Mr. Epstein
was never charged. With Mr. Wexner, Mr. Epstein formed a financial and personal bond that baffled longtime associates of the
wealthy retail magnate, who was his only publicly disclosed investor. -
New York Times
"I think we both possess the skill of seeing patterns," Wexner told Vanity Fair in 2003. "But Jeffrey sees patterns in politics
and financial markets, and I see patterns in lifestyle and fashion trends."
Those around Wexner were mystified over Wexner's affinity for Epstein.
" Everyone was mystified as to what his appeal was ," said Robert Morosky, a former vice chairman of The Limited. "I checked
around and found out he was a private high school math teacher, and that was all I could find out. There was just nothing there."
As the New York Times
noted on Wednesday, Epstein's "infinite means" may be a mirage, as while he is undoubtedly extremely rich, there is "little
evidence that Mr. Epstein is a billionaire."
While Epstein told potential clients he only accepted investments of $1 billion or more, his investment firm reported having
$88 million in capital from his shareholders, and 20 employees according to a 2002 court filing - far fewer than figures being reported
at the time.
And while most of Epstein's dealings are unknown, his Financial Trust Company also had a $121 million investment in DB Zwirn
& Co, which shuttered its doors in 2008, and had a stake in Bear Stearns's failed High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced
Leverage Fund - the collapse of which helped spark the global financial crisis.
Epstein was hit hard by the financial crisis a decade ago, while allegations of sexual abuse of teenage girls caused many associates
- such as Wexner - to sever ties with him.
Bear Stearns -- the bank that had given Mr. Epstein his start -- was still among his investments when the crisis hit.
According to a lawsuit he later filed against the bank, Mr. Epstein controlled about 176,000 shares of Bear Stearns, worth nearly
$18 million, in August 2007.
Mr. Epstein sold 56,000 shares at $101 each that month. He sold the remaining 120,000 shares in March 2008 as the firm was
collapsing -- 20,000 at $35 and the rest at $3.04, losing big. He also lost about $50 million in one of Bear's hedge funds.
By the time Bear Stearns came apart, Mr. Epstein was at the center of his first abuse case. He pleaded guilty to prostitution
charges in 2008, receiving a jail sentence that allowed him to work at home during the day but also required him to register
as a sex offender. -
New York Times
In trying to determine what Epstein is actually worth, Bloomberg notes that " So little is known about Epstein's current business
or clients that the only things that can be valued with any certainty are his properties. The Manhattan mansion is estimated to
be worth at least $ 77 million , according to a federal document submitted in advance of his bail hearing."
He also has properties in New Mexico, Paris and the U.S. Virgin Islands, where he has a private island, and a Palm Beach
estate with an assessed value of more than $12 million . He shuttles between them by private jet and has at least 15 cars, including
seven Chevrolet Suburbans, according to federal authorities. -
Bloomberg
Deutsche Bank, meanwhile,
severed ties with Epstein earlier this year - right as federal prosecutors were preparing to charge him with operating a sex-trafficking
ring of underage girls out of his sprawling homes in Manhattan and Palm Beach, according to Bloomberg , citing a person familiar
with the situation. It is unknown how much money was involved or how long Epstein had been a client.
3 play_arrow 1
FKTHEGVNMNT , 1 hour ago
That black book is still missing, it is actually a meticulous journal. His butler who died at 60 due to mesothelioma kept
it as insurance, those snippets was just him saying " I got the goods.
Dr.Strangelove , 1 hour ago
The Feds should do what they did with Al Capone, and put him in the slammer on tax evasion charges. I'm sure Epstein has
reported all of his ill gotten billions to the IRS tax man.....NOT.
CheapBastard , 43 minutes ago
I wonder how many human assets, aka, slave girls, he owns? I guess they could value the slave child based on how much revenue
they brought in.
FKTHEGVNMNT , 2 hours ago
The court document alleges: "Epstein also sexually trafficked the then-minor Jane Doe (a name used in US legal proceedings
for people with anonymity), making her available for sex to politically connected and financially powerful people.
"Epstein's purposes in 'lending' Jane Doe (along with other young girls) to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself
with them for business, personal, political, and financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail information.
I wonder if Prince Andrew has deleted him from Facebook
marcel tjoeng , 3 hours ago
Journalist George Webb, watch his Youtube channel, has been following Epstein 'activities' for decades, connecting him
all the way back to the Bush Sr. and Jr. Boys Town White House peadophile ring. Epstein was the 'go to guy' for rat line
trafficking missions, into Kosovo, Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, every war zone across the world one can think of, to move dark
ops in and out of, closely linked to DynCorp, which core business is 'aviation security services' and infamous for enabling
and promoting underage transgressions of all of its personnel in Yugoslavia where Bill Clinton has murdered many thousands unbeknownst
to the gullible and rather retarded Americuh public.
Trafficking underage girls from Ukraine back and forth to the USA to pimp out to every diplomat from every country that bought
and sold state secrets, flying underage girls to the Middle East to peddle to oil sheiks, involved with obtaining and exchanging
state secrets of for instance American DARPA, the top secret military research giant, to any 'diplomat' connected to the secretive
network of an 'Illuminati' type deep state collusion, the power brokers of war and sex.
The Irgun of Menachem Begin, the Mossad of Moshe Dayan were infamous for their poolside parties where all the jewish female
'pretty' Israeli agents were used and trained to be honey pot sex objects, with mandatory sex orgies that lasted for days, the
worst of a James Bond type environment but without the glitter.
on the contrary, the secret world of parasites that practice and trade in massive scale rape, war, torture, sex aberrations,
***********, blackmail, extortion, paedophilia, child trafficking, international orphan trafficking, drugs, trafficking underage
sex slaves to be used as dolls and much much worse,
that is who is Jeffrey Epstein is.
The front cover of rape, murder and mayhem international Inc., the go-to-boy of sick Wall Street, Washington DC, the CIA,
NSA, Dyncorp, the power brokers within the DNC and the GOP,
all the usual sick subjects whose code mantra is 'we have unlimited funding', which means the FED, Wall Street, the BIS,
the whole of the Central Bank System that originated in Europe in Venice, and then spread to Amsterdam, the Dutch House of Orange,
London, New York, the British paedophile Empire,
Epstein lives in what is reputed to be the largest private dwelling in New Mexico, on an $18 million, 7,500-acre ranch
which he named Zorro.
Jeffrey Epstein's palatial New Mexico home is relatively near to a top military base. The Epstein home is in Stanley
in New Mexico.
Albuquerque now has a variety of Jewish synagogues and a Chabad house.
Mossad sex party, according to former Mossad case officer Victor Ostrovsky
There were about 25 people in and around the pool and none of them had a stitch of clothing on.
The second-in-command of the Mossad -- today, he is the head -- was there.
Hessner. Various secretaries. It was incredible. Some of the men were not a pretty sight, but most of the girls were
quite impressive. I must say they looked much better than they did in uniform! Most of them were female soldiers assigned
to the office, and were only 18 or 20 years old.
Some of the partiers were in the water playing, some were dancing, others were on blankets to the left and the right
having a fine old time vigorously screwing each other right there...
It was the top brass all right, and they were swapping partners. It really shook me. That's sure not what you expect.
You look at these people as heroes, you look up to them, and then you see them having a sex party by the pool.
-- Ostrovsky, Victor, By Way of Deception, (1990), pg. 96
ReflectoMatic , 2 hours ago
Because what George Webb is saying is so important in expanding the scope of understanding what is going on:
George Webb on youtube
JSBach1 , 3 hours ago
Researcher Wayne Madsen: Trump's Connection to Epstein Needs to Be Exposed
I like Miles' work a lot, but I don't always agree with the results of his studies. There are a great many fabricated events.
Events like those are cover for other very real events. The clowns will fake (or real) blow up townships just to prevent a case
from going to trial or getting news feed, OKC comes to mind. And there's always more than one reason for it behind the BS cover
story. It's tactical. Ep is just another arm of the octopus: Ep is definitely a middle man, a bag man, a front man, an intel
asset (for several agancies no doubt) and he got his cover job as a "financier" along with a client that got rich selling women's
underwear and kids clothes as whitewash. A guy who wrote a paper on how America perceives Israel and how to influence that perception.
That is the definition of magic and it's intel.
Ep definitely uses his own product... He had to be sure he could bounce those children off his clients, for one. Years of
grooming, investing in an asset, categorizing each one. It's an industry, for sure. I don't think the numbers are fabricated.
I don't think his black book was fabricated. Bloomberg was in there, btw, along with Bronfman, and Murdoch. The remoteness of
7500 acres in New Mexico, an Island, the planes, all neon signs that say "SECRET". But, you have to recruit from large population
areas to find suitable victims, er, individuals. I think it's more likely that this is real world and not a manufactured event.
Look: there are theories. I collect theories. Miles is a great researcher and he makes distinctions and observations that
are all very good. Reading him, I throw a lot of theories and music and vomit in the trash after. But when you peel back all
the fake events... the "Kansas"... One day Kansas is gone. Once and for all. What's left is this: there's some very real ****
on the down-low going on that has, until now, been permitted and some people who liked it that way are gonna be on the news
for it. Pelosi's kid tweeted it. What about, say, what might a sheriff of a certain New Mexico county know? Santa Fe is totally
compromised because it's an "Art" hub, for one. The unincorporated location is called "Stanley" which ought to ring bells. Right
by a military base, Kirtland and Los Alamos Demo Army base, god knows what else. It's the perfect M.O. of the fake events Miles
writes about. Miles sees patterns.
There is everything that is not real, and then there is everything that is real. For me it comes down to the Cartesian Brain
in a Vat theory, that, indeed, is "the Matrix" pop culture go-to of today, err, 20 years ago. Red pilled means you can't go
back. Get blue pilled you Get woke and go broke. It doesn't mean that everything is fake, but for all I know 2012 was real and
we live on this timeline now and maybe I am a brain in a vat. So cogito ergo sum. And that is kind of a statement of faith or
belief. It's the deep irony of philosophy. It's the glitch.
Ep is not the psyop. He's the guy you do the psyop to cover up. It's a better question to ask what generation MK Ultra are
we on? What subset? What might Cathy O'Brien have to say about it? Don't flame the victims, or make Miles look stupid because
you think it's all fake. Andrew Breitbart didn't think this **** was fake and he's dead. God bless him.
Theosebes Goodfellow , 3 hours ago
~Those around Wexner were mystified over Wexner's affinity for Epstein.~
Apparently those around Wexner were not familiar with the term "fourteen year-old spinner".
Lumberjack , 3 hours ago
...
Dershowitz was one of several heavy-hitters on Epstein's first legal defense team. Epstein's lead attorney in the Florida
case was Jack Goldberger, who now represents New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft. His legal team also included Roy Black,
Jay Lefkowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, former U.S. Attorney Guy Lewis and Kenneth Starr, the special prosecutor who investigated Bill
Clinton's sexual affair with Monica Lewinsky.
Asked why he took Epstein as a client, given the unsavory nature of his alleged crimes, Dershowitz stated bluntly, "That's
what I do."
"I take controversial cases and I will continue to do so," he told Sinclair Broadcast Group in a Tuesday interview. "I defended
Jeff Epstein for the same reason John Adams defended the people accused of the Boston Massacre
On that note, Schumer said he'll give the money he received to help children and women.
I'd bet twice that amount it goes to Israeli causes. Not to real victims and the kahkzucker gets another nice write off.
Epstein's intel connections must be brought forth. My guess is when Kraft got busted that there were really big names that
are still being hidden. A long time and VERY TRUSTED ZH member that I know a bit and collaborated a bit with on the Linda Green
fiasco caught on and commented about it including providing solid evidence.
Maybe they should stop blaming Iran and Russia and look at Linda herself.
"... Of course the types who perpetrated this horror should go down but if you are naive enough to believe the lie that zionists pull all the greedies (jew/gentile/saudi) strings instead of the blindingly obvious, that all the greedies pull the strings of everyone they can, including those of the stupid & ignorant israeli settlers, then the odds of you anon, finding any 'truth' in the machinations of empire are slim. ..."
anon , Jul 11 2019 6:36 utc | 134 whatever, coward. I won't be staying long I see
little point is spending time at a place taken over by nonce's who can only read stuff that
adheres to their tiny world view. Otherwise they lose their sh1t.
Even worse few do more than hunt out anything, including stuff from the very same msm they
profess to eschew, which buttresses that view in an odd and pointless game of "see what I just
read, one upmanship". Actually getting out and involved helping even one of the humans whose
life is sh1t thanks to the empire is never even considered.
Of course the types who perpetrated this horror should go down but if you are naive
enough to believe the lie that zionists pull all the greedies (jew/gentile/saudi) strings
instead of the blindingly obvious, that all the greedies pull the strings of everyone they can,
including those of the stupid & ignorant israeli settlers, then the odds of you anon,
finding any 'truth' in the machinations of empire are slim.
If there weren't any twisted Clintons or Trumps prepared do do any damn thing just to
sodomise a preadolescent girl, no one would abduct the girls in the first place.
Every f++ker who went to edelsteins island should be locked up for the rest of their lives
unless they can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that they only cut the grass/washed the
dishes.
ps if 'the jews' control everything why are so many of em on the bones of their arses?
Surely any jew who was stuck with driving a cab/pushing a pen/ or even robbing a bank would
just manipulate the nearest billionaire 'goy' into handing over his/her dosh?
(((Debisdead))) comes back from the dead to tell everyone the rampant child abuse is the
fault of anyone except the jewish names actually involved...
You said it.
What brought me here at 3:30 am was an Amber Alert on my phone, with an incredibly obnoxious
alarm, for a child apparently abducted 500kms away. I've received three such alerts in the past
hour so I know everyone in Ontario will be talking about it tomorrow.
"Cy Vance - Democrat, gave Epstein a pass on sex offender status.
Acosta - Republican, approved plea deal.
Muller - Republican, signed off on FBI closing file on Epstein.
Schumer - Took money from Epstein.
Bill Clinton - Travel.
This isn't partisan. Corruption at all levels."
What's good is that most people commenting on the threads I've read, including
Cernovich's, understand just how deep the rot goes, and that it's not confined to North
America.
It would be a most salutary outcomoe if Obama were dethroned and exposed for the lying
lounge lizard he is. Scales reallyl need to fall from eyes. I am surprised that Trump doesn't
embark on this enterprise with gusto.
Puncture the Obama-Clinton BS balloon once and for all.
I never understood why people claimed Podesta had child abuse links until I read that article. It is enough to make even a
hardened Podesta supporter cringe.
Gabbard is NOT a member of the CFR. She has by her own admission, attended some meetings
as an invited guest. According to her, it was to engage members and find out what their
inside game is. I don't know if Gabbard is for real. I voted for Trump because I perceived
him to be the anti-war and anti-intervention candidate. Period. So, as I said, I don't know
what to think about the lady. I do now understand however, why some individuals in olden
times became hermits.
beemasters , 22 hours ago
Epstein's arrest tells me he's now out for blood.
Dotard has no control over what Epstein will say. Mossad does and it is the one out for
blood.
Justapleb , 22 hours ago
Mike Cernovich got records unsealed that prove Epstein got away with serial raping and
pimping for elites that were then blackmailed.
It is not because Trump is out for blood. It is because nothing could stop the criminal
conduct of prosecutors being exposed.
The #Metoo crowd knew Clinton was a violent rapist, and sent uniformed, armed officers out
to retrieve interns for sex whie governor. Smoking a cigar while having his cigar smoked by
Monica Lewinsky, while talking to a Chinese official on the phone.
So no, this won't do anything but continue proving how the #Metoo movement are just
leftist hypocrites.
ZD1 , 22 hours ago
"The news is speculative about whether Epstein was being protected by Robert Mueller's
special counsel's office, and why the Department of Justice acted now, given that he's been
problematic for years. There's also his role as a bigfoot Democrat donor, same as Ed Buck and
other perverts who've financed the Democrats. But one thing's pretty clear, based on a tweet
by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's daughter Christine: Democrats knew.
All kinds of Democrats are going to be found in Epstein's little black book of clients,
not just Bill Clinton.
President Trump, by contrast, banned the pervert from his Mar-a-Lago club years ago. So
much for pinning the scandal on Trump as Democrats had hoped."
The photo provides further proof of Epstein and his associates' close ties to the Clinton
dynasty.
Epstein's pimp Maxwell, whose social circle includes members of the UK royal family, has
been named in several lawsuits as the woman who helped procure and transport underage girls
which provided the billionaire massages and ultimately sexual favors.
The Miami Herald has
more on Maxwell's connections to Epstein:
Lawyers for Epstein's victims, in court filings, have often likened Epstein's sex
operation to an organized crime family, with Epstein and Maxwell at the top, and below them,
others who worked as schedulers, recruiters, pilots and bookkeepers.
For her part, Maxwell, whose social circle included such friends as Bill and Hillary
Clinton and members of the British Royal family, has been described as using recruiters
positioned throughout the world to lure women by promising them modeling assignments,
educational opportunities and fashion careers. The pitch was really a ruse to groom them into
sex trafficking, it is alleged in court records.
At least one woman, Sarah Ransome, claimed in a lawsuit that Maxwell and Epstein
threatened to physically harm her or destroy any chance she would have of a fashion career if
she didn't have sex with them and others.
Maxwell has thus far managed to escape charges, but a lawyer for one of the women suing
Epstein predicts she'll eventually be swept up in the sex trafficking litigation.
"The one person most likely in jeopardy is Maxwell because the records that are going to
be unsealed have so much evidence against her," said David Boies, the attorney for Epstein
accuser Virginia Roberts Giuffre. "She is in a particularly vulnerable position and will have
an interest in cooperating, even though she may have missed that opportunity."
Those 26 trips by Billy Boy on the Lolita Express are only the ones in the log book. How
many were there that were not logged? Isn't it amazing that the mainline press never picked
up on this. It just shows how corrupt and fraudulent they are. I hope there is a deal and
Epstein furnishes the names of his associated scum with proof. I wonder how many congressmen,
senators, Judges, etc. There are.
And Hillary went to the sex slave island at least six times .
my new username , 21 hours ago
Wikileaks had a Hillary email about Chelsea bringing a young Haitian girl into the USA,
past immigration, on one of those CGI/State Department/Haiti Earthquake flights from Port au
Prince.
8iron , 21 hours ago
so Trump is now deciding who to prosecute AND tell the SDNY to do it? This author is as
retarded as the Left.
Epstein's case is being unsealed. SDNY knew this was coming so as to not look like idiots,
they found some "new" victims. This guy makes most the ***-pedo-sex perverts (but I repeat
myself) look like Rabbi's and he needs his d*ck connected to 'ol sparky but WTF?
Something else is going on...clearly nothing being reported or guessed (like above)
Spectorman , 22 hours ago
There are so many ways for these mutually guilty power rapists to cut deals with each
other and avoid the real rap. Some patsys might get snipped, but thinking this will be the
stake in the heart seems wishful thinking. These guys are busy raping America with an
information/internet/media chokehold and a money printing press. That's probably bigger than
child rape, and it will take more than a federal prosecutor to stop it.
beemasters , 22 hours ago
The author's theory doesn't make sense at all. They are all Lolita Island visitors. They
are friends. Dotard would have implicated himself if he was the one taking Epstein route to
get to Killary. Killary is much more vicious and vindictive and will drag him down along with
Epstein. Dotard wouldn't dare!
There is already enough evidence to throw the Clintons in jail by the private-server case
alone.... if Dotard wanted them them in jail. He really doesn't.
Buck Johnson , 23 hours ago
So true, it's hard to justify ******* and having sex with 14 year old girls. That is why
no one is defending this piece of **** and when he starts to sing it's going to take down
alot of people (ALAN DERSHOWITZ, hate the ******).
I totally agree that this guy has blackmail material on everyone, everyone. A man like
this that was able to do what he was doing for years and still get the president, Alan and
alot of others to go to his private island knowing what he did.
Nope, this man is a dirt bag that thought he had the fix in and he went ham in having sex
with these girls. Not realizing that someone else in power could go after him and force him
to rat out any and everyone.
With this so public there is no way that the fed is going to give him anything light, he's
going away for decades unless he could out people to help his case.
Mr. Barr said he is recused because he once worked for one of the law firms that
represented Epstein "long ago," the report said. He did not name the law firm.
bobcatz , 23 hours ago
Tom Luongo is filtering this event through a deep-seated hope that Trump the Potus is not
too far from Trump the candidate he voted for.
Hate to tell you, Tom, you just got played. Nothing of your estimation will occur. If
anyone goes down, it'll be some insignificant nobodies.
CNN reported this morning that Epstein's arrest ropes in Trump's Labor Secretary,
Alexander Acosta, who evidently was Epstein's Florida attorney who let Epstein walk.
swmnguy , 23 hours ago
No, Acosta was the US Attorney in Florida during the GW Bush Administration, who let
Epstein walk over the full-throated objections of every attorney on his staff. Acosta went
around behind their back, behind the court's back, to give Epstein a sweetheart deal that
raised eyebrows throughout the legal community at the time, in early 2008.
Epstein's actual attorney was somebody else, who wrote Acosta a very grateful letter
thanking Acosta for going beyond even what Epstein's own attorney was hoping for in terms of
clemency.
There's a reason Acosta did that; beyond the insipid excuses Acosta has gotten away with
until now. Just as there's a reason Attorney General William Barr just recused himself on all
matters Epstein; above and beyond the stupid and unconvincing reasons Barr just gave.
SummerSausage , 23 hours ago
Acosta worked for the DOJ and the way Epstein's case was handled is almost identical to
the way they handled Hillary a few years later.
Only difference is Mueller was head of FBI for the Epstein investigation.
Acosta didn't have the authority to give the deal on his own. It had to come from higher
up
j0nx , 22 hours ago
Agreed. US attorneys don't do **** unless the AG tells them to. It's preposterous to think
the SDNY is some rogue agency running around prosecuting who they want. If Bill Barr says no
then they say yes sir. Of course all of this comes from up high. It's either that or Bill
Barr like Jeff Sessions has lost all control of his department.
June 12 1776 , 23 hours ago
A pathetic useless attempt to appease status quo uniCRIME, uniPARTY chimp army.
"But something had to be done to keep our faith in our political and social
institutions intact. Because otherwise that way leads to only chaos and collapse."
Wrong, through out all human history, all criminal, unconstitutional outlaw, political and
social institutions natural law and faith of nature is COLLAPSE AND DESTRUCTION, one way or
another.
bobcatz , 23 hours ago
Tom Luongo is filtering this event through a deep-seated hope that Trump the Potus is not
too far from Trump the candidate he voted for.
Hate to tell you, Tom, you just got suckered. Nothing of your estimation will occur. If
anyone goes down, it'll be some insignificant nobodies.
SirBarksAlot , 23 hours ago
Maybe.
But I think this is the big payback for their failed attempt to impeach him via a
fabricated "dossier." This is the first chance he has been out from under the shadow of that
witch hunt that was supposed to prevent this investigation into the Satanists from going
forward.
He's just playing Bolton and his buddies by keeping them by his side. Letting them think
they're running the show, like they did under Bush, then deciding not to invade Iran at the
last minute. Where is Bolton now? Mongolia? He gives a little with the space program, then
takes away from the expensive, endless wars to nowhere.
That's why the British tanker is stuck at the mouth of the Strait of Hormuz instead of
running right though it. Britain royally fucked up.
Solio , 1 day ago
George Washington: "If the laws are to be trampled upon with impunity and a minority is to
dictate to the majority, there is an end put at one stroke to republican government."
September 9, 1774 at the beginning of the Whiskey Rebellion in Western Pennsylvania, from Ron
Chernow's book "Alexander Hamilton," 2004, p. 473
Nunyadambizness , 1 day ago
I most certainly hope that the author is correct, and this vile corrupt sewer in DC gets
weeded out--forcefully if necessary.
We the People have allowed unelected bureaucrats to ru(i)n our lives for far too long,
protected by those who lust for power and who will do anything for it--yes Cankles, I'm
speaking of you AND your former boss Barry Obozo, among dozens (if not hundreds) of others in
the sewer. Protected by a wink-and-a-nod to those in power, they've done whatever they wanted
knowing that they were untouchable. Here's hoping that this is just the first of dozens of
arrests and ultimately convictions of these scumbags and their kin.
Drain the SEWER. FLUSH DC STARTING AT THE TOP.
SummerSausage , 1 day ago
Just a reminder - Mueller was head of the FBI during the Epstein investigation. If Trump
had been involved in any way Mueller would have found a way to put it in the Mueller
report.
turbojarhead , 23 hours ago
I think Kunstler is exactly right-this is the Trump faction counterstrike.
Conservative Treehouse actually caught something I did not in the indictment:
While these items were only seized this weekend and are still being reviewed, some of the
nude or partially-nude photographs appear to be of underage girls, including at least one
girl who, according to her counsel, was underage at the time the relevant photographs were
taken. Additionally, some of the photographs referenced herein were discovered in a locked
safe, in which law enforcement officers also found compact discs with hand-written labels
including the following:
The defendant, a registered sex offender, is not reformed, he is not chastened, he is not
repentant;6 rather, he is a continuing danger to the community and an individual who faces
devastating evidence supporting deeply serious charges." ( cloud
– pdf link )
Notice the young Name + NAME------gee, you think that NAME might be the creeps Epstein was
blackmailing? Hahahahhh
SummerSausage , 23 hours ago
That info didn't come from the indictment I don't think. It came from the letter to the
judge about bail.
The indictment was drawn up to arrest Epstein. The search of his home took place at the
same time as the arrest or just after.
Reportedly, Epstein had quite a few surveillance cameras in his homes. It will be
interesting to know what's on the CD's. Hard to believe he didn't have some "insurance"
tucked away for a rainy day.
SummerSausage , 23 hours ago
Acosta wasn't Epstein's lawyer. He was US Attorney for S Fl.
The Epstein treatment reads like a dress rehearsal for the Hillary FBI/DOJ whitewash -
except instead of just the associates getting of scot-free Hillary did, too. (read the Miami
Herald series from Nov https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/article220097825.html
Since Trump hasn't fired him but this story has been circulating for more than 6 months,
Acosta was probably ordered to follow the deal cut at the highest levels of Mueller's FBI and
the DOJ bureaucracy.
Acosta may well know where the bodies are buried.
NumberNone , 1 day ago
The people in the 'deviant' circles got comfortable after the Obama election. They put the
people they wanted in power and the Evil Queen Hillary was guaranteed to be President to
reside over 8 years of destroying their enemies. Life was going to be good. There was no
reason to hide or be afraid.
Look at Epstein, the guy got off with a handslap and was so fearless rather than destroy
his kiddie-****...he still kept in the open.
Now they are in a panic and throwing everything they can at Trump. If you are facing the
death sentence, nothing is off-limits to save yourself.
If you are right or left in your political beliefs and think that this sort of absolute
evil needs to be weeded out then please shut the hell up about Trump or Clinton and simply
demand that no stone be unturned in the pursuit of justice. A golden opportunity has been
placed in front of all of us to purge this scum.
Occams_Razor_Trader_Part_Deux , 1 day ago
Pelosi's daughter:
Christine Pelosi warns it's 'quite likely that some of our faves are implicated' in
'horrific' Epstein case.
What does it say when some of your "faves" are pedophiles?
jutah , 1 day ago
BullFuckinShit. He's had 3 years as President and many years prior to that where he was
aware of exactly what was going on and did and said nothing . Oh, correction, he did say
something when he praised Epstein; ""I've known Jeff (Epstein) for fifteen years. Terrific
guy. He's a lot of fun to be with . It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as
I do, and many of them are on the younger side."
It's too late for that ****. That ship has sailed. These traitors should have been
executed on day 1. All the evidence of criminal activities was well documented before you
even became president. You are a sorry sack of **** coward to let this continue for so long
and in my book an accomplice to it- you and ever other neo-zio-con who went along with it.
Now, youre all worried about your re-election campaign, image and being indicted yourself.
**** off you Orange Clown. Go ahead and bomb Iran as a distraction as your masters order you
to do
Kafir Goyim , 1 day ago
There's video of Trump saying Clinton would have trouble because of his frequent and
suspicious (no Secret Service) associations with Epstein. There is a record of Trump helping
prosecutors going after Epstein. There is record of Trump barring Epstein from Mar a
Lago.
I think you are a little confused ... or engaged in purposeful disinformation, which is
more likely.
Next time, don't quote Fusion GPS. The article that quote came from was a puff piece about
Epstein from 2002. It extolled his brilliance and philanthropy with quotes from the Dem Sen
Leader, Harvard scientists and just about everyone they could find.
At the time, Epstein served on the board of the Trilateral Commission with Kissinger,
Summers and a dozen CEO's of Fortune 50 companies, the Rockefeller Foundation and
Harvard.
SirBarksAlot , 23 hours ago
No kidding!
He really does have a blackmail racket going on there!!!!!!!
WhackoWarner , 22 hours ago
Let's not disregard Prince Andy. (old article from Guardian but still...)
Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell were running a Mossad blackmail operation.
Rahm Emmanuel was kicked out of the Clinton WH by the FBI. They had a file on him
"Security Risk"...then he got back in with Obama ?
Trump is too smart for the blackmail ****. Roy Cohn taught him that.
BUT Jared Kushner is Trumps Achilles heel. Kushner's father spent two years in prison for
blackmail/extorsion.
ZD1 , 1 day ago
Epstein hung with Democrats and donated to them.
No doubt Epstein found what the commie muzzie *** from Kenya craved?
Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker, Katie Couric, George Stephanopoulos, and Woody Allen are some
of the celebrities who reportedly traveled and partied with Epstein in the past.
Even Stephen Hawking made a visit to Epstein's island.
Props to Michael Cernovich, and then there's the make-up Queen Shep Smith who show's
Epstein and Trump together, Trump banned this Fukk Epstein from his club and the Clinton's
had enough frequent flyer on Epstein's plane to Lolita Island for 2 round trip tickets to
Paris. Shepp & the golden sperm seed piss punks of Murdoch must share something in common
wonder what it is?
JBLight , 1 day ago
As this continues to pour out, I look forward to seeing the faces of the people I know who
voted for Hillary. They voted for child trafficking.
John Law Lives , 1 day ago
This article sounds like speculation, but I am ready to see privileged scumbags get their
due. This has been a long time coming (imo).
BandGap , 1 day ago
This is the opening of the portal to hell for a lot of kids' agonies, even deaths.
Watch the names of the rich and famous tumble out. If you read previous articles you know
that they also seized tapes Epstein was holding of young girls with older men. This is what
fuels the blackmail, and hence the corruption.
The Weiner laptop is also in play with the NXVIUM convictions.
The Clintons remain free and Trump keeps elitists like Ross, Pompeo and Bolton in the
White House. Comey's daughter is one of the prosecutors for Epstein and Epstein is already
claiming immunity. He might go to jail again, he might not. But nothing is going to happen
with the Epstein thing as far as the fall of the banksters. Nothing.
pmc , 1 day ago
I don't think Trump is behind his arrest. I think it's the head NY prosecutor trying to
make a name for himself in order to run for president at a late time! We'll see where this
all goes but my money is on the procecutor!
onewayticket2 , 1 day ago
Trump should be "out for blood" but it's the SDNY...and we KNOW they are "out for
blood"....trump's. So my read is the opposite. The SDNY is never going to do something that
will harm the clintons. The ONLY goal is keeping Trump out of office for these guys. all
roads lead to trump at the SDNY...it's job 1.
evoila , 1 day ago
It's ahead of muellers testimony for a reason.
yaright , 1 day ago
Agree, timing is everything
Snípéir_Ag_Obair , 1 day ago
Pedosadist Elites Panic: Congress Bill Wants To End Child **** In Pentagon Networks;
Epstein Arrested, Files To Be Unsealed On Powerful Clients
America is receiving a hell of a Christmas in July present – a bill in Congress is
being pushed to end child **** sharing in Pentagon networks, and Jeffrey Epstein was
arrested for child trafficking. Additionally, an appeal court ordered that all files
pertaining to Epstein's case of wealthy powerful clients will be released to the press and
public.
Congress is aiming to halt child **** distribution within Pentagon networks according to
a bipartisan bill (The End
Network Abuse Act) that was introduced by Reps. Abigail Spanberger (D-VA) and Mark
Meadows (R-N.C.)
The National Criminal Justice Training Center, one of the groups that has thrown its
weight behind the bill, reported in 2018 that DOD's network was ranked 19th out of almost
3,000 nationwide networks on the amount of peer-to-peer child *********** sharing.
Spanberger described the issues of child sexual exploitation and abuse as "horrific
crimes."
"The notion that the Department of Defense's network and Pentagon-issued computers may
be used to view, create, or circulate such horrifying images is a shameful disgrace, and
one we must fight head on," Spanberger said in statement. (Source:
The Hill )
So... if I send child **** to anyone the entire law enforcement apparatus on planet Earth
descends upon my location with the full weight of every alphabet agency. Yet, when child ****
is trafficked within a government agency we need to pass a bill thru Congress in order to
stop it. WTF.
Nekoti , 22 hours ago
Rules for thee, not for me.
chunga , 1 day ago
That's some pretty wild speculation there, but I hear angels singing just the same.
caconhma , 1 day ago
<Epstein's Arrest Tells Me Trump Is Now Out For Blood> Wrong.
Trump and Bill Clinton were willing participants in these crimes.
Don't be surprised when Trump's name will appear in all legal documents. Remember, the
lead prosecutor is from Demo New York and Epstein will behave no different from Trump's loyal
lawyer Cohen. After all, this case was not resurrected from dead to promote justice in
Americ
Friedrich not Salma , 1 day ago
Do a Youtube search for * Trump BBC 1998 * and jump 5 minutes into the vid. You will
realize Trump will be out for blood. He waits until the right time.
BBC: "You talk in your book about getting even. The importance of getting even. Is revenge
sweet?"
Trump: "I believe strongly in getting even. If someone has hurt you. If someone's gone out
of their way to hurt you. I think that if you have the opportunity, you should certainly go
out of your way to do a number on them."
I didn't believe in the "the indictments are coming from Jeff Sessions" lines, but I do
believe Trump will nail these people when the time presents itself and that time is coming up
fast.
"... And how many congresspeople served in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan? How many presidential candidates had boots on the ground in combat theaters? The answer is one. Here is the moral decay of America's ruling elites boiled down to a single word. ..."
And how many congresspeople served in combat in Iraq or Afghanistan? How many presidential
candidates had boots on the ground in combat theaters? The answer is one. Here is the moral
decay of America's ruling elites boiled down to a single word.
It didn't matter when they did. McStain fought, and absolutely LOVED war. Plenty of the
Hawks served and fought, it's like frat boys who were hazed, carrying on the hazing.
You have probably seen the bumper sticker that says: "Shit Happens." Some people are just
lucky, I suppose, and odd coincidences mark their lives.
When he was just out of Columbia College and working for a reputed CIA front company,
Business International Corporation, Barack Obama had a chance encounter with a young woman,
Genevieve Cook, with whom he had a 1-2 year relationship.
Like Obama and at about the same
time, Cook just happened to have lived in Indonesia with her father, Michael Cook, who just
happened to become Australia's top spook, the director-general of the Office of National
Assessments, and also the Ambassador to Washington.
Of course, Obama's mother, as is well-known, just happened to be living in Indonesia with
Barack and Obama's step-father, Lolo Soetoro, an Indonesian military officer, who had been
called back to Indonesia by the CIA supported General Suharto three months before the CIA coup
against President Sukarno. Suharto subsequently slaughtered over a million Indonesian
Communists and Indonesian-Chinese.
As is also well-known, it just so happened that Obama's
mother, Ann Dunham, trained in the Russian language, after teaching English in the US Embassy
in Jakarta that housed one of the largest CIA stations in Asia, did her "anthropological" work
in Indonesia and Southeast Asia financed by the well-known CIA conduits, USAID and the Ford
Foundation.
Then there is Cook's stepfather, Philip C. Jessup, who just happened to be in
Indonesia at the same time, doing nickel-mining deals with the genocidal Suharto
government.
Anyway, "shit happens." You never know whom you might meet along the way of life.
"... Within America, the alphabet agencies from NSA to CIA to FBI had betrayed their country as obviously as Figuera did, though they didn't run away, yet. Our colleagues Mike Whitney and Philip Giraldi described the conspiracy organised by John Brennan of CIA with active participation of FBI's James Comey, to regime-change the US. ..."
"... The CIA spies in England and passes the results to the British Intelligence. MI6 spies in the US and passes the results to CIA. They became integrated to unbelievable extent in the worldwide network of spies. ..."
"... It is not the Deep State anymore; it is world spooks who had united against their legitimate masters. Instead of staying loyal to their country, the spooks betrayed their countries. They are not only strictly-for-cash – they think they know better what is good for you. In a way, they are a new incarnation of the Cecil Rhodes Society . Democratically-elected politicians and statesmen have to obey them or meet their displeasure, as Corbyn and Trump did. ..."
"... Everywhere, in the US, the UK, and Russia, the spooks became too powerful to handle. The CIA stood behind assassination of JFK and tried to take down Trump. The British Intelligence undermined Jeremy Corbyn, after assisting the CIA in pushing for the Iraq war. They created the Steele Dossier, invented the Skripal hoax and had brought Russia and the West to the brink of nuclear war. ..."
"... In the Ukraine, the heads of their state security, SBU had plotted against the last legitimate president Mr Victor Yanukovych. They helped to organise and run the Maidan 2014 manifestations and misled their President, until he was forced to escape abroad. The Maidan manifestations could be compared with the Yellow Vests movement; however, Macron, an appointee of the Network, had support of his spies, and stayed in power, while Yanukovych had been betrayed and overthrown. ..."
"... You'd ask me, were they so stupid that they believed their own propaganda of inevitable Clinton's victory? Yes, they were and are stupid. They are no sages, evil or benevolent. My main objection to the conspiracy theorists is that they usually view the plotters as omniscient and all-powerful. They are too greedy to be all-powerful, and they are too silly to be omniscient. ..."
"... Now, however, the secret services' cohesion and integration increased to the next level, making it difficult to deal with them. ..."
"... People are fickle and not always know what is good for them; there are many demagogues to mislead the crowd. And still, elected legitimate officials should have precedence in governing, while non-elected ones should obey – and it means the Network spooks and media men should know their place. ..."
"... How did John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Christopher Steele and other Spygate principals manage to rise to the top of the intelligence bureaucracy? ..."
"... These characters have indulged in an orgy of highly conspicuous partisan political meddling and ranting that has created the strong public impression that they engaged in an attempted coup to overthrow a sitting American president on the basis of a frame-up that was largely fueled by Russian disinformation. ..."
"... Brennan in particular: can you imagine any previous CIA director comporting himself in this manner? Throwing all caution to the winds? Inconceivable. Brennan, Comey and Clapper have inflicted serious damage on the reputation of the CIA, FBI and ODNI. ..."
"... It's not just illegal surveillance and blackmail that gives the spies power, it's impunity for even the gravest crimes. If you don't get the message of blackmail you can be tortured or shot, with a bullet like JFK and RFK and Reagan, or with illegal biological weapons like Daschel and Leahy. Institutionalized impunity stares us in the face from US state papers. ..."
"... It's not that CIA and other neo-Gestapos escaped control. They were designed from inception for totalitarian control. The one poor bastard in Congress who pointed that out, Tydings, had McCarthy sicced on him for his cheek. CIA is not out of control; it's firmly IN control. ..."
"... It was funny during the Cold war (the original one) – whenever each side unveiled that a spy from the other side has defected to them – they would say it was because of ideology – i.e. the spy defected to them because he "believed" in "democracy" or socialism – depending on the case. ..."
"... And in order to discredit their own spies when they defected to the other side – they would say that they did it for money, because they were greedy and that they betrayed "democracy" or socialism ..."
"... The other crucial role that spies usually play is that they allow the adversaries to keep technological balance via industrial espionage. By transferring top military secrets, they don't allow any side to gain crucial strategic advantage that might encourage them to do something foolish – like start a nuclear war. Prime example of this were probably the Rosenbergs – who helped USSR close the nuclear weapons gap with US and kept the world in a shaky nuclear arms balance. ..."
"... Profound analysis by Mr. Shamir. It confirms that one of the important reasons for the decline of freemasonry is the monopolization of political conspiracy by the intelligence services. Who needs the lodge when you have the CIA. ..."
"... Spooks are everywhere, from secretaries "losing" important communications to CNN news anchors roleplaying with crisis actors, but they are at their most powerful when they are appointed to powerful positions. President Trump's National Security Advisor is a spook and he does what he wants. ..."
"... John le Carre described it perfectly in "A Perfect Spy". The spooks form their own country. They are only loyal to themselves. ..."
"... A global supra-powerful, organized and united, privately directed, publicly backed society of high technology robin hood_mercenary_spooks who conduct sub-legal "scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-your-back [in the nation of the other] routines"; who ignore duty to country, its constitutions, its laws and human rights. The are evil, global acting, high technology nomads with a monopoly on extortion and terror. ..."
"... Your statement "spooks and ex-spooks feel more proximity to their enemies and colleagues in other countries than to their fellow citizens" fails makes clear the importance of containment-of-citizen access to information. Nation states are armed, rule making structures that invent propaganda and control access to information. Information containment and filtering is the essence of the political and economic power of a national leader and it is more import to the evil your article addresses. ..."
"... Control of the media is 50 times more important than control of the government? Nearly all actions of consequence are intended to drain the governed masses and such efforts can only be successful if the lobbying, false-misleading mind controlling privately owned (92% own by just 6 entities) centrally directed media can effectively control the all information environments. ..."
"... While understanding the mechanics is helpful don't neglect the purpose. Why is more important than how. The why is control. They don't care what you believe, but only what you do. You can be on the left, right, mainstream, or fringe and they won't care as long as you eat what they serve. Take a minute to think about what they want you to do and strongly consider not doing it. ..."
Conspiratorially-minded writers envisaged the Shadow World Government as a board of evil sages surrounded by the financiers and
cinema moguls. That would be bad enough; in infinitely worse reality, our world is run by the Junior Ganymede that went berserk.
It is not a government, but a network, like freemasonry of old, and it consists chiefly of treacherous spies and pens-for-hire, two
kinds of service personnel, that collected a lot of data and tools of influence, and instead of serving their masters loyally, had
decided to lead the world in the direction they prefer.
German Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, the last head of the Abwehr, Hitler's Military Intelligence, had been such a spy with political
ambitions. He supported Hitler as the mighty enemy of Communism; on a certain stage he came to conclusion that the US will do the
job better and switched to the Anglo-American side. He was uncovered and executed for treason. His colleague General Reinhard Gehlen
also betrayed his Führer and had switched to the American side. After the war, he continued his war against Soviet Russia, this time
for CIA instead of Abwehr.
The spies are treacherous by their nature. They contact people who betrayed their countries; they work under cover, pretending
to be somebody else; for them the switch of loyalty is as usual and normal as the gender change operation for a Moroccan doctor who
is doing that 8 to 5 every day. They mix with foreign spies, they kill people with impunity; they break every law, human or divine.
They are extremely dangerous if they do it for their own country. They are infinitely more dangerous if they work for themselves
and still keep their institutional capabilities and international network.
Recently we had a painful reminding of their treacherous nature. Venezuela's top spy, the former director of the Bolivarian National
Intelligence Service (Sebin), Manuel Cristopher Figuera , had switched sides during the last coup attempt and escaped abroad
as the coup failed. He discovered that his membership on the Junior Ganymede of the spooks is more important for him than his duty
to his country and its constitution.
Within America, the alphabet agencies from NSA to CIA to FBI had betrayed their country as obviously as Figuera did, though
they didn't run away, yet. Our colleagues Mike
Whitney and Philip Giraldi described
the conspiracy organised by John Brennan of CIA with active participation of FBI's James Comey, to regime-change the US. In
the conspiracy, foreign intelligence agencies, primarily the British GCHQ, played an important role. As by law, these spies aren't
allowed to operate on their home ground, they go into you-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-your-back routine. The CIA spies in England
and passes the results to the British Intelligence. MI6 spies in the US and passes the results to CIA. They became integrated to
unbelievable extent in the worldwide network of spies.
It is not the Deep State anymore; it is world spooks who had united against their legitimate masters. Instead of staying loyal
to their country, the spooks betrayed their countries. They are not only strictly-for-cash – they think they know better what is
good for you. In a way, they are a new incarnation of the
Cecil Rhodes Society . Democratically-elected politicians
and statesmen have to obey them or meet their displeasure, as Corbyn and Trump did.
Everywhere, in the US, the UK, and Russia, the spooks became too powerful to handle. The CIA stood behind assassination of
JFK and tried to take down Trump. The British Intelligence undermined Jeremy Corbyn, after assisting the CIA in pushing for the Iraq
war. They created the Steele Dossier, invented the Skripal hoax and had brought Russia and the West to the brink of nuclear war.
Russian spooks are in a special relations mode with the global network – for many years. In Russia, persistent rumours claim the
perilous Perestroika of Mikhail Gorbachev had been designed and initiated by the KGB chief (1967 – 1982)
Yuri Andropov . He and his appointees
dismantled the socialist state and prepared the takeover of 1991 in the interests of the One World project.
Andropov (who had stepped into Brezhnev's shoes in 1982 and died in 1984) had advanced Gorbachev and his architect of glasnost,
Alexander Yakovlev . Andropov
also promoted the arch-traitor KGB General Oleg Kalugin
to head its counter-intelligence. Later, Kalugin betrayed his country, escaped to the US and delivered all Russian spies he knew
of to the FBI hands.
In late 1980s-early 1990s, the KGB, originally the guarding dog of the Russian working class, had betrayed its Communist masters
and switched to work for the Network. But for their betrayal, Gorbachev would not be able to destroy his country so fast: the KGB
neutralised or misinformed the Communist leadership.
They allowed Chernobyl to explode; they permitted a German pilot to land on the Red Square – this was used by Gorbachev as an
excuse to sack the whole lot of patriotic generals. The KGB people were active in subverting other socialist states, too. They executed
the Romanian leader Ceausescu and his wife; they brought down the GDR, the socialist Germany; they plotted with Yeltsin against Gorbachev
and with Gorbachev against Romanov. As the result of their plotting, the USSR fell apart.
The KGB plotters of 1991 had thought that post-Communist Russia would be treated by the West like the prodigal son, with a fattened
calf being slaughtered for the welcome feast. To their disappointment, the stupid bastards discovered that their country was to play
the part of the fattened calf at the feast, and they were turned from unseen rulers into billionaires' bodyguards. Years later, Vladimir
Putin came to power in Russia with the blessing of the world spooks and bankers, but being too independent a man to submit, he took
his country into its present nationalist course, trying to regain some lost ground. The dissatisfied spooks supported him.
Only recently Putin began to trim the wild growth of his own intelligence service, the FSB. It is possible the cautious president
had been alerted by the surprising insistence of the Western media that the alleged attempt on Skripal and other visible cases had
been attributed to the GRU, the relatively small Russian Military Intelligence, while the much bigger FSB had been forgotten. The
head of
FSB cybercrime department had been arrested and sentenced for lengthy term of imprisonment, and two FSB colonels had been arrested
as the search of their premises revealed immense
amounts of cash , both Russian and foreign currency. Such piles of roubles and dollars could be assembled only for an attempt
to change the regime, as it was demanded by the Network.
In the Ukraine, the heads of their state security, SBU had plotted against the last legitimate president Mr Victor Yanukovych.
They helped to organise and run the Maidan 2014 manifestations and misled their President, until he was forced to escape abroad.
The Maidan manifestations could be compared with the Yellow Vests movement; however, Macron, an appointee of the Network, had support
of his spies, and stayed in power, while Yanukovych had been betrayed and overthrown.
In the US, the spooks allowed Donald Trump to become the leading Republican candidate, for they thought he would certainly lose
to Mme Clinton. Surprisingly, he had won, and since then, this man who was advanced as an easy prey, as a buffoon, had been hunted
by the spooks-and-scribes freemasonry.
You'd ask me, were they so stupid that they believed their own propaganda of inevitable Clinton's victory? Yes, they were
and are stupid. They are no sages, evil or benevolent. My main objection to the conspiracy theorists is that they usually view the
plotters as omniscient and all-powerful. They are too greedy to be all-powerful, and they are too silly to be omniscient.
Their knowledge of official leaders' faults gives them their feeling of power, but this knowledge can be translated into actual
control only for weak-minded men. Strong leaders do not submit easily. Putin has had his quota of imprudent or outright criminal
acts in his past, but he never allowed the blackmailers to dictate him their agenda. Netanyahu, another strong man of modern politics,
also had managed to survive blackmail. Meanwhile, Trump defeated all attempts to unseat him, though his enemies had used his alleged
lack of delicacy in relation to women, blacks and Jews to its utmost. He waded through the deep pond of Russiagate like Gulliver.
But he has to purge the alphabet agencies to reach safety.
In Russia, the problem is acute. Many Russian spooks and ex-spooks feel more proximity to their enemies and colleagues in other
countries than to their fellow citizens. There is a freemasonic quality in their camaraderie. Such a quality could be commendable
in soldiers after the war is over, but here the war is going on. Russian spooks are particularly besotted with their declared enemies;
apparently it is the Christian quality of the Russian soul, but a very annoying one.
When Snowden reached Moscow after his daring escape from Hong Kong, the Russian TV screened a discussion that I participated in,
among journalists, members of parliament and ex-spies. The Russian spooks said that Snowden is a traitor; a person who betrayed his
agency can't be trusted and should be sent to the US in shackles. They felt they belong to the Spy World, with its inner bond, while
their loyalty to Russia was a distant second.
During recent visit of Mike Pompeo to Sochi, the head of SVR, the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, Mr Sergey Naryshkin
proposed the State Secretary Mike Pompeo, the ex-CIA director,
to expand contacts between Russian and US special services at a higher level. He clarified that he actively interacted with Pompeo
during the period when he was the head of the CIA. Why would he need contacts with his adversary? It would be much better to avoid
contacts altogether.
Even president Putin, who is first of all a Russian nationalist (or a patriot, as they say), who has granted Snowden asylum in
Moscow at a high price of seriously worsening relations with Obama's administration, even Putin has told Stone that Snowden shouldn't
have leaked the documents the way he did. "If he didn't like anything at his work he should have simply resigned, but he went further",
a response proving he didn't completely freed himself from the spooks' freemasonry.
While the spooks plot, the scribes justify their plots. Media is also a weapon, and a mighty one. In Richard Wagner's opera
Lohengrin , the protagonist is defeated by the smear campaign in the media. Despite his miraculous arrival, despite his glorious
victory, the evil witch succeeds to poison minds of the hero's wife and of the court. The pen can counter the sword. When the two
are integrated, as in the union of spooks and scribes, it is too dangerous tool to leave intact.
In many countries of Europe, editorial international policies had been outsourced to the spooky Atlantic Council, the Washington-based
think tank. The Atlantic Council is strongly connected with NATO alliance and with Brussels bureaucracy, the tools of control over
Europe. Another tool is
The
Integrity Initiative , where the difference between spies and journalists is
blurred
. And so is the difference between the left and the right. The left and the right-wing media use different arguments, surprisingly
leading to the same bottom line, because both are tools of warfare for the same Network.
In 1930s, they were divided. The German and the British agents pulled and pushed in the opposite directions. The Russian military
became so friendly with the Germans, that at a certain time, Hitler believed the Russian generals would side with him against their
own leader. The Russian spooks were befriended by the Brits, and had tried to push Russia to confront Hitler. The cautious Marshal
Stalin had purged the Red Army's pro-German Generals, and the NKVD's pro-British spooks, and delayed the outbreak of hostilities
as much as he could. Now, however, the secret services' cohesion and integration increased to the next level, making it difficult
to deal with them.
If they are so powerful, integrated and united, shouldn't we throw a towel in the ring and surrender? Hell, no! Their success
is their undoing. They plot, but Allah is the best plotter, – our Muslim friends say. Indeed, when they succeed to suborn a party,
the people vote with their feet. The Brexit is the case to consider. The Network wanted to undermine the Brexit; so they neutralised
Corbyn by the antisemitism pursuit while May had made all she could to sabotage the Brexit while calling for it in public. Awfully
clever of them – but the British voter responded with dropping both established parties. So their clever plot misfired.
People are fickle and not always know what is good for them; there are many demagogues to mislead the crowd. And still, elected
legitimate officials should have precedence in governing, while non-elected ones should obey – and it means the Network spooks and
media men should know their place.
How did John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Christopher Steele and other Spygate principals manage
to rise to the top of the intelligence bureaucracy?
Spymasters are usually renowned for their inscrutability and for playing their cards close to their vests.
These characters have indulged in an orgy of highly conspicuous partisan political meddling and ranting that has created
the strong public impression that they engaged in an attempted coup to overthrow a sitting American president on the basis of
a frame-up that was largely fueled by Russian disinformation.
Brennan in particular: can you imagine any previous CIA director comporting himself in this manner? Throwing all caution
to the winds? Inconceivable. Brennan, Comey and Clapper have inflicted serious damage on the reputation of the CIA, FBI and ODNI.
Forthcoming books will no doubt get into all the remarkable and bizarre details.
Donald Trump has demonstrated the ability to troll and goad many of his opponents into a state of imbecility. It's a negotiating
tactic -- knock them off balance, provoke them to lose control. No matter how smart they are, some people take the bait.
I am sitting here pointing to my nose. Spies run the world – contemporary history in a nutshell. A few provisos:
– It's not just illegal surveillance and blackmail that gives the spies power, it's impunity for even the gravest crimes.
If you don't get the message of blackmail you can be tortured or shot, with a bullet like JFK and RFK and Reagan, or with illegal
biological weapons like Daschel and Leahy. Institutionalized impunity stares us in the face from US state papers.
– It's not that CIA and other neo-Gestapos escaped control. They were designed from inception for totalitarian control.
The one poor bastard in Congress who pointed that out, Tydings, had McCarthy sicced on him for his cheek. CIA is not out of control;
it's firmly IN control.
– There is a crucial difference between US and Russian spies. Russians can go over the head of their government to the world.
That's the only effective check on state criminal enterprise like CIA. Article 17 of the Russian Constitution says "in the Russian
Federation rights and freedoms of person and citizen are recognized and guaranteed pursuant to the generally recognized principles
and norms of international law and in accordance with this Constitution." Article 18 states that rights and freedoms of the person
and citizen are directly applicable, which prevents the kind of bad-faith tricks the USA pulls, like declaring "non-self executing"
treaties, or making legally void reservations, declarations, understandings, and provisos to screw you out of your rights. Article
46(3) guarantees citizens a constitutional right to appeal to inter-State bodies for the protection of human rights and freedoms
if internal legal redress has been exhausted. Ratified international treaties including the ICCPR supersede any domestic legislation
stipulating otherwise.
Isn't it just collusion that holds certain elite groups together, including in some businesses where a lot of chicanery goes on.
The most important thing is to be in on it as one of them, not as a person who can be trusted not to say anything, but as one
of the gang. It's exactly how absenteeism-friendly offices full of crony parents with crony-parent managers work.
The only problem for the guy at the tippy top is what would happen if such a tight group turned on him / her? Maybe, some leaders
see the value in protecting a few brave individuals, like Snowden, letting any coup-stirring spooks know that some people are
watching the Establishment's rights violators, too. Those with technical knowledge have more capacity than most to do it or, at
least, to understand how it works.
In a country founded on individual liberties, including Fourth Amendment privacy rights that were protected by less greedy
generations, the US should have elected leaders that put the US Constitution first, but that is too much to ask in an era when
the top dogs in business & government are all colluding for money.
In Russia, persistent rumours claim the perilous Perestroika of Mikhail Gorbachev had been designed and initiated by the
KGB chief (1967 – 1982) Yuri Andropov.
FWIW, I have heard the exact same thing from Russian commenters myself. Some have insisted that, if Andropov had lived long
enough, he would have carried glasnost and perestroika himself.
Spies are loathsome bunch, with questionable loyalties and personal integrity. But I believe that overall they play a positive
role. They play a positive role because they help adversaries gain insight into their adversary's activities.
If it wasn't for the spies, paranoia about what the other side is doing can get out of hand and cause wrong actions to take
place. The problem with the spies is also that no one knows how much they can be trusted and on whose side they are really on.
It was funny during the Cold war (the original one) – whenever each side unveiled that a spy from the other side has defected
to them – they would say it was because of ideology – i.e. the spy defected to them because he "believed" in "democracy" or socialism
– depending on the case.
And in order to discredit their own spies when they defected to the other side – they would say that they did it for money,
because they were greedy and that they betrayed "democracy" or socialism.
The other crucial role that spies usually play is that they allow the adversaries to keep technological balance via industrial
espionage. By transferring top military secrets, they don't allow any side to gain crucial strategic advantage that might encourage
them to do something foolish – like start a nuclear war. Prime example of this were probably the Rosenbergs – who helped USSR
close the nuclear weapons gap with US and kept the world in a shaky nuclear arms balance.
Profound analysis by Mr. Shamir. It confirms that one of the important reasons for the decline of freemasonry is the monopolization
of political conspiracy by the intelligence services. Who needs the lodge when you have the CIA.
An aspect of the rule of spies that Mr. Shamir does not touch on is the legitimization of this rule through popular culture.
This started with the James Bond novels and movies and by now has become ubiquitous. Spies and assassins are the heroes of the
masses. While secrecy is still needed for tactical reasons in the case of specific operations, overall secrecy is not needed nor
even desirable. So you have thugs like Pompeo actually boasting of their villainy before audiences of college students at Texas
A&M and you have the Mossad supporting the publication of the book Rise and Kill First which is an extensive account of their
world-wide assassination policy. They have the power; now they want the perks that go with it, including being treated like rock
stars.
dear mr Shamir, the criminals are not only stupid but also utterly wicked. they will be stricken down in the twinkling of the
eye and will cry out why God? all the righteous will shout for joy and give thanks to the Almighty for judging Babylon. woe unto
them! they will have no place to hide or run to.
Ezekiel 9 (NKJV)
The Wicked Are Slain
9 Then He called out in my hearing with a loud voice, saying, "Let those who have charge over the city draw near, each with a
deadly weapon in his hand." 2 And suddenly six men came from the direction of the upper gate, which faces north, each with his
battle-ax in his hand. One man among them was clothed with linen and had a writer's inkhorn at his side. They went in and stood
beside the bronze altar.
3 Now the glory of the God of Israel had gone up from the cherub, where it had been, to the threshold of the temple. And He
called to the man clothed with linen, who had the writer's inkhorn at his side; 4 and the Lord said to him, "Go through the midst
of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem, and put a mark on the foreheads of the men who sigh and cry over all the abominations
that are done within it."
5 To the others He said in my hearing, "Go after him through the city and kill; do not let your eye spare, nor have any pity.
6 Utterly slay old and young men, maidens and little children and women; but do not come near anyone on whom is the mark; and
begin at My sanctuary." So they began with the elders who were before the temple. 7 Then He said to them, "Defile the temple,
and fill the courts with the slain. Go out!" And they went out and killed in the city.
8 So it was, that while they were killing them, I was left alone; and I fell on my face and cried out, and said, "Ah, Lord
God! Will You destroy all the remnant of Israel in pouring out Your fury on Jerusalem?"
9 Then He said to me, "The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah is exceedingly great, and the land is full of bloodshed,
and the city full of perversity; for they say, 'The Lord has forsaken the land, and the Lord does not see!' 10 And as for Me also,
My eye will neither spare, nor will I have pity, but I will recompense their deeds on their own head."
11 Just then, the man clothed with linen, who had the inkhorn at his side, reported back and said, "I have done as You commanded
me."
E Michael Jones was just warning President Trump about the possibility of this in the Straits of Hormuz.
https://youtu.be/iIm3WuJAVEE?t=272
Spooks are everywhere, from secretaries "losing" important communications to CNN news anchors roleplaying with crisis actors,
but they are at their most powerful when they are appointed to powerful positions. President Trump's National Security Advisor
is a spook and he does what he wants.
John le Carre described it perfectly in "A Perfect Spy". The spooks form their own country. They are only loyal to themselves.
@Antares that's because the Mossad
isn't like "our" spy agencies. it's closer to the old paradigm of the hashishim or true assassins. Mossad "agents" don't gad around
wearing dark glasses and tapping phones; they run proper deep cover operations. "sleepers" is a term used in the USA. they have
jobs. they look "normal". They integrate
Do spies run the world? No not really, bankers run the world.
Bankers constitute most of the deep state in the US/UK in particular and most of Europe. It is the bankers/deep state which
control the intelligence agencies. The ethnicity of a hefty proportion of said bankers is plain to see for anyone with functioning
critical faculties. How else can a tiny country in the middle east have such influence in the US? How else do we explain why 2/3
of the UK parliament are "friends of Israel" How come financial institutions can commit felonies and no one does jail time? why
is Israel allowed to commit war crimes and break international law with total impunity? who got bailed out of their gambling debts
at the expense of inflicting "austerity" on most of the western world?
How did John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Christopher Steele and other Spygate principals manage
to rise to the top of the intelligence bureaucracy?
A global supra-powerful, organized and united, privately directed, publicly backed society of high technology robin hood_mercenary_spooks
who conduct sub-legal "scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-your-back [in the nation of the other] routines"; who ignore duty to country,
its constitutions, its laws and human rights. The are evil, global acting, high technology nomads with a monopoly on extortion
and terror.
Since winning, Trump has been hunted by the spooks-and-scribes freemasonry. <fallacy is that Trump could have gained the assistence
of every American, had Trump just used his powers to declassify all secret information and make it available to the public, instead
he chases Assange, and continues to conduct the affairs of his office in secret.
Propaganda preys on belief.. it is more powerful than an atomic weapon.. when the facts are hidden or when the facts are changed,
distorted or destroyed.
Your statement "spooks and ex-spooks feel more proximity to their enemies and colleagues in other countries than to their
fellow citizens" fails makes clear the importance of containment-of-citizen access to information. Nation states are armed, rule
making structures that invent propaganda and control access to information. Information containment and filtering is the essence
of the political and economic power of a national leader and it is more import to the evil your article addresses.
https://theintercept.com/2019/05/08/josh-gottheimer-democrats-yemen/
<i wrote IRT to the article, that contents appearing in private media supported monopoly powered corporations and distributed
to the public, direct the use of military and the willingness of soldiers of 22 different countries.
Control of the media is 50 times more important than control of the government? Nearly all actions of consequence are intended
to drain the governed masses and such efforts can only be successful if the lobbying, false-misleading mind controlling privately
owned (92% own by just 6 entities) centrally directed media can effectively control the all information environments.
I am bothered by you article because it looks to be Trumped weighted and failes to make clear it is these secret apolitical,
human rights abusers, that direct the contents of the media distributed articles that appear in the privately owmed, media distributed
to the public. Also not explained is how the cost of advertising is shared by the monopoly powered corporations, and it is that
advertising that is the source of support that keeps the fake news in business, the nation state propaganda in line, and the support
of robin -hood terror.
Monopoly powered global corporation advertising funds the fake and misleading private media, that is why the open internet
has been shut in tight. In order for the evil, global acting, high technology nomads to continue their extortion and terror activities
they need the media, its their only real weapon. I have never meet a member of any of the twenty two agencies that was not a trained,
certified mental case terrorist.
I think the interplay between the spooks and scribes warrants a deeper explanation. Covert action refers to anything in which
the author can disclaim his responsibility, ie it looks like someone else or something else. The handler in a political operation
cannot abuse his agent because the agent is the actor. The handler in an intelligence gathering operation can abuse his agent
because the agent merely enables action.
The political operations in this case are propaganda. The Congress of Cultural Freedom is the most clearly described one to
date. Propaganda is necessary in any mass society to ensure that voters care about the right issues, the right way, at the right
time. Propaganda can be true, false, or a mix of the two. Black propaganda deals in falsehoods, ie the Steele Dossier. Black propaganda
works best when it enables a pre-planned operation, but it pollutes the intelligence gathering process with disinformation.
Intelligence gathering is colloquially called investigative reporting. If anyone knows about Gary Webb, Alan Frankovich, or
Michael Hastings they know you can't really do that job well for very long. So how do the old timers last so long? It's a back
and forth. The reporter brings all of his information on a subject to his intelligence source (handler). The source then says,
"print this, print that, sit on that, and since you've been a good boy here's a little something you didn't know." The true role
of the investigative reporter is to conduct counterintelligence and package it as a limited hangout.
While understanding the mechanics is helpful don't neglect the purpose. Why is more important than how. The why is control.
They don't care what you believe, but only what you do. You can be on the left, right, mainstream, or fringe and they won't care
as long as you eat what they serve. Take a minute to think about what they want you to do and strongly consider not doing it.
@Sean McBride And now Trump should
have then all rounded up and hung from the trees in the front of the Whitehouse. Anything less should be seen as encouragement.
The worst among us rule over the rest of us. As Plato said, this needs to change. How to do that? We don't know, but we desperately
need to find out ..
Obama was a very effective promoter of what might be called the "globalist" agenda. He of course didn't invent it but did appoint
those three.
Wayne Madsen gave a convincing account in his speculation that both Obama's parent's were CIA operatives. So it's "all
the family" and in the details one might conclude with the author that indeed "spies run the world."
In this case he looks like Bill Clinton impersonalization ;-) That's probably how Adelson controls Bolton ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Larry Flint had offered a Million dollars to anyone who had proof of republican sexual exploits. He was quickly fingered by someone who attended those clubs. He was forced to accept a temporary position and quietly resigned after a few months so as to avoid facing questions. ..."
@FB Yeah brother,
that POS was called out during his confirmation hearings during baby Bush's presidency. Larry Flint had offered a Million
dollars to anyone who had proof of republican sexual exploits. He was quickly fingered by someone who attended those clubs. He
was forced to accept a temporary position and quietly resigned after a few months so as to avoid facing questions.
Someone said they saw him proposition a teenage girl outside one of the swinger clubs he frequented.
The Obama administration provided a simultaneous layer of protection and facilitation for the entire effort. One example is provided
by Section
2.3 of Executive Order 12333 , also known as Obama's
data-sharing
order . With the passage of the order, agencies and individuals were able to ask the NSA for access to specific surveillance
simply by claiming the intercepts contained relevant information that was useful to a particular mission.
Section 2.3 had been expected to be finalized by early to mid-2016. Instead, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper didn't
sign off on Section 2.3 until Dec. 15, 2016. The order was finalized when Attorney General Loretta Lynch signed it on Jan. 3, 2017.
The reason for the delay could relate to the fact that while the executive order made it easier to share intelligence between
agencies, it also limited certain types of information from going to the White House.
An example of this was provided by Evelyn Farkas during a March 2, 2017,
MSNBC interview , where she detailed how the Obama administration
gathered and disseminated intelligence on the Trump team:
"I was urging my former colleagues and, frankly speaking, the people on the Hill 'Get as much information as you can. Get as
much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration.'
"The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff's dealing with Russians, [they] would try
to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would no longer have access to that intelligence. That's why you have the
leaking."
Many of the Obama administration's efforts appear to have been structural in nature, such as establishing new procedures or creating
impediments to oversight that enabled much of the surveillance abuse to occur.
DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz was appointed by Obama in 2011. From the very start, he found his duties throttled by the
attorney general's office. According to congressional
testimony by Horowitz:
"We got access to information up to 2010 in all of these categories. No law changed in 2010. No policy changed. It was simply
a decision by the General Counsel's Office in 2010 that they viewed, now, the law differently. And as a result, they weren't going
to give us that information."
These new restrictions were
put in place by Attorney General Eric Holder and Deputy Attorney General James Cole.
On Aug. 5, 2014, Horowitz and other inspectors general sent a
letter to Congress asking for unimpeded access to all records. Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates responded on July 20, 2015,
with a 58-page
memorandum . The memo specifically denied the inspector general access to any information collected under Title III -- including
intercepted communications and national security letters.
The New York Times recently
disclosed that national security letters were used in the surveillance of the Trump campaign.
At other times, the Obama administration's efforts were more direct. The
Intelligence Community assessment was released
internally on Jan. 5, 2017. On this same day, Obama held an undisclosed White House meeting to discuss the dossier with national
security adviser Susan Rice, FBI Director James Comey, and Yates. Rice would later send herself an email
documenting
the meeting.
The following day, Brennan, Clapper, and Comey attached a written summary of the Steele dossier to the classified briefing they
gave Obama. Comey then met with President-elect Trump to inform him of the dossier. This meeting took place just hours after Comey,
Brennan, and Clapper formally briefed Obama on both the Intelligence Community assessment and the Steele dossier.
Comey would only inform Trump of the "salacious" details contained within the dossier. He later
explained on CNN in an April 2018 interview
why:
"Because that was the part that the leaders of the Intelligence Community agreed he needed to be told about."
Shortly after Comey's meeting with Trump, both the Trump–Comey meeting and the existence of the dossier were leaked to CNN. The
significance of the meeting was material, as Comey
noted in
a Jan. 7 memo he wrote:
"Media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook. I said it was important that we not give them the excuse to write
that the FBI has the material."
The media had widely dismissed the dossier as unsubstantiated and, therefore, unreportable. It was only after learning that Comey
briefed Trump that
CNN reported
on the dossier. It was later
revealed that DNI James Clapper personally leaked Comey's meeting with Trump to CNN.
The Obama administration also directly participated in a series of
intelligence unmaskings
, the process whereby a U.S. citizen's identity is revealed from collected surveillance. U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha
Power reportedly engaged in hundreds of unmasking requests. Rice has admitted to doing the same.
The Obama administration engaged in the ultimately successful effort to oust Trump's newly appointed national security adviser,
Gen. Michael Flynn. Yates, along with Mary McCord, head of the DOJ's National Security Division,
led that effort
.
Executive Order 13762
President Barack Obama issued a last-minute executive order on Jan. 13, 2017, that altered the line of succession within the DOJ.
The action was not done in consultation with the incoming Trump administration.
Acting Attorney General Sally Yates was fired on Jan. 30, 2017, by a newly inaugurated President Trump for refusing to uphold
the president's executive order limiting travel from certain terror-prone countries. Yates was initially supposed to serve in her
position until Jeff Sessions was confirmed as attorney general.
Obama's executive order placed the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia next in line behind the department's senior leadership.
The attorney at the time was Channing Phillips.
Phillips was first hired by former Attorney General Eric Holder in 1994 for a position in the D.C. U.S. attorney's office. Phillips,
after serving as a senior adviser to Holder, stayed on after he was replaced by Attorney General Loretta Lynch.
It appears the Obama administration was hoping the Russia investigation would default to Channing in the event Sessions was forced
to recuse himself from the investigation. Sessions, whose confirmation hearings began three days before the order, was already coming
under intense scrutiny.
The implementation of the order may also tie into Yates's efforts to remove Gen. Michael Flynn over his call with the Russian
ambassador.
Trump ignored the succession order, as he is legally allowed to do, and instead appointed Dana Boente, the U.S. attorney for the
Eastern District of Virginia, as acting attorney general on Jan. 30, 2017, the same day Yates was fired.
Trump issued a new executive order on Feb. 9, 2017, the same day Sessions was sworn in, reversing Obama's prior order.
On March 10, 2017, Trump fired 46 Obama-era U.S. attorneys, including Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan. These firings
appear to have been unexpected.
Jeff Carlson is a regular contributor to The Epoch Times. He also runs the website TheMarketsWork.com and can be followed
on Twitter @themarketswork.
"Once the Mueller report is put to bed, and it will be soon, this committee is going to look long and hard at how all of this
started," Graham said. "We're going to look at the FISA warrant process. Did Russia provide Christopher Steele the information about
Trump, that turned out to be garbage, that was used to get a warrant on an American citizen and if so, how did the system fail? Was
there a real effort between Papadopoulos and anybody in Russia to use the Clinton e-mails stolen by the Russians, or is that thought
planted in his mind? I don't know, but we're going to look."
"... That report is going to be a bombshell. It is going to open up the investigation on a very high note, and there are going to be criminal referrals in it. ..."
"... The FISA court abuse is the center of this entire abuse of governmental power, and the chief judge in that court has already ruled that the FBI broke the law and that the people at the head of the justice department, Sally Yates, John Carlin, the assistant attorney general for national security all knew about it and lied to the FISA court about it... ..."
"... He [Rogers] discovered the illegal spying. He went personally to the FISA court and briefed the Chief Judge and worked with her for months to uncover the people who did it. The FISA court has already told the Justice Department who lied to that court and that has been given to [Attorney General] Bill Barr already. ..."
It is about the rule of law and privacy. The Obama administration for more than four years
before the 2016 election allowed four contractors working for the FBI to illegally surveil
American citizens -- illegally. The FISA court has already found that. There is the Horowitz
report coming out in May or possibly early June. There's another report that everyone has
forgotten about involving James Comey alone. That will be out in two weeks. That report is
going to be a bombshell. It is going to open up the investigation on a very high note, and
there are going to be criminal referrals in it.
The FISA court abuse is the center of this entire abuse of governmental power, and the chief
judge in that court has already ruled that the FBI broke the law and that the people at the
head of the justice department, Sally Yates, John Carlin, the assistant attorney general for
national security all knew about it and lied to the FISA court about it...
There's a hero in this story and it is not a lawyer. There is a hero. His name is Admiral
Mike Rogers. He was the head of the National Security Agency.
He [Rogers] discovered the illegal spying. He went personally to the FISA court and briefed
the Chief Judge and worked with her for months to uncover the people who did it. The FISA court
has already told the Justice Department who lied to that court and that has been given to
[Attorney General] Bill Barr already.
span y Bob In Portland on Mon, 04/15/2019 - 3:59pm Under the general rubric of
conspiracy theory is the subset called "coincidence theory", which dismisses connections
between people as mere happenstance in order to dismiss any thought of networks that exist
beyond public scrutiny. But these networks do exist. Sometimes history takes decades to find
them, but they exist. Let's take a peek at networks in Paul Manafort's life.
Manafort was an advisor for four Republican presidential candidates: Gerald Ford, Ronald
Reagan, George HW Bush, and Bob Dole. Three of these men were connected to the CIA. Gerald Ford
was on the Warren Commission and helped its conclusions of a single assassin by moving the
bullet hole several inches up from JFK's back to the back of JFK's neck. It was an obvious
fraud, and he should have been prosecuted as an accessory after the fact. There are other
indications that he was involved with the CIA's mind control program prior to his political
career. Ronald Reagan while governor of California blocked extradition requests from New
Orleans DA Jim Garrison in the investigation into President Kennedy's murder. Reagan was
governor at the time of JFK's brother's assassination in Los Angeles. I'll refer readers to
Lisa Pease's A LIE TOO BIG TO FAIL about Reagan during that time. Reagan was also the spokesman
for the Crusade For Freedom, a CIA psyop started in the 1950s which in conjunction with Radio
Free Europe promoted former Nazis and fascists allied with Hitler during WWII and which
imported many of these Nazis into the US. George HW Bush was the CIA Director under Ford, and
investigations put him as a CIA agent or asset since his college days at Yale. I haven't looked
at Bob Dole's history. But three out of four of Manafort's presidential employers had roots in
the CIA.
If you look at Paul Manafort's history, he seems to work for sleazy dictators who were
either put into power by the CIA, supported while in power by the CIA or taken out of power by
the CIA. And sometimes killed by the CIA. I would suggest that Manafort's ultimate employer was
the CIA. After the sitting president of the Ukraine Viktor Yanukovich was ousted in a US-backed
coup in Ukraine back in 2014 (under Secretary of State John Kerry) Manafort stuck around there
and helped the people who ousted Yanukovich. Even though Yanukovich was the duly elected
president of Ukraine, he has been dismissed as a Russian agent because he saw that the terms of
Russian treaties with Ukraine would be better for the economy than treaties with the European
Union. Therefore, the US branded Yanukovich as a Russian agent.
Just to refresh everyone's memory William Barr worked for the CIA in the seventies until he
got his law degree. He was named Attorney General by President GHW Bush (the first Bush
president) during congressional and court investigations of Iran-contra, which was a CIA
operation to illegally support the contras' attempt to overthrow the Nicaraguan government
while also illegally arming both Iraq and Iran, allegedly in exchange for releasing hostages in
Beruit. The interagency team investigating the kidnappings in Beruit was on Pan Am 103 and
perished returning to the US.
Robert Mueller was the prosecutor in the Pan Am 103 case. He shifted the case to a couple of
Libyan jamokes and away from a group of Palestinian terrorists operating in Frankfurt, Germany
who allegedly were supplied the bomb used to bring down the airliner by Syrian arms and heroin
smuggler Monzer al-Kassar. Al-Kassar was a major arms supplier for the Iran-contra operation.
Robert Swan Mueller III has never himself been specifically identified as being a CIA employee.
However, his uncle, Richard Bissell, was an officer high in the CIA ranks. Mueller's wife, Ann
Cabell Standish, whom he married three years after the John F Kennedy assassination, was the
granddaughter of Charles Cabell, Deputy Director of the CIA at the time of the Bay of Pigs
fiasco, who was fired by JFK along with the above-mentioned Bissell and Allen Dulles. Ann
Mueller's granduncle, Earle Cabell, the mayor of Dallas at the time of President Kennedy's
assassination there, was revealed to have been a CIA asset in a recent declassification of JFK
papers.
Curiously, Mueller's career has been marked with prosecuting cases that touch on CIA
covert activities. He prosecuted John Gotti, who was on trial for distribution of cocaine which
has been identified as having arrived in the US via Mena, Arkansas as part of the Iran-contra
drug importation operation. Bill Clinton was the governor of Arkansas at the time.
Mueller prosecuted Noriega, who was the CIA's point man in Panama, where the CIA laundered
money and moved cocaine and weapons for the contras during Iran-contra. The federal prosecutor
in the Mena corner of Arkansas at the time of the Mena operations who steered clear of it was
Asa Hutchinson, who went on to become George W Bush's first "drug czar". (More curiously, the
person leading the failed attempt to uncover Iran-contra in the US Senate was John Kerry, who
just happened to be a teammate of Mueller on their prep school lacrosse team many years
earlier.)
Mueller prosecuted BCCI (the international bank which laundered mob and intelligence money)
without seeing CIA fingerprints. Mueller became the Director of the FBI a week before 9/11.
Look it up.
Some more: Go read Gregory Craig's Wiki page. Robert Mueller just indicted Craig along
the lines of Manafort, a la aiding Russians (actually representing Ukrainians). Craig himself
has an interesting past. He was the lawyer defending John Hinckley for the assassination
attempt on Ronald Reagan, which, if succcessful, would have put GHW Bush into the White House;
Craig defended CIA Director Richard Helms for his part in the coup of Salvador Allende; he was
the State Department's director of policy planning under Madeleine Albright; Craig worked with
Bill Clinton on his impeachment proceedings; he represented the Cuban father in the Elian
Gonzalez case. Craig was on the other side of the Noriega case.
Mueller prosecuted Noriega and Craig defended him. Craig helped Obama flipflop his position
over the FISA court and the big communications corporations who cooperated with them. Craig
represented John Edwards. And, of course, he did work in UKRAINE.
I realize that some people in the left-right political universe will rejoice that a
"Democrat" is being indicted, but Craig's history suggests that like Manafort, Mueller, Barr
and others he represents a party across the river in Langley, Virginia. Very interesting, he
and Mueller going toe to toe as Noriega was put behind bars without a hint of Noriega's
Iran-contra work for Bush and the CIA. If you've got both the prosecutor and the defense
attorney you're going to win the trial.
It's a small world after all, but you won't hear Rachel Maddow repeat long-winded linkages
among these characters in her stories.
CIA psyops where ever you look. Curious or should I say Q reous? Cause Q sure seems CIA to
me....or so says Seth Rich...no he said DNC=CIA. up 8 users have voted. —
“Until justice rolls down like water and righteousness like a mighty
stream.”
@Lookout
At some point the Democratic Party was rolled. Bill Clinton got the big speech at the 1988
convention. He certainly wasn't the speaker he became. That speech went on and on. Then next
time around he won the presidency in a three-way race with a funny Texas billionaire and
George Bush.
When Bill went to Oxford his classmates presumed he was CIA.
Our election of 1992 may have been to promote Clinton while taking the heat away from GHW
Bush.
"Assange was reduced from one of the few towering figures of our time – a man who will
have a central place in history books, if we as a species live long enough to write those
books "
-- The presstituting crowd of stenographers (MSM) and the zionized X-tian war profiteers
have made everything in their power (inadvertently) to ensure that Assange is and will be a
towering figure of our time.
Even in distress, Assange has been fighting for truth and dignity; the ongoing show of
lawlessness exposes the rot. The moral and creative midgets constituting the core of MSM and
the satanic deciders are upset. Good!
The idiotic Senior District "Judge" Emma Arbuthnot (a wife and beneficiary of a mega-war
profiteer Lord Arbuthnot -- Arbuthnot served as Chairman of the Defence Select Committee from
2005 to 2014) and the no less idiotic District "Judge" Michael Snow have entered the history
books as well. As scoundrels: http://members5.boardhost.com/xxxxx/msg/1555064882.html
Snow does his best to bring the Judiciary into disrepute by playing to the gallery. He
comments on the extradition in the same vein in a totally unprofessional manner. He is of
course in a long line of disreputable members of the judiciary Snow's place in history is
now secured – he chose to abuse the defendant rather than perform his role which was
really quite straightforward. He is the narcissist and guilty of self interest not Julian
Assange.
@Si1ver1ock For every pronouncement against Assange by the US/UK government and
judiciary, there should be an immediate question about the leniency shown towards the
pedophiles and rapists in the UK (see Savile and the sudden "disappearance" of files re the
high-placed pedophiles) and the story of Lolita Island and Lolita Express in the US.
One of the hurdles in investigating the claims is the Official Secrets Act, which
prevents the disclosure of state secrets and "sensitive" information. "It is clear there
are a lot of people who could provide a lot of information to support ongoing criminal
investigations But they are not doing so because of the Official Secrets Act. They are
fearful of not only breaking the law but the potential effect on their pension. This is
absolutely crucial if we are to get some of these ex-officers coming forward and to get
prosecutions of some of the former MPs." He has asked Home Secretary Theresa May to
lift the restrictions, allowing former officials to speak up about what they know about the
case, but so far there is no indication that this has been done.
The protection of the high-placed pedophiles and rapists in the US:
In the Epstein case, as well, there are numerous questions surrounding the possibility
of high-level cover up. In recent weeks it has emerged that Epstein struck a remarkable
secret deal with the US Attorney's Office that barred more than 500 pages of documents
detailing negotiations of the deal and a staggering 13,000 documents from the investigation
into Epstein's activities that were shelved as a result of the bargain.
Let the scoundrels talk about Assange to see how the concocted fraud is backfired.
Mrs. Clinton in particular should have been more circumspect:
It has since been revealed that Epstein had 21 different phone numbers for contacting
his friend Bill Clinton, who, court records allege, "frequently flew" on Epstein's private
jet between 2002 and 2005.
Also, perhaps you need to ponder why you are not treated the same way as the courageous,
talented, principled, and dignified Assange is treated. Perhaps, something is missing in your
character.
The documents are thought to shed light on the years of ongoing pedophilia and child
abuse within Westminster and contained names of "several" high-level politicians in the UK
and US who are connected to an elite pedophile ring.
In the case of the Westminster "pedophile ring," the mounting sentiment that Britain's
establishment serves its own interests and conceals its wrongdoing may be well founded.
Until recently only seven police officers were working on Operation Fernbridge; Scotland
Yard announced today the figure is now 22.
By fraudulently accusing Assange, Theresa May reminds the world about her role in the
protection of the wealthy and influential Westminster pedophiles (the real rapists).
"... Slick Willy, recruited by the CIA to report on anti-war activism from Oxford back in 1968. ..."
"... we get America's first Black President, which serves to paralyze the left with identity politics in exactly the same way that the first woman President would. ..."
"... Unfortunately for the CIA and neoliberal establishment, Trump's unexpected win ( "Damn you ornery American voters!" ) has mortally wounded identity politics as an ideology, so the corporate mass media has tons of work ahead of them for getting plans back on track, if it is possible at all. ..."
Here is the way the CIA planned it from way back in Ronald Raygun's presidency:
PotUS 41: Bush Sr, CIA Don.
PotUS 42:Slick Willy, recruited by the CIA to report on anti-war activism from
Oxford back in 1968.
PotUS 43: Bush the Lesser, raised by the CIA.
PotUS 44: Slick Willy's ambitious cling-on who forced her way into the CIA scheme
back in the 1970s. Intended to be the first woman President. This symbolic
faux-progressive "victory" was intended to paralyze what remains of America's left
while she worked for the interests of the capitalist elites. Plan failed, but not too
badly. CIA candidate who was doing the trial run for PotUS 45 and getting some election
cred won instead. "No big deal!" sez the CIA, "44, 45 and 46 are all
interchangeable anyway." Instead we get America's first Black President, which serves
to paralyze the left with identity politics in exactly the same way that the first woman
President would. ( Aside:Obama's mamma was a CIA mule channeling financing to death squads
in Indonesia via the CIA cutout the Ford Foundation. The CIA crime family keeps tabs on
all of their used assets in case they get chatty and need to be quieted down. This
brought boy Obama to their attention and allowed them to groom him from infancy to be
their tool )
PotUS 45: Originally intended to be the "First Black President!" but
switched out for Clinton when plans SNAFUed in 2008. Hey, "First woman President!"
works just as good to choke criticism from the left, right? Right?
PotUS 46 (2024): What can you follow "First Black President!" and
"First woman President!" with to leverage identity politics and render the left
impotent? Why, the "First gay President!" , of course! With a name like Buttgig they
are shoving it right in our faces.
But the American electorate threw a monkey wrench (or an orange buffoon?) into the works
and screwed everything up. Trump was just floated as a "heel" (pro wrestling term)
or "foil" to be beaten, and in the process of being beaten reinforce the identity politics of
the victor and discredit populism.
Not having any better ideas, and not having any idea why their plans failed, the CIA is
just charging ahead with their idea of installing a gay President in 2024 and giving the
electorate some exposure to their tool now.
Unfortunately for the CIA and neoliberal establishment, Trump's unexpected win ( "Damn
you ornery American voters!" ) has mortally wounded identity politics as an ideology, so
the corporate mass media has tons of work ahead of them for getting plans back on track, if
it is possible at all.
"... "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy," Trump said of Epstein during a 2002 interview with New York magazine. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side." ..."
"... "How would he know that?" he said of Trump's acknowledgement of Epstein's penchant for young women. The interview came nearly six years before Epstein's secret sex life exploded into public view when the money manager pleaded guilty to Florida charges of procuring and soliciting a minor for prostitution. "Why would he make a joke like that?" the West Palm Beach attorney asked. ..."
"... Bill has frequent flier points on Lolita Express. He had a 14yr.old toy on the island and the flight logs can prove his attendance. ..."
"... "The Government aligned themselves with Epstein, working against his victims, for 11 years..." ..."
"... THE SAME can be said for this: "The Government aligned themselves with APARTHEID Israhell, working against their Palestinians victims, for over 70 years... " ..."
"... Epstein has dirt on EVERYONE ... If he ever gets in a legitimate court room? - many, many, shitty people will be in trouble ... GOP and Democrat. And Trump? Acosta is in his admin, right? Or, he didn't fire the scum yet? And when is Hillary going to jail? ..."
"... I assume MOSSAD & friends will have to pull some very fancy rabbits out of their hat to get this buried again. The $wamp can't afford to have him cooperating, so I'm guessing Epstein will have to 'retire' to Tel-Aviv - or have an accident/become 'depressed, etc.' ..."
"... Hastert mentioned in WikiLeaks: https://wearechange.org/disgraced-house-speaker-pedophile-dennis-hastert/ As you dig into these stories, one singular theory emerges again and again: Sexual deviants and psychos have been groomed for office because they are easier to blackmail and control. ..."
Both Clinton and Trump were close to Epstein. To me this smells like there was a bi-partisan consensus to bury this, and only
now that the Clintons are no longer dominating the Democrat party, do we get some results.
While Trump has recently distanced himself from Epstein, a 64-year-old financier, it wasn't always that way.
"I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy," Trump said of Epstein during a 2002 interview with New York magazine.
"He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger
side."
Attorney Spencer Kuvin, one of dozens of lawyers who successfully sued Epstein on behalf of roughly 30 women who claimed
he lured them to his Palm Beach mansion for sexually-charged massages when they were as young as 14, said he always found the
comment curious.
"How would he know that?" he said of Trump's acknowledgement of Epstein's penchant for young women. The interview came
nearly six years before Epstein's secret sex life exploded into public view when the money manager pleaded guilty to Florida
charges of procuring and soliciting a minor for prostitution. "Why would he make a joke like that?" the West Palm Beach attorney
asked.
Be nice if someone found the guest list because Bill Clinton wouldn't be able to kill that many people to cover it up. It'd
be sweet if they found evidence that Trump went, because he definitely did. He's probably the one to name it "Lolita Express."...no,
that was probably Bill.
"The Government aligned themselves with Epstein, working against his victims, for 11 years..."
THE SAME can be said for this: "The Government aligned themselves with APARTHEID Israhell, working against their Palestinians
victims, for over 70 years... "
Epstein has dirt on EVERYONE ... If he ever gets in a legitimate court room? - many, many, shitty people will be in trouble
... GOP and Democrat. And Trump? Acosta is in his admin, right? Or, he didn't fire the scum yet? And when is Hillary going to
jail?
I assume MOSSAD & friends will have to pull some very fancy rabbits out of their hat to get this buried again. The $wamp
can't afford to have him cooperating, so I'm guessing Epstein will have to 'retire' to Tel-Aviv - or have an accident/become 'depressed,
etc.'
I will further bet that JE has had adequate notice of all this to be getting out of the USA to Balfourstan - a non-extradition
country - ASAP.
This is the most grandiose False flag propaganda operation known to the mankind. McCarthyism while more vicious was just a blip
of the screen in comparison this this tide of disinformation and insinuations. Iraq WDM resulted in more casualties but was much
more short term. Damage for the USA from this false flag operation might even exceed the damage for Iraq WDM fiasco.
British government and intelligence serves were active participants and in this sense "Skripals poisoning" looks
like a perverted form of "witness protection:" program. A false flag operation on the top of a false flag operation
("Russiagate").
What is amazing is how unapt were the major players.
Notable quotes:
"... Nobody wants to hear this, but news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller is headed home without issuing new charges is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media. ..."
"... A few weeks after that hearing, Steele gave testimony in a British lawsuit filed by one of the Russian companies mentioned in his reports. In a written submission , Steele said his information was "raw" and "needed to be analyzed and further investigated/verified." He also wrote that (at least as pertained to the memo in that case) he had not written his report "with the intention that it be republished to the world at large." ..."
"... That itself was a curious statement, given that Steele reportedly spoke with multiple reporters in the fall of 2016, but this was his legal position. This story about Steele's British court statements did not make it into the news much in the United States, apart from a few bits in conservative outlets like The Washington Times. ..."
"... The Steele report was the Magna Carta of #Russiagate. It provided the implied context for thousands of news stories to come, yet no journalist was ever able to confirm its most salacious allegations: the five year cultivation plan, the blackmail, the bribe from Sechin, the Prague trip, the pee romp, etc. In metaphorical terms, we were unable to independently produce Steele's results in the lab. Failure to reckon with this corrupted the narrative from the start. ..."
"... "Just called," Page said to McCabe. "Apparently the DAG [Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates] now wants to be there, and WH wants DOJ to host. So we are setting that up now. ... We will very much need to get Cohen's view before we meet with her. Better, have him weigh in with her before the meeting. We need to speak with one voice, if that is in fact the case." ..."
"... Someday I hope that Hillary has to be rolled up to testify about the Benghazi business. Grab the guns and the gold (and the oil). Ukraine gold: check. Libyan gold and weapons: check. ..."
The Iraq war faceplant damaged the reputation of the press. Russiagate just destroyed it...
Note to readers: in light of news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller's investigation is complete, I'm releasing this chapter
of Hate Inc. early, with a few new details added up top. Nobody wants to hear this, but news that Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller
is headed home without issuing new charges is a death-blow for the reputation of the American news media.
As has long been rumored
, the former FBI chief's independent probe will result in multiple indictments and convictions, but no "
presidency-wrecking
" conspiracy charges, or anything that would meet the layman's definition of "collusion" with Russia.
With the caveat that even this news might somehow turn out to be botched, the key detail in the many stories about the end of
the Mueller investigation was best expressed
by the New York Times :
A senior Justice Department official said that Mr. Mueller would not recommend new indictments.
The Times tried to soften the emotional blow for the millions of Americans trained in these years to place hopes for the overturn
of the Trump presidency in Mueller. Nobody even pretended it was supposed to be a fact-finding mission, instead of an act of faith.
The Special Prosecutor literally became a religious figure during the last few years, with
votive candles sold in his image and Saturday Night Live cast members
singing "
All I Want for Christmas is You " to him featuring the rhymey line: "Mueller please come through, because the only option is
a coup."
The Times story today tried to preserve Santa Mueller's reputation, noting Trump's Attorney General William Barr's reaction was
an "endorsement" of the fineness of Mueller's work:
In an apparent endorsement of an investigation that Mr. Trump has relentlessly attacked as a "witch hunt," Mr. Barr said Justice
Department officials never had to intervene to keep Mr. Mueller from taking an inappropriate or unwarranted step.
Mueller, in other words, never stepped out of the bounds of his job description. But could the same be said for the news media?
For those anxious to keep the dream alive, the Times published its usual graphic of Trump-Russia "contacts," inviting readers
to keep making connections. But in a
separate piece by Peter
Baker , the paper noted the Mueller news had dire consequences for the press:
It will be a reckoning for President Trump, to be sure, but also for Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel, for Congress,
for Democrats, for Republicans, for the news media and, yes, for the system as a whole
This is a damning page one admission by the Times. Despite the connect-the-dots graphic in its other story, and despite the astonishing,
emotion-laden editorial the paper also ran suggesting "
We don't need to read the Mueller
report " because we know Trump is guilty, Baker at least began the work of preparing Times readers for a hard question: "Have
journalists connected too many dots that do not really add up?"
The paper was signaling it understood there would now be questions about whether or not news outlets like themselves made a galactic
error by betting heavily on a
new, politicized approach , trying to be true to "history's judgment" on top of the hard-enough job of just being true. Worse,
in a brutal irony everyone should have
seen coming , the press has now handed Trump the mother of campaign issues heading into 2020.
Nothing Trump is accused of from now on by the press will be believed by huge chunks of the population, a group that (perhaps
thanks to this story) is now larger than his original base. As Baker notes, a full 50.3% of respondents in
a poll conducted this month said they agree with Trump the Mueller probe is a "witch hunt."
Stories have been coming out for some time now hinting Mueller's final report might leave audiences "
disappointed
," as if a President not being a foreign spy could somehow be bad news.
Openly using such language
has, all along, been an indictment. Imagine how tone-deaf you'd have to be to not realize it makes you look bad, when news does not
match audience expectations you raised. To be unaware of this is mind-boggling, the journalistic equivalent of walking outside without
pants.
There will be people protesting: the Mueller report doesn't prove anything! What about the 37 indictments? The convictions? The
Trump tower revelations? The lies! The meeting with Don, Jr.? The financial matters ! There's an ongoing grand jury investigation,
and possible sealed indictments, and the House will still investigate, and
Stop. Just stop. Any journalist who goes there is making it worse.
For years, every pundit and Democratic pol in Washington hyped
every new Russia headline like the Watergate break-in. Now, even Nancy Pelosi has said impeachment is out, unless something "so
compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan" against Trump is uncovered it would be worth their political trouble to prosecute.
The biggest thing this affair has uncovered so far is Donald Trump paying off a porn star. That's a hell of a long way from what
this business was supposedly about at the beginning, and shame on any reporter who tries to pretend this isn't so.
The story hyped from the start was espionage: a secret relationship between the Trump campaign and Russian spooks who'd helped
him win the election.
The betrayal narrative was not reported at first as metaphor. It was not "Trump likes the Russians so much, he might as well be
a spy for them." It was literal spying, treason, and election-fixing – crimes so severe, former NSA employee John Schindler told
reporters, Trump "
will die in jail ."
In the early months of this scandal, the New York Times said Trump's campaign had "repeated contacts" with Russian intelligence;
the Wall Street Journal told us our spy agencies
were withholding intelligence
from the new President out of fear he was compromised; news leaked out our spy chiefs had even told other countries like Israel
not to share their intel with us, because the Russians might have "leverages of pressure" on Trump.
CNN told us Trump officials had been in "constant contact" with "Russians known to U.S. intelligence," and the former director
of the CIA, who'd helped kick-start the investigation that led to Mueller's probe, said the President was guilty of "high crimes
and misdemeanors," committing acts "
nothing short of treasonous ."
Hillary Clinton insisted Russians "could not have known how to weaponize" political ads unless they'd been "guided" by Americans.
Asked if she meant Trump, she said, "
It's pretty hard not to ." Harry Reid similarly said he had "no doubt" that the Trump campaign was "
in on the
deal " to help Russians with the leak.
None of this has been walked back. To be clear, if Trump were being blackmailed by Russian agencies like the FSB or the GRU, if
he had any kind of relationship with Russian intelligence, that would soar over the "overwhelming and bipartisan" standard, and Nancy
Pelosi would be damning torpedoes for impeachment right now.
There was never real gray area here. Either Trump is a compromised foreign agent, or he isn't. If he isn't, news outlets once
again swallowed a massive disinformation campaign, only this error is many orders of magnitude more stupid than any in the recent
past, WMD included. Honest reporters like ABC's Terry Moran understand: Mueller coming back empty-handed on collusion means a "
reckoning for the media ."
Of course, there won't be such a reckoning. (There never is). But there should be. We broke every written and unwritten rule in
pursuit of this story, starting with the prohibition on reporting things we can't confirm.
#Russiagate debuted as a media phenomenon in mid-summer, 2016. The roots of the actual story, i.e. when the multi-national investigation
began, go back much further, to the previous year at least. Oddly, that origin tale has not been nailed down yet, and blue-state
audiences don't seem terribly interested in it, either.
By June and July of 2016, bits of the dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, which
had been funded by the Democratic National Committee through the law firm Perkins Coie (which in turn hired the opposition research
firm Fusion GPS), were already in the ether.
The Steele report occupies the same role in #Russiagate the tales spun by Ahmed Chalabi occupied in the WMD screwup. Once again,
a narrative became turbo-charged when Officials With Motives pulled the press corps by its nose to a swamp of unconfirmable private
assertions.
Some early stories, like a July 4, 2016 piece by Franklin Foer in Slate called "
Putin's Puppet ," outlined future Steele themes in "circumstantial" form. But the actual dossier, while it influenced a number
of pre-election Trump-Russia news stories (notably
one by Michael Isiskoff of Yahoo! that would be
used in a FISA warrant application ), didn't make it into print for a while.
Though it was shopped to
at least nine news organizations during the summer and fall of 2016, no one bit, for the good reason that news organizations
couldn't verify its "revelations."
The Steele claims were explosive if true. The ex-spy reported Trump aide Carter Page had been offered fees on a big new slice
of the oil giant Rosneft if he could help get sanctions against Russia lifted. He also said Trump lawyer Michael Cohen went to Prague
for "secret discussions with Kremlin representatives and associated operators/hackers."
Most famously, he wrote the Kremlin had kompromat of Trump "deriling" [sic] a bed once used by Barack and Michelle Obama by "employing
a number of prostitutes to perform a 'golden showers' (urination) show."
The piece didn't have pee, Prague, or Page in it, but it did say Russian intelligence had material that could "blackmail" Trump.
It was technically kosher to print because Corn wasn't publishing the allegations themselves, merely that the FBI had taken possession
of them.
A bigger pretext was needed to get the other details out. This took place just after the election, when four intelligence officials
presented copies of the dossier to both President-Elect Trump and outgoing President Obama.
From his own
memos , we know FBI Director James Comey, ostensibly evincing concern for Trump's welfare, told the new President he was just
warning him about what was out there, as possible blackmail material:
I wasn't saying [the Steele report] was true, only that I wanted him to know both that it had been reported and that the reports
were in many hands. I said media like CNN had them and were looking for a news hook. I said it was important that we not give
them the excuse to write that the FBI has the material or [redacted] and that we were keeping it very close-hold [sic].
Comey's generous warning to Trump about not providing a "news hook," along with a promise to keep it all "close-held," took place
on January 6, 2017. Within four days, basically the entire Washington news media somehow knew all about this top-secret meeting and
had the very hook they needed to go public. Nobody in the mainstream press thought this was weird or warranted comment.
Even Donald Trump was probably smart enough to catch the hint when, of all outlets, it was CNN that first broke the story of "Classified
documents presented last week to Trump"
on January 10 .
At the same time, Buzzfeed
made
the historic decision to publish the entire Steele dossier, bringing years of pee into our lives. This move birthed the Russiagate
phenomenon as a never-ending, minute-to-minute factor in American news coverage.
Comey was right. We couldn't have reported this story without a "hook." Therefore the reports surrounding Steele technically weren't
about the allegations themselves, but rather the journey of those allegations, from one set of official hands to another. Handing
the report to Trump created a perfect pretext.
This trick has been used before, both in Washington and on Wall Street, to publicize unconfirmed private research. A short seller
might hire a consulting firm to prepare a report on a company he or she has bet against. When the report is completed, the investor
then tries to get the SEC or the FBI to take possession. If they do, news leaks the company is "under investigation," the stock dives,
and everyone wins.
This same trick is found in politics. A similar trajectory
drove negative headlines in the scandal surrounding New Jersey's Democratic Senator Bob Menendez, who was said to be under investigation
by the FBI for underage sex crimes (although some
were skeptical
). The initial story didn't hold up, but led to other investigations.
Same with the so-called "
Arkansas project ," in which millions of Republican-friendly private research dollars produced enough noise about the Whitewater
scandal to create years of headlines about the Clintons. Swiftboating was another example. Private oppo isn't inherently bad. In
fact it has led to some incredible scoops, including Enron. But reporters usually know to be skeptical of private info, and figure
the motives of its patrons into the story.
The sequence of events in that second week of January, 2017 will now need to be heavily re-examined. We now know,
from his own testimony , that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had some kind of role in helping CNN do
its report, presumably by confirming part of the story, perhaps through an intermediary or two (there is some controversy over whom
exactly was contacted, and when).
Why would real security officials help litigate this grave matter through the media? Why were the world's most powerful investigative
agencies acting like they were trying to move a stock, pushing an private, unverified report that even Buzzfeed could see had factual
issues? It
made no sense at the time , and makes less now.
In January of 2017, Steele's pile of allegations became public, read by millions. "It is not just unconfirmed," Buzzfeed
admitted
. "It includes some clear errors."
Buzzfeed's decision exploded traditional journalistic standards against knowingly publishing material whose veracity you doubt.
Although a few media ethicists wondered
at it , this seemed not to bother the rank-and-file in the business. Buzzfeed chief Ben Smith is still
proud of
his decision today. I think this was because many reporters believed the report was true.
When I read the report, I was in shock. I thought it read like fourth-rate suspense fiction (I should know: I write fourth-rate
suspense fiction). Moreover it seemed edited both for public consumption and to please Steele's DNC patrons.
Steele wrote of Russians having a file of "compromising information" on Hillary Clinton, only this file supposedly lacked "details/evidence
of unorthodox or embarrassing behavior" or "embarrassing conduct."
We were meant to believe the Russians, across decades of dirt-digging, had an empty kompromat file on Hillary Clinton, to say
nothing of human tabloid headline Bill Clinton? This point was made more than once in the reports, as if being emphasized for the
reading public.
There were other curious lines, including the bit about Russians having "moles" in the DNC, plus some linguistic details that
made me wonder at the nationality of the report author.
Still, who knew? It could be true. But even the most cursory review showed the report had issues and would need a lot of confirming.
This made it more amazing that the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff, held hearings on March 20,
2017 that blithely read out Steele report details as if they were fact. From Schiff's opening statement:
According to Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer who is reportedly held in high regard by U.S. Intelligence,
Russian sources tell him that Page has also had a secret meeting with Igor Sechin (SEH-CHIN), CEO of Russian gas giant Rosneft
Page is offered brokerage fees by Sechin on a deal involving a 19 percent share of the company.
I was stunned watching this. It's generally understood that members of congress, like reporters, make an effort to vet at least
their prepared remarks before making them public.
But here was Schiff, telling the world Trump aide Carter Page had been offered huge fees on a 19% stake in Rosneft – a company
with a $63 billion market capitalization – in a secret meeting
with a Russian oligarch who was also said to be "a KGB agent and close friend of Putin's."
(Schiff meant "FSB agent." The inability of #Russiagaters to remember Russia is not the Soviet Union became increasingly maddening
over time. Donna Brazile still hasn't deleted her tweet about how "
The Communists are now dictating the
terms of the debate ." )
Schiff's speech raised questions. Do we no longer have to worry about getting accusations right if the subject is tied to Russiagate?
What if Page hadn't done any of these things? To date, he hasn't been charged with anything. Shouldn't a member of Congress worry
about this?
A few weeks after that hearing, Steele gave testimony in a British lawsuit filed by one of the Russian companies mentioned in
his reports. In a
written submission , Steele said his information was "raw" and "needed to be analyzed and further investigated/verified." He
also wrote that (at least as pertained to the memo in that case) he had not written his report "with the intention that it be republished
to the world at large."
That itself was a curious statement, given that Steele reportedly spoke with multiple reporters in the fall of 2016, but this
was his legal position. This story about Steele's British court statements did not make it into the news much in the United States,
apart from a few bits in conservative outlets like The Washington Times.
I contacted Schiff's office to ask if the congressman if he knew about Steele's admission that his report needed verifying, and
if that changed his view of it at all. The response (emphasis mine):
The dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele and which was leaked publicly several months
ago contains information that may be pertinent to our investigation. This is true regardless of whether it was ever intended for
public dissemination. Accordingly, the Committee hopes to speak with Mr. Steele in order to help substantiate or refute each of
the allegations contained in the dossier.
Schiff had not spoken to Steele before the hearing, and read out the allegations knowing they were unsubstantiated.
The Steele report was the Magna Carta of #Russiagate. It provided the implied context for thousands of news stories to come, yet
no journalist was ever able to confirm its most salacious allegations: the five year cultivation plan, the blackmail, the bribe from
Sechin, the Prague trip, the pee romp, etc. In metaphorical terms, we were unable to independently produce Steele's results in the
lab. Failure to reckon with this corrupted the narrative from the start.
For years, every hint the dossier might be true became a banner headline, while every time doubt was cast on Steele's revelations,
the press was quiet. Washington Post reporter Greg Miller went to Prague and led a team looking for evidence Cohen had been there.
Post reporters, Miller said, "literally spent weeks and months trying to run down" the Cohen story.
"We sent reporters through every hotel in Prague, through all over the place, just to try to figure out if he was ever there,"
he said, "and came away empty."
This was heads-I-win, tails-you-lose reporting. One assumes if Miller found Cohen's name in a hotel ledger, it would have been
on page 1 of the Post. The converse didn't get a mention in Miller's own paper. He only told the story during a discussion
aired by C-SPAN about a new book he'd published. Only The Daily Caller and a few conservative blogs picked it up.
It was the same when Bob Woodward said, "I did not find [espionage or collusion] Of course I looked for it, looked for it hard."
The celebrated Watergate muckraker – who once said he'd
succumbed to "groupthink"
in the WMD episode and added, "I blame myself mightily for not pushing harder" – didn't push very hard here, either. News that
he'd tried and failed to find collusion didn't get into his own paper. It only came out when Woodward was promoting his book Fear
in a discussion with conservative host Hugh Hewitt.
When Michael Cohen testified before congress and denied under oath ever being in Prague, it was the same. Few commercial news
outlets bothered to take note of the implications this had for their previous reports. Would a man clinging to a plea deal lie to
congress on national television about this issue?
Perhaps worst of all was the episode involving Yahoo! reporter Michael Isikoff. He had already been part of one strange tale:
the FBI double-dipping when it sought a FISA warrant to conduct secret surveillance of Carter Page, the would-be mastermind who was
supposed to have brokered a deal with oligarch Sechin.
In its FISA application, the FBI included both the unconfirmed Steele report and Isikoff's September 23, 2016 Yahoo! story, "
U.S. Intel Officials probe ties between Trump adviser and Kremlin ." The Isikoff story, which claimed Page had met with "high
ranking sanctioned officials" in Russia, had relied upon Steele as an unnamed source.
This was similar to a laundering technique used in the WMD episode called "stove-piping," i.e. officials using the press to "confirm"
information the officials themselves fed the reporter.
But there was virtually no non-conservative press about this problem apart from a Washington Post story pooh-poohing the issue.
(Every news story that casts any doubt on the collusion issue seems to meet with an instantaneous "fact check" in the Post .) The
Post insisted the FISA issue wasn't serious among other things because Steele was not the "foundation" of Isikoff's piece.
Isikoff was perhaps the reporter most familiar with Steele. He and Corn of Mother Jones , who also dealt with the ex-spy, wrote
a bestselling book that relied upon theories from Steele, Russian Roulette , including a rumination on the "pee" episode. Yet Isikoff
in late 2018 suddenly said he believed the Steele report would turn out to be "
mostly
false ."
Once again, this only came out via a podcast, John Ziegler's "Free Speech Broadcasting" show. Here's a transcript of the relevant
section:
Isikoff: When you actually get into the details of the Steele dossier, the specific allegations, you know, we have not seen
the evidence to support them. And in fact there is good grounds to think some of the more sensational allegations will never be
proven, and are likely false.
Ziegler: That's...
Isikoff: I think it's a mixed record at best at this point, things could change, Mueller may yet produce evidence that changes
this calculation. But based on the public record at this point I have to say that most of the specific allegations have not been
borne out.
Ziegler: That's interesting to hear you say that, Michael because as I'm sure you know, your book was kind of used to validate
the pee tape, for lack of a better term.
Isikoff: Yeah. I think we had some evidence in there of an event that may have inspired the pee tape and that was the visit
that Trump made with a number of characters who later showed up in Moscow, specifically Emin Agalarov and Rob Goldstone to this
raunchy Las Vegas nightclub where one of the regular acts was a skit called "Hot For Teacher" in which dancers posing as college
Co-Ed's urinated – or simulated urinating on their professor. Which struck me as an odd coincidence at best. I think, you know,
it is not implausible that event may have inspired...
Ziegler: An urban legend?
Isikoff: ...allegations that appeared in the Steele dossier.
Isikoff delivered this story with a laughing tone. He seamlessly transitioned to what he then called the "real" point, i.e. "the
irony is Steele may be right, but it wasn't the Kremlin that had sexual kompromat on Donald Trump, it was the National Enquirer.
"
Recapping: the reporter who introduced Steele to the world (his September 23, 2016 story was the first to reference him as a source),
who wrote a book that even he concedes was seen as "validating" the pee tape story, suddenly backtracks and says the whole thing
may have been based on a Las Vegas strip act, but it doesn't matter because Stormy Daniels, etc.
Another story of this type involved a court case in which Webzilla and parent company XBT sued Steele and Buzzfeed over the mention
their firm in one of the memos. It came out in court testimony that Steele had culled information about XBT/Webzilla from a
2009 post on CNN's "iReports"
page .
Asked if he understood these posts came from random users and not CNN journalists who'd been fact-checked, Steele replied, "
I do not ."
This comical detail was similar to news that the second British Mi6 dossier released just before the Iraq invasion had been
plagiarized in part from a thirteen year-old student thesis from California State University, not even by intelligence people,
but by mid-level functionaries in Tony Blair's press office.
There were so many profiles of Steele as an "
astoundingly
diligent " spymaster straight
out of LeCarre : he was routinely
described like a LeCarre-ian grinder like the legendary George Smiley, a man in the shadows whose bookish intensity was belied
by his "average," "neutral," "quiet," demeanor, being "more low-key than Smiley." One would think it might have rated a mention that
our "Smiley" was cutting and pasting text like a community college freshman. But the story barely made news.
This has been a consistent pattern throughout #Russiagate. Step one: salacious headline. Step two, days or weeks later: news emerges
the story is shakier than first believed. Step three (in the best case) involves the story being walked back or retracted by the
same publication.
That's been rare. More often, when explosive #Russiagate headlines go sideways, the original outlets simply ignore the new development,
leaving the "retraction" process to conservative outlets that don't reach the original audiences.
This is a major structural flaw of the
new fully-divided media
landscape in which Republican media covers Democratic corruption and Democratic media covers Republican corruption. If neither
"side" feels the need to disclose its own errors and inconsistencies, mistakes accumulate quickly.
This has been the main difference between Russiagate and the WMD affair. Despite David Remnick's post-invasion protestations that
"nobody got [WMD] completely right," the Iraq war was launched against the objections of the 6 million or more people who did get
it right, and protested on the streets
. There was open skepticism of Bush claims dotting the press landscape from the start, with people like
Jack Shafer tearing apart every Judith Miller story
in print. Most reporters are Democrats and the people hawking the WMD story were mostly Republicans, so there was political space
for protest.
Russiagate happened in an opposite context. If the story fell apart it would benefit Donald Trump politically, a fact that made
a number of reporters queasy about coming forward. #Russiagate became synonymous with #Resistance, which made public skepticism a
complicated proposition.
Early in the scandal, I appeared on To The Point, a California-based public radio show hosted by Warren Olney, with Corn of Mother
Jones. I knew David a little and had been friendly with him. He once hosted a book event for me in Washington. In the program, however,
the subject of getting facts right came up and Corn said this was not a time for reporters to be picking nits:
So Democrats getting overeager, overenthusiastic, stating things that may not be [unintelligible] true ? Well, tell me a political
issue where that doesn't happen. I think that's looking at the wrong end of the telescope.
I wrote him later and suggested that since we're in the press, and not really about anything except avoiding "things that may
not be true," maybe we had different responsibilities than "Democrats"? He wrote back:
Feel free to police the Trump opposition. But on the list of shit that needs to be covered these days, that's just not high
on my personal list.
Other reporters spoke of an internal struggle. When the Mueller indictment of the Internet Research Agency was met with exultation
in the media, New Yorker writer Adrian Chen, who broke the original IRA story, was
hesitant to come forward with some mild qualms about the way the story was being reported:
"Either I could stay silent and allow the conversation to be dominated by those pumping up the Russian threat," he said, "or I
could risk giving fodder to Trump and his allies."
"What I meant to write is, I wasn't skeptical," he said.
Years ago, in the midst of the WMD affair, Times public editor Daniel Okrent noted the paper's standard had moved from "Don't
get it first, get it right" to "Get it first and get it right." From there,
Okrent wrote , "the next devolution was an obvious one."
We're at that next devolution: first and wrong. The Russiagate era has so degraded journalism that even once "reputable" outlets
are now only about as right as politicians, which is to say barely ever, and then only by accident.
Early on, I was so amazed by the sheer quantity of Russia "bombshells" being walked back, I started to keep a list. It's well
above 50 stories now. As has been noted by Glenn Greenwald of the Intercept and others, if the mistakes were random, you'd
expect them in both directions , but Russiagate errors uniformly go the same way.
In some cases the stories are only partly wrong, as in the case of the famed "
17 intelligence agencies said Russia was behind the hacking " story (it was actually four: the Director of National Intelligence
"hand-picking" a team from the FBI, CIA, and NSA).
In other cases the stories were blunt false starts, resulting in ugly sets of matching headlines:
" Trump
Campaign Aides had repeated contacts with Russian Intelligence ," published by the Times on Valentine's Day, 2017, was an important,
narrative-driving "bombshell" that looked dicey from the start. The piece didn't say whether the contact was witting or unwitting,
whether the discussions were about business or politics, or what the contacts supposedly were at all.
Normally a reporter would want to know what the deal is before he or she runs a story accusing people of having dealings with
foreign spies. "Witting" or "Unwitting" ought to be a huge distinction, for instance. It soon after came out that people like former
CIA chief John Brennan don't think this is the case. "Frequently, people who are on a treasonous path do not know they're on a treasonous
path,"
he said, speaking of Trump's circle.
This seemed a dangerous argument, the kind of thing that led to trouble in the McCarthy years. But let's say the contacts were
serious. From a reporting point of view, you'd still need to know exactly what the nature of such contacts were before you run that
story, because the headline implication is grave. Moreover you'd need to know it well enough to report it, i.e. it's not enough to
be told a convincing story off-the-record, you need to be able to share with readers enough so that they can characterize the news
themselves.
Not to the Times, which ran the article without the specifics. Months later, Comey blew up this "contacts" story in public, saying,
" in the
main, it was not true ."
As was the case with the "17 agencies" error, which only got fixed when Clapper testified in congress and was forced to make the
correction under oath, the "repeated contacts" story was only disputed when Comey testified in congress, this time
before the
Senate Intelligence Committee . How many other errors of this type are waiting to be disclosed?
Even the mistakes caught were astounding. On December 1, 2017, ABC reporter Brian Ross claimed Trump "as a candidate" instructed
Michael Flynn to contact Russia. The news caused the Dow to plummet 350 points. The story was retracted almost immediately and
Ross was suspended .
Bloomberg reported Mueller subpoenaed Trump's Deutsche Bank accounts; the subpoenas turned out to be of
other
individuals' records. Fortune said C-SPAN
was hacked after Russia Today programming briefly interrupted coverage of a Maxine Waters floor address. The New York Times
also ran the story, and it's
still up, despite C-SPAN insisting its own "internal routing error" likely caused the feed to appear in place of its own broadcast.
CNN has its own separate sub-list of wrecks. Three of the network's journalists
resigned after a story purporting to tie Trump advisor Anthony Scaramucci to a Russian investment fund was retracted. Four more
CNN reporters (Gloria Borger, Eric Lichtblau, Jake Tapper and Brian Rokus) were bylined in a story that claimed Comey was expected
to refute Trump's claims he was told he wasn't the target of an investigation. Comey blew that one up, too.
In another CNN scoop gone awry, "
Email pointed Trump campaign to WikiLeaks documents ," the network's reporters were off by ten days in a "bombshell" that supposedly
proved the Trump campaign had foreknowledge of Wikileaks dumps. "It's, uh, perhaps not as significant as what we know now," offered
CNN's Manu Raju in a painful on-air retraction .
The worst stories were the ones never corrected. A particularly bad example is "
After Florida School Shooting,
Russian 'Bot' Army Pounced ," from the New York Times on Feb 18, 2018. The piece claimed Russians were trying to divide Americans
on social media after a mass shooting using Twitter hashtags like #guncontrolnow, #gunreformnow and #Parklandshooting.
The Times ran this quote high up:
"This is pretty typical for them, to hop on breaking news like this," said Jonathon Morgan, chief executive of New Knowledge,
a company that tracks online disinformation campaigns. "The bots focus on anything that is divisive for Americans. Almost systematically."
About a year after this story came out, Times reporters Scott Shane and Ann Blinder
reported that the same outfit,
New Knowledge , and in particular that same Jonathon Morgan, had participated in a cockamamie scheme to fake Russian troll activity
in an Alabama Senate race. The idea was to try to convince voters Russia preferred the Republican.
The Times quoted a New Knowledge internal report about the idiotic Alabama scheme:
We orchestrated an elaborate 'false flag' operation that planted the idea that the Moore campaign was amplified on social media
by a Russian botnet
The Parkland story was iffy enough when it came out, as Twitter
disputed
it, and another of the main sources for the initial report, former intelligence official Clint Watts, subsequently
said he was "not convinced" on the whole "bot thing."
But when one of your top sources turns out to have faked exactly the kind of activity described in your article, you should at
least take the quote out, or put an update online. No luck: the story remains up on the Times site, without disclaimers.
Russiagate institutionalized one of the worst ethical loopholes in journalism, which used to be limited mainly to local crime
reporting. It's always been a problem that we publish mugshots and names of people merely arrested but not yet found guilty. Those
stories live forever online and even the acquitted end up permanently unable to get jobs, smeared as thieves, wife-beaters, drunk
drivers, etc.
With Russiagate the national press abandoned any pretense that there's a difference between indictment and conviction. The most
disturbing story involved Maria Butina. Here authorities and the press shared responsibility. Thanks to an indictment that initially
said the Russian traded
sex for favors, the Times and other outlets flooded the news cycle with breathless stories about a redheaded slut-temptress come
to undermine democracy, a "real-life Red Sparrow," as ABC put it.
But a judge threw out the sex charge after "five minutes" when it turned out to be based on a
single joke text to a friend who had taken Butina's car for inspection.
It's pretty hard to undo public perception you're a prostitute once it's been in a headline, and, worse, the headlines are still
out there. You can still find stories like "
Maria Butina, Suspected
Secret Agent, Used Sex in Covert Plan " online in the New York Times.
Here a reporter might protest: how would I know? Prosecutors said she traded sex for money. Why shouldn't I believe them?
How about because, authorities have been lying their faces off to reporters since before electricity! It doesn't take much investigation
to realize the main institutional sources in the Russiagate mess – the security services, mainly – have extensive records of deceiving
the media.
As noted before, from World War I-era tales of striking union workers being German agents to the "missile gap" that wasn't (the
"gap" was leaked to the press before the Soviets had even one operational ICBM) to the Gulf of Tonkin mess to all the smears of people
like Martin Luther King, it's a wonder newspapers listen to whispers from government sources at all.
In the Reagan years National Security Adviser John Poindexter spread false stories about Libyan terrorist plots to The Wall Street
Journal and other papers. In the Bush years, Dick Cheney et al were selling manure by the truckload about various connections between
Iraq and al-Qaeda, infamously including a story that bomber Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague.
The New York Times
ran a story that Atta was in Prague in late October of 2001, even giving a date of the meeting with Iraqis, April 8, or "just
five months before the terrorist attacks." The Prague story was another example of a tale that seemed shaky because American officials
were putting the sourcing first on foreign intelligence, then on reporters themselves. Cheney cited the Prague report in subsequent
TV appearances, one of many instances of feeding reporters tidbits and then selling reports as independent confirmation.
It wasn't until three years later, in 2004, that Times reporter James Risen definitively killed the Atta-in-Prague canard (why
is it always Prague?) in a story entitled "
No evidence of meeting with Iraqi ." By then, of course, it was too late. The Times also
held a major dissenting piece by Risen about the WMD case, "C.I.A. Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing Iraqi Reports," until days
after war started. This is what happens when you start thumbing the scale.
This failure to demand specifics has been epidemic in Russiagate, even when good reporters have been involved. One of the biggest
"revelations" of this era involved a story that was broken first by a terrible reporter (the Guardian's Luke Harding) and followed
up by a good one (Jane Mayer of the New Yorker ). The key detail involved the elusive origin story of Russiagate.
Mayer's piece, the March 12, 2018 "
Christopher
Steele, the Man Behind The Trump Dossier " in the New Yorker , impacted the public mainly by seeming to bolster the credentials
of the dossier author. But it contained an explosive nugget far down. Mayer reported Robert Hannigan, then-head of the GCHQ (the
British analog to the NSA) intercepted a "stream of illicit communications" between "Trump's team and Moscow" at some point prior
to August 2016. Hannigan flew to the U.S. and briefed CIA director John Brennan about these communications. Brennan later testified
this inspired the original FBI investigation.
When I read that, a million questions came to mind, but first: what did "illicit" mean?
If something "illicit" had been captured by GCHQ, and this led to the FBI investigation (one of several conflicting public explanations
for the start of the FBI probe, incidentally), this would go a long way toward clearing up the nature of the collusion charge. If
they had something, why couldn't they tell us what it was? Why didn't we deserve to know?
I asked the Guardian: "Was any attempt made to find out what those communications were? How was the existence of these communications
confirmed? Did anyone from the Guardian see or hear these intercepts, or transcripts?"
Their one-sentence reply:
The Guardian has strict and rigorous procedures when dealing with source material.
That's the kind of answer you'd expect from a transnational bank, or the army, not a newspaper.
I asked Mayer the same questions. She was more forthright, noting that, of course, the story had originally been broken
by Harding , whose
own report said "the precise nature of these exchanges has not been made public."
She added that "afterwards I independently confirmed aspects of [Harding's piece] with several well-informed sources," and "spent
months on the Steele story [and] traveled to the UK twice for it." But, she wrote, "the Russiagate story, like all reporting on sensitive
national security issues, is difficult."
I can only infer she couldn't find out what "illicit" meant despite proper effort. The detail was published anyway. It may not
have seemed like a big deal, but I think it was.
To be clear, I don't necessarily disbelieve the idea that there were "illicit" contacts between Trump and Russians in early 2015
or before. But if there were such contacts, I can't think of any legitimate reason why their nature should be withheld from the public.
If authorities can share reasons for concern with foreign countries like Israel, why should American voters not be so entitled?
Moreover the idea that we need to keep things secret to protect sources and methods and "tradecraft" (half the press corps became
expert in goofy spy language over the last few years, using terms like "SIGINT" like they've known them their whole lives), why are
we
leaking news of our ability to hear Russian officials cheerin g Trump's win?
Failure to ask follow-up questions happened constantly with this story. One of the first reports that went sideways involved a
similar dynamic: the contention that some leaked DNC emails were forgeries.
MSNBC's "Intelligence commentator" Malcolm Nance, perhaps the most enthusiastic source of questionable #Russiagate news this side
of Twitter conspiracist Louise Mensch,
tweeted on October 11, 2016: " #PodestaEmails
are already proving to be riddled with obvious forgeries &
#blackpropaganda not even professionally done."
As noted in The Intercept and elsewhere, this was re-reported by the likes of
David Frum (a key member of the club that has now contributed to both the WMD and Russiagate panics) and MSNBC host
Joy Reid . The reports didn't stop until roughly October of 2016, among other things because the Clinton campaign kept suggesting
to reporters the emails were fake. This could have been stopped sooner if examples of a forgery had been demanded from the Clinton
campaign earlier.
Another painful practice that became common was failing to confront your own sources when news dispositive to what they've told
you pops up. The omnipresent Clapper told Chuck Todd on March 5, 2017, without equivocation, that there had been no FISA application
involving Trump or his campaign. " I can deny it ," he
said.
It soon after came out this wasn't true. The FBI had a FISA warrant on Carter Page. This was not a small misstatement by Clapper,
because his appearance came a day after Trump claimed in a tweet he'd had his "
wires tapped ." Trump was widely ridiculed for this claim, perhaps appropriately so, but in addition to the Page news, it later
came out there had been a FISA warrant of Paul Manafort as well, during which time Trump may have been the subject of "
incidental " surveillance.
Whether or not this was meaningful, or whether these warrants were justified, are separate questions. The important thing is,
Clapper either lied to Todd, or else he somehow didn't know the FBI had obtained these warrants. The latter seems absurd and unlikely.
Either way, Todd ought to been peeved and demanded an explanation. Instead, he had
Clapper back on again within months and gave him the usual softball routine, never confronting him about the issue.
Reporters repeatedly got burned and didn't squawk about it. Where are the outraged stories about all the scads of anonymous "people
familiar with the matter" who put reporters in awkward spots in the last years? Why isn't McClatchy demanding the heads of whatever
"four people with knowledge" convinced them to
double down on the Cohen-in-Prague story ?
Why isn't every reporter who used "New Knowledge" as a source about salacious
Russian troll stories
out for their heads (or the heads of the congressional sources who passed this stuff on), after reports they faked Russian trolling?
How is it possible NBC and other outlets continued to use
New Knowledge as a source in stories identifying antiwar Democrat Tulsi Gabbard as a Russian-backed candidate?
How do the Guardian's editors not already have Harding's head in a vice for hanging them out to dry on the most
dubious un-retracted story in modern history – the tale that the most watched human on earth, Julian Assange, had somehow been
visited in the Ecuadorian embassy by Paul Manafort without leaving any record? I'd be dragging Harding's "well placed source" into
the office and beating him with a hose until he handed them something that would pass for corroborating evidence.
The lack of blowback over episodes in which reporters were put in public compromised situations speaks to the overly cozy relationships
outlets had with official sources. Too often, it felt like a team effort, where reporters seemed to think it was their duty to take
the weight if sources pushed them to overreach. They had absolutely no sense of institutional self-esteem about this.
Being on any team is a bad look for the press, but the press being on team FBI/CIA is an atrocity, Trump or no Trump. Why bother
having a press corps at all if you're going to go that route?
This posture all been couched as anti-Trump solidarity, but really, did former CIA chief John Brennan – the same Brennan who should
himself have faced charges for
lying to congress about hacking the computers of Senate staff – need the press to
whine on his behalf when Trump yanked his security clearance? Did we need the press to hum Aretha Franklin tunes, as ABC did,
and chide Trump for lacking
R-E-S-P-E-C-T for the CIA? We don't have better things to do than that "work"?
This catalogue of factual errors and slavish stenography will stand out when future analysts look back at why the "MSM" became
a joke during this period, but they were only a symptom of a larger problem. The bigger issue was a radical change in approach.
A lot of #Russiagate coverage became straight-up conspiracy theory, what Baker politely called "connecting the dots ." This was
allowed because the press committed to a collusion narrative from the start, giving everyone cover to indulge in behaviors that would
never be permitted in normal times.
Such was the case with Jonathan
Chait's #Russiagate opus , "PRUMP TUTIN: Will Trump be Meeting With his Counterpart – or his Handler?" The story was also pitched
as "What if Trump has been a Russian asset since 1987," which recalls the joke from The Wire: "
Yo, Herc, what if your mother and father never met ?" What
if isn't a good place to be in this business.
This cover story (!) in New York magazine was released in advance of a planned "face-to-face" summit between Trump and Putin,
and posited Trump had been under Russian control for decades. Chait noted Trump visited the Soviet Union in 1987 and came back "fired
up with political ambition." He offered the possibility that this was a coincidence, but added:
Indeed, it seems slightly insane to contemplate the possibility that a secret relationship between Trump and Russia dates back
this far. But it can't be dismissed completely.
I searched the Chait article up and down for reporting that would justify the suggestion Trump had been a Russian agent dating
back to the late eighties, when, not that it matters, Russia was a different country called the Soviet Union.
Only two facts in the piece could conceivably have been used to support the thesis: Trump met with a visiting Soviet official
in 1986, and visited the Soviet Union in 1987. That's it. That's your cover story.
Worse, Chait's theory was first espoused in Lyndon Larouche's "
Elephants and Donkeys " newsletter
in 1987, under a headline, "Do Russians have a Trump card?" This is barrel-scraping writ large.
It's a mania. Putin is literally in our underpants. Maybe, if we're lucky, New York might someday admit
its report claiming Russians set up an anti-masturbation hotline to trap and blackmail random Americans is suspicious, not just
because it seems absurd on its face, but because its source is the same "New Knowledge" group that admitted to faking Russian influence
operations in Alabama.
This ultimately will be the endgame of the Russia charade. They will almost certainly never find anything like the wild charges
and Manchurian Candidate theories elucidated in the Steele report. But the years of panic over the events of 2016 will lead to radical
changes in everything from press regulation to foreign policy, just as the WMD canard led to torture, warrantless surveillance, rendition,
drone assassination, secret budgets and open-ended, undeclared wars from Somalia to Niger to Syria. The screw-ups will be forgotten,
but accelerated vigilance will remain.
It's hard to know what policy changes are appropriate because the reporting on everything involving the Russian threat in the
last two to three years has been so unreliable.
I didn't really address the case that Russia hacked the DNC, content to stipulate it for now. I was told early on that this piece
of the story seemed "solid," but even that assertion has remained un-bolstered since then, still based on an "
assessment " by the intelligence services that
always had issues, including the use of things like RT's "anti-American" coverage of fracking as part of its case. The government
didn't even examine the DNC's server, the kind of detail that used to make reporters nervous.
We won't know how much of any of this to take seriously until the press gets out of bed with the security services and looks at
this whole series of events all over again with fresh eyes, as journalists, not political actors. That means being open to asking
what went wrong with this story, in addition to focusing so much energy on Trump and Russia.
The WMD mess had massive real-world negative impact, leading to over a hundred thousand deaths and trillions in lost taxpayer
dollars. Unless Russiagate leads to a nuclear conflict, we're unlikely to ever see that level of consequence.
Still, Russiagate has led to unprecedented cooperation between the government and Internet platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and
Google, all of which are censoring pages on the left, right, and in between in the name of preventing the "sowing of discord." The
story also had a profound impact on the situation in places like Syria, where Russian and American troops have sat across the Euphrates
River from one another, two amped-up nuclear powers at a crossroads.
As a purely journalistic failure, however, WMD was a pimple compared to Russiagate. The sheer scale of the errors and exaggerations
this time around dwarfs the last mess. Worse, it's led to most journalists accepting a radical change in mission. We've become sides-choosers,
obliterating the concept of the press as an independent institution whose primary role is sorting fact and fiction.
We had the sense to eventually look inward a little in the WMD affair, which is the only reason we escaped that episode with any
audience left. Is the press even capable of that kind of self-awareness now? WMD damaged our reputation. If we don't turn things
around, this story will destroy it
Taibbi is spot on, and in depth with this writing. The main stream media sold Americans on the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Almost 2 decades later, we have spent 6 trillion dollars, 8 millions lives have been lost, and millions of refugees have flooded
out of those countries, causing instability in Europe and beyond. For the past 2 years, 24/7, we have not been able to escape
the claims of Russiagate. He does not mention how the very same media gave Trump 24/7 coverage long before he was elected, and
in fact this free publicity, is probably why Trump is in the White House today. Without the constant press coverage of his campaign,
coverage that was not provided to other candidates, he would most likely not have found his way to the White House. Taibbi does
not go on to tell us what the motivation of the press is, or what he thinks can be done. News shows in the US have become little
more than entertainment. Many of us no longer rely on main stream press for any real news. The mass media has become irrelevant
at it's best, and dangerous, at it's worst. The driving force behind the so called news today, is the advertising dollars, and
the politics of the owners of the networks. How can we have a "free press" when just a few individuals own all the major news
outlets? We are not going to get the real news on tv of from the big newspapers, as long as the power is in the hands of a few
rich and powerful individuals, who decide what is news.
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread" - Alexander Pope
The rash or inexperienced will attempt things that wiser people are more cautious of.
Finally the libs will agree that guns do have their place in society. These crazy zealots may just blow their own brains out
or just find the nearest cliff. Ace Hardware is loading up on rope.
hmmm....just imagine if - sleyers money contribution fo impeach trump was turned into a movie where a "sponsor" drew up a hit
list of batshit crazy MSM "personalities" to include late night "comfuckedupedians"
Even if you were stupid enough to believe Trump was getting dirt on Hillary from the Russians, what is wrong with that? Is
there a law against that? Why is it OK for Obama and the FBI to get away with wiretapping Trump during the election? Why is it
OK for NSA to wiretap All Americans and store all their conversations and internet traffic on hard drives?
Steele, Orbis, Pablo Miller, Salisbury, Porton Down, golden-shower dossier supposedly written by a native Russian speaker with
an intelligence background....it all makes me wonder what happened to Skripal.
"Skripalgate" is suppressed by UK law. All russians are evil in the UK. The fact that (as with tony Bliar and yellowcake Iraq)
any sitting government can prosecute another country without a trial, witnesses or evidence - as in the Skripals and within the
FUKUS cabal that bombed syria because of - "chlorine barrel bomb attacks on civilians" who later showed up unscathed in Den Haag.
UK governments cannot be held to account for their actions domestically or overseas.
Both parties have been playing up the threat from Russia for decades. The Military Industrial Complex was built on creating
fear about the possibility of war with Russian. The military industrial complex owns Congress, so of course Congress is going
to play up this threat. " The reason why media is working so hard to create the impression that Russia is actively conspiring
against is because conflict with the former Soviet Union is good for business." We can expect this to continue in one form or
another. If Americans were not afraid of Russia, we would not support a defense budget that is equal to all other countries in
the world combined.
Right. The depth of your analysis is impressive. You seem to have an unlimited knowledge of world and national affairs too.
Other than some stalking tendencies, why do you post on ZH? You don't really seem to have any interest in the content, or the
discussion.
I dont want to type up everything that led me to believe this. But the racism, his empathy towards certain muslims groups and
how he treated the war, the prisoner release, the sailors broadcasted on tv about drifting into territorial waters, I mean it
was so obvious how he felt about America.
Pile on his efforts to interfere in the election and eavesdrop, unmasking with Hillary getting and receiving emails from her
home brew server not to mention her foundation pulling in 145 million from Russia.
The CIA is sickening to what has developed over the last 20 years
Blind: If so, it just means it will not be reported on in the MainStream Media(MSM) and soon forgotten.
The same people who own the private central bank and currency, also own the MSM, and they control the narrative on ALL TOPICS.
And control of narrative mean control of what people think.
Control of money and mind means TOTAL control of a country.
Nothing will change until control of minds is returned to the people, then issuance of currency can be returned to the government.
Alex Jones' of Infowars got it right when he said "There's a war on for your mind!" ... even though he became a turncoat himself,
soon after.
Hillary lost a freaking election. After almost 3 freaking years of coup d'état the left deserves mocking humiliation. Mock
them ruthlessly. Never, ever let them forget the horrible thing that they did.
Never stop making fun of them and reminding them how stupid and crazy they acted during this humiliating period of US history.
Never let them forget what they did to the nation or what they cost us all. Never let Democrats forget how much time and energy
they wasted, how very, very wrong they were.
Every politician, every media figure, every Twitter pundit and everyone who swallowed this moronic load of Russia! Russia!
Russia! has utterly discredited themselves for life. They executed and failed to accomplish a coup d'état. These are the very
last people anyone should ever listen to ever again when determining the future direction of our world or an ice cream truck.
Refuse them, laugh at them, ignore them. They earned it and deserve nothing but the greatest disdain.
Without Russia, ASSAD would be long gone and IRAN would have been bombed to oblivion, and Greater Israhell would have been
fulfilled and ruling over the MidEast.
There was never real gray area here. Either Trump is a compromised foreign agent, or he isn't.
Of course there isn't. But this doesn't mean that a prosecutor like Mueller can prove this beyond any reasonable doubt. In
fact it is quite likely that he cannot. The only charge that should be fairly easy to establish is obstruction of justice.
Without knowing what is in the report, Taibbi really jumps the gun here. Especially given the comparison to WMDs.
I knew there were no WMDs in Iraq before the invasion because I followed, and chose to believe, a credible diplomat like Hans
Blix over the dog and pony show that Colin Powell put on. But WMDs are very tangible you either find the hardware or you do not.
Yet, what Putin and Trump discuss without a single other American in the room nobody knows but the Kremlin and Trump.
"It has been people, individuals who have banded together, ordinary people who simply saw what needed to be done and came
together and supported those ideals who have made the difference.
They've marched, they've bled and yes, some of them died. This is hard. Every good thing is. We have done this before. We
can do this again ."
Hardly the call for violent civil war at which it has been portrayed.
The most coiffed, manicured, made up sacks of **** ever to glorify the airwaves tell US what THEY think and get paid handsome
salaries for their effort to overthrow the American system. Freedom of Speech? That'll be gone in a heartbeat if THEY get power.
We have an obligation to not just protect it but a greater one to preserve it.
"I didn't really address the case that Russia hacked the DNC, content to stipulate it for now." - exce
The State Department paused its investigation of the Secretary's emails so as not to interfere with the Mueller investigation.
Here we see Taibbi writes an exhaustive condemnation of the Western press while leaving out the very crux of the story, the very
source of the stolen DNC emails was Clapper and Brennan pretending to be Guccifer 2.0.
Pitiful attempt at redemption there Matt. Seriously, go **** your self.
"After reading several articles, it seemed clear that key difficulties for Russians communicating in English include: definite
and indefinite articles, the use of presuppositions and correct usage of say/tell and said/told. Throughout 2017, I
constructed a corpus of Guccifer 2.0's communications
and analyzed the frequency of different types of mistakes. The
results of this work
corroborate Professor Connolly's assessment.
Overall, it appears Guccifer 2.0 could communicate in English quite well but chose to use inconsistently broken English at
times in order to give the impression that it wasn't his primary language. The manner in which Guccifer 2.0's English was broken,
did not follow the typical errors one would expect if Guccifer 2.0's first language was Russian.
To date, Connolly's language study has not drawn any significant objections or criticism."
Here's the goddam thing IMO. There is this thing called freedom of the press, it's constitutionally protected, no different
than the right to bear arms.
But just because I have the right to carry an M+A 9mm around, that doesn't mean I can point it at the guy who cut me off in
traffic. In that case, I go to jail.
For almost three years now, I've been hearing "bombshell" after unsourced "bombshell" from CNN/MSNBC/WaPo/NPR/NYT et. al. Here's
how it usually goes:
"NPR has been unable to independently confirm, but other major news organizations are reporting that . . ."
"CNN is working to confirm a bombshell report from the Washington Post . . ."
"The New York Times, echoing other major news outlets, is reporting that . . ."
And now let's turn to our panel of experts to "unpack" this latest revelation . . .
These people have criminally abused their rights, and those rights need to be taken away.
Otschelnik,
If Rachel Maddow, Chris Mathews, Judy Woodruff, Chuck Todd, Anderson Cooper, Brian Stelter, Chris Hayes, Mika Brzezinski,
Don Lemon, Alysin Camerota, Lawrence O'Donnell had the slightest inkling of professional integrity, and human conscience -
they'd commit seppuku on national live TeeVee to restore their honor.
A rope leash, 3 hours ago
In his effort to cleanse himself of the slimy residue of his profession, Tiabbi has written a fine piece here, a nice
little documentation of press collusion with government spooks and political operatives.
If a little honest reporting will offer some redemption to damned journalists, his name was Seth Rich.
hooligan2009, 3 hours ago
don't forget that Obama was PERSONALLY and DIRECTLY involved in all aspects of Russiagate.
read between these lines
On Oct. 14, 2016, Page again wrote to McCabe, this time concerning a meeting with the White House.
"Just called," Page said to McCabe. "Apparently the DAG [Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates] now wants to be there,
and WH wants DOJ to host. So we are setting that up now. ... We will very much need to get Cohen's view before we meet with
her. Better, have him weigh in with her before the meeting. We need to speak with one voice, if that is in fact the case."
newworldorder, 3 hours ago
The simple truth here is that most Americans no longer have any critical thinking skills, - all media realized this a long
time ago, and catered to their audience.
The Benjamin Franklin famous quote in answer to the question of "what kind of government have you given us?" rings very hollow
after 240+ years. The "Republic" exists in name only, because its people have not protected it, after the passing of the WW2
generation.
Unrestricted, open borders invasion disguised as alleged migration, and the legalization of an eventual 100+ million new
"migrant" voters will be the final nail on the coffin of the US Republic by 2030.
Mob rule will finally destroy the greatest Republic ever conceived by the mind of men.
Mike Rotsch, 3 hours ago (Edited)
If "open borders" is your measuring stick on Americans' critical-thinking skills, then where does that place Europeans?
They actually have them officially.
Paracelsus, 3 hours ago
Someday I hope that Hillary has to be rolled up to testify about the Benghazi business. Grab the guns and the gold (and
the oil). Ukraine gold: check. Libyan gold and weapons: check.
Ghaddafi actually warned the west that after him would come a deluge of illegals (okay refugees: young males, black, often
Islamic, with little respect for women or experience with western society).
While I have reservations about Trump and his policies, the MSM owe him a huge mea culpa.
"... Back in November of 2016, the American people were so fed up with the neoliberal oligarchy that everyone knows really runs the country that they actually elected Donald Trump president ..."
"... The oligarchy that runs the country responded to the American people's decision by inventing a completely cock-and-bull story about Donald Trump being a Russian agent who the American people were tricked into voting for by nefarious Russian mind-control operatives, getting every organ of the liberal corporate media to disseminate and relentlessly promote this story on a daily basis for nearly three years, and appointing a special prosecutor to conduct an official investigation in order to lend it the appearance of legitimacy. Every component of the ruling establishment (i.e., the government, the media, the intelligence agencies, the liberal intelligentsia, et al.) collaborated in an unprecedented effort to remove an American president from office based on a bunch of made-up horseshit which kind of amounts to an attempted soft coup. ..."
"... It now appears that the world will see that the so-called "Russia Gate" investigation was nothing more than the pro-Clintonista BS that Trump always claimed it was. ..."
"... As for the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary, they should be treated like the creeps they are: corrupt, opportunistic and power hungry. Like Typhoid Mary, they infect everything they touch ..."
"... I'm also convinced that Trump and Clinton colluded, but that they did so in order to get her elected. I don't think he really wanted the job. But still, Hillary can do nationalist, and the designs of the Empire would have proceeded either way. ..."
"... Trump is a crook who takes money wherever he can get it, from subcontractors foolish enough to work for him to bankers dumb enough to believe his financial statements. No doubt he has helped Russian crooks sanitize their booty, but that is apparently too difficult for Mueller to prove. ..."
"... It is not good news that this troglodyte was not indicted, but it is good news that Russia was not found guilty of electing him. Russiagate is an existential issue for the "national security" establishment and just another propaganda offensive designed to justify the largely useless & destructive activities of the Pentagon. ..."
"... It is time to build cooperation not continue the stupidity of US unilateralism and pursuit of global hegemony. Trump and his team have to be removed from office. Democrats don't need Russiagate to do it. The truth will work better. ..."
Back in November of 2016, the American people were so fed up with the neoliberal oligarchy
that everyone knows really runs the country that they actually elected Donald Trump
president. They did this fully aware that Trump was a repulsive, narcissistic ass clown who
bragged about "grabbing women by the pussy" and jabbered about building "a big, beautiful
wall" and making the Mexican government pay for it. They did this fully aware of the fact
that Donald Trump had zero experience in any political office whatsoever, was a loudmouth
bigot, and was possibly out of his gourd on amphetamines half the time. The American people
did not care. They were so disgusted with being conned by arrogant, two-faced, establishment
stooges like the Clintons, the Bushes, and Barack Obama that they chose to put Donald Trump
in office, because, fuck it, what did they have to lose?
The oligarchy that runs the country responded to the American people's decision by
inventing a completely cock-and-bull story about Donald Trump being a Russian agent who the
American people were tricked into voting for by nefarious Russian mind-control operatives,
getting every organ of the liberal corporate media to disseminate and relentlessly promote
this story on a daily basis for nearly three years, and appointing a special prosecutor to
conduct an official investigation in order to lend it the appearance of legitimacy. Every
component of the ruling establishment (i.e., the government, the media, the intelligence
agencies, the liberal intelligentsia, et al.) collaborated in an unprecedented effort to
remove an American president from office based on a bunch of made-up horseshit which kind of
amounts to an attempted soft coup.
It now appears that the world will see that the so-called "Russia Gate" investigation was
nothing more than the pro-Clintonista BS that Trump always claimed it was. The Clintons once
again, both Bill and Hillary, have managed to raise a vicious, loud mouthed thug in the White
House to the status of some kind of martyr. What a country America it is. One thing should be
clear however. Any politician or media pundit that towed the pro-Clintonista line should be
barred from public office or the media forever.
As for the Clintons, both Bill and Hillary,
they should be treated like the creeps they are: corrupt, opportunistic and power hungry.
Like Typhoid Mary, they infect everything they touch. There is one difference between Typhoid
Mary, and Bill and Hillary: Typhoid Mary didn't realize what she was doing, the Clintons did!
sorry to double post, but it just occurred to me that they pulled a classic DC move: if you
have something humiliating or horrible to admit, do it on a friday night.
i have to wonder if the entire western media is cynically praying for a (coincidentally
distracting) school shooting or terrorist attack within the next two days.
I have close friends that have been on the MSNBC/Maddow Kool-Ade for years. Constantly
declaring Mueller was on the verge of closing in on Trump and associates for treason with the
Russians. On Friday night after dinner at our home, the TV was tuned to MSNBC so they could
watch their spiritual leader Rachel Maddow....what a pitiful sight (both Maddow and friends).
No one was going to jail or be impeached for conspiring with Putin.....how on how could that
be true. Putin personally stole the election from Clinton and THEY are just going to let him
walk was the declaration a few feet from my chair. Normally, I would recommend grieve
counseling, but they are still my friends ... now they can go back to blaming Bernie for
Clinton's loss. Maybe I will recommend grieve counseling!
DontBelieveEitherPropaganda , Mar 23, 2019 2:27:18 PM |
link
@dltravers: Apart from the "goyim" you may be right.. But if you want to claim with that
Trumps opponents where under the pressure of the Zionists, you got it all wrong man.. ;) No
presidents been more under the Zionist thumb than DJT.
That ofc doesnt make Hillarys Saudi and Muslim brotherhood connections better.. ;)
Anyway, cheers to the end of this BS! And lets hope that Trump has now payed off his debts
with Adelson now that he secured Bibis reelection. But dont hold your breath.. ;)
"very politician, every media figure, every Twitter pundit and everyone who swallowed this
moronic load of bull spunk has officially discredited themselves for life".
I wish so, but that's not how the exceptional nation of US of A works, as demonstrated by
the Iraq WMD fiasco case. In fact, very politician, every media figure, every Twitter pundit
(about Saddam's WMD" BS) is alive and well, spreading more BS. What is even more depressing
is that the huge chunk of this exceptional nation cannot have enough of the BS and is
chanting "give me more, give me more...".
The Dems were stupid to gin up the Russian collusion.
However some good things have come out of the investigation. It cost taxpayers 2 million
but recouped over 25 million from those convicted of fraud and tax evasion.
And its not over, Mueller has sent 5 to 7 referrals or evidence/witnesses to SDNY, EDNY, DC,
EDVA, plus the National Security and Criminal Divisions. These from information turned up
crimes unrelated to his Russia probe and allegedly concerning Trump or his family business, a
cadre of his advisers and associates. They are being conducted by officials from Los Angeles
to Brooklyn.
The bad news is it exposed how wide spread and corrupt the US has become...in private and
political circles.
The other bad news is most of the Trump lovers and Trump haters are too stupid to drop
their partisan and personal blinders and recognize that ....ITS THE CORRUPTION STUPID.
b you have repeatedly made the case that this whole thing was kicked off by the Steele
dossier. That is factually incorrect. The first investigation was already running before the
dossier ever materialized. That investigation spawned the special prosecutors investigation
when Trump fired Comey and then went on TV and said it was because of the Russia
investigation. The Russia investigation was originally kicked off by Papadopoulos drinking
with the the Australian ambassador and bragging about what the campaign was doing with
Russia. Remember the original evidence was presented to the leadership of both the House and
the Senate when they were both controlled by the Republican party and every one that was
briefed came out on camera and said the Justice dept was doing the right thing in pursuing
this.
I think the Democrats should lose Hillary down a deep hole and not let her near any of the
coming campaign events. But this came about because of the actions of the people around
Trump. Not because Hillary controls the US government from some secret bunker some where.
One could argue Russiagate was on the contrary quite a success. The Elites behind the scheme
never believed it would end up with Trump's impeachment. What they did accomplish though is a
deflection via "Fake News" from the Dem's election failures & shenanigans and refocus the
attention towards the DNC's emerging pedophilia scandals (Weiner, the Podesta's, Alefantis,
etc) & suspicious deaths (Seth Rich, etc) towards a dead-end with the added corollary of
preventing US/Ru rapprochement for more then half an administration..
Blooming Barricade , Mar 23, 2019 3:10:02 PM |
link
The deeply tragic thing about this for the media, the neocons, and the liberals is that they
brought it upon themselves by moving the goalposts continuously. If, after Hillary lost, they
had stuck to the "Russia hacked WikiLeaks" lie, then they probably have sufficient proof from
their perspective and the perspective of most of the public that Russia helped Trump win. In
this case it would be remembered by the Democrats like the stolen election of 2000 (albeit
the fact that it was a lie this time). They had multiple opportunities to jump off this
train. Even the ridiculous DNI report could have been their final play: "Russia helped
Trump." Instead of going with 2000 they went with 2001, aka 9-11, with the same neocon
fearmongers playing the pipe organ of lies. As soon as they accepted the Steele Dossier,
moving the focus to "collusion" they discredited themselves forever. Many of the lead
proponents were discredited Iraq war hawks. Except this time it was actually worse because
the whole media bought into it. This leaves an interesting conundrum: there were at least
some pro-Afghanistan anti-Iraq warmongers who rejected the Bush premise in the media, so they
took over the airwaves for about two years before the real swamp creatures returned. This
time, it will be harder to issue a mea culpa. They made this appear like 9-11, well, this
time the truthers have won, and they are doomed.
Societies collapse when their systems (institutions) become compromised. When they are no
longer capable of meeting the needs of the population, or of adapting to a changing world.
Societal systems become compromised when their decision making structures, which are
designed to ensure that decisions are taken in the best interest of the society as a whole,
are captured by people who have no legitimacy to make the decisions, and who make decisions
for the benefit of themselves, at the expense of society as a whole.
Russia-gate is a flagrant example of how the law enforcement and intelligence institutions
have been captured. Their top officials, no longer loyal to their country or their
institution, but rather to an international elite (including the likes of Soros, the
Clintons, and far beyond) have used these institutions in an attempt to delegitimize a
constitutionally elected president and to over turn an election. This is no less than treason
of the highest order.
Indeed, the actions much of the Washington establishment, as well as a number
international actors, since Trump was elected seems suspiciously like one of the 'Color
Revolutions' that are visited upon any country who's citizens did not 'vote right' the first
time. Over-throw the vote, one way or another, until the result that is wanted is achieved.
None of these 'Color Revolutions' has resulted in anything good for the country involved.
Rather they have resulted in the destruction of each country's institutions, and eventually
societal collapse.
In the U.S. the capturing of systems' decision making structures is not limited to
Russia-Gate and the overturning of the electoral system. Their are other prime examples:
- The capture of the Air Transport Safety System by Boeing that has resulted in the recent
737 Max crashes, and likely the destruction of the reputation of the U.S. aviation industry,
in an industry where reputation is everything.
- The capture of the Financial Regulatory System, by Wall Street, who in 1998 rewrote the
rules in their own favor, against the best interests of the population as a whole. The result
was the 2008 financial crisis and the inability of the U.S. economy to effectively recover
from that crisis.
- This capture is also seen in international diplomatic systems, where the U.S. is
systematically by-passing or subverting international law and international institutions,
(the U.N. I.C.J., I.N.F. treaty) etc., and in doing so is destroying these institutions and
the ability to maintain peace.
The result of system (institution) capture is difficult to see at first. But, in time, the
damage adds up, the ability of the systems to meet the needs of the population disappears,
and societal decline sets in.
It looks today like the the societal decline is acellerating. Russia-gate is just one of
many indicators.
Your comment on the BBC is on the mild side. I listen to it when I drive in in the morning
and also get annoyed sometimes. When it is reporting on the Westminster bubble it is
factually accurate as far as I can judge. Apart from that, and particularly in the case of
the BBC news, we're in information control territory.
But accept that and the BBC turns into quite a valuable resource. It's well staffed, has
good contacts, and picks up what the politicians want us to think with great accuracy.
In that respect it's better than the newspapers and better also than the American media.
Those news outlets have several masters of which the political elite is only one. The BBC has
just the one master, the political elite, and is as sensitive as a stethoscope to the
shifting currents within that political elite.
So I wouldn't despise the BBC entirely. It tells us how the politicians want us to think.
In telling us that it sometimes gives us a bearing on what the politicians et al are doing
and what they intend to do.
The never-Trumpers will never let their dreams die. Of course, they never oppose Trump on
substantive issues like attempting a coup in Venezuela, withdrawing from the INF treaty,
supporting the nazis in Ukraine, supporting Al Qaeda forces in Syria, etc. But somehow
they're totally against him and ready to haul out the latest stupid thing he said as their
daily fodder for conversation...
renfro @ 10 said;"The Dems were stupid to gin up the Russian collusion."
Uh no, just doing their job of distracting the public, while ignoring the real issues
the
American workers care about. You know, the things DJT promised the workers, but has never
delivered.(better health care for all, ending the useless wars overseas, an
infrastructure
plan to increase good paying jobs), to name just a few.
The corporate Dems( which is the lions share of them), are bought and paid for to
distract, and they've done it well.
The Bushes, the Clintons, the Obamas, and most who have come before, are of the same
ilk.
Bend over workers and lube up, for more of the same in 2020...
I profoundly disagree with the notion that Russiagate had anything to do with Hillary's
collusion with the DNC. Gosh, that is naive at best.
1) Hillary didn't need to collude against Sanders - the additional money that she got from
doing so was small change compared the to overall amount she raised for her campaign.
2) Sanders was a long-time friend of the Clintons. He boasted that he's known Hillary
for over 25 years.
3) Sanders was a sheepdog meant to keep progressives in the Democratic Party. He was
never a real candidate. He refused to attack Hillary on character issues and remained loyal
even after Hillary-DNC collusion was revealed.
When Sanders had a chance to total disgrace Hillary, he refused to do so. Hillary
repeatedly said that she had NEVER changed for vote for money but Warren had proven that
she had: Hillary changed her vote on the Bankruptcy Bill for money from the credit card
industry.
4) Hillary didn't try to bury her collusion with the DNC (as might be expected), instead
she used it to alienate progressive voters by bring Debra Wasserman-Shultz into her
campaign.
5) Hillary also alienated or ignored other important constituencies: she wouldn't
support an increase in the minimum wage but accepted $750,000 from Goldman Sachs for a
speech; she took the black vote for granted and all-but berated a Black Lives Matters
activist; and she called whites "deplorables".
Hillary threw the race to her OTHER long-time friend in the race: Trump. The
Deep-State wanted a nationalist and that's just what they got.
6) Hillary and the DNC has shown NO REMORSE whatsoever about colluding with Sanders and
Sanders has shown no desire whatsoever to hold them accountable.
IMO Russiagate (Russian influence on Trump) and accusations of "Russian meddling" in the
election are part of the same McCarthyist psyop to direct hate at Russia and stamp out any
dissent. Trump probably knowingly, played into the Deep State's psyop by:
> hiring Manafort;
> calling on Russia to release Hillary's emails;
> talking about Putin in a admiring way.
And it accomplished much more than hating on Russia:
> served as excuse for Trump to do Deep State bidding;
> distracted from the real meddling in the 2016 election;
> served as a device for settling scores:
- Assange isolated
(Wikileaks was termed an "agent of a foreign power");
- Michael Flynn forced to resign
(because he spoke to the Russian ambassador).
hopehely , Mar 23, 2019 3:49:15 PM |
link The US owes Russia an official apology. And also Russia should get its stolen
buildings and the consulate back. And maybe to get paid some compensation for the injustice
and for damages suffered. Without that, the Russiagate is not really over.
If memory serves me correctly, the initial accusations of collusion between DJT's
presidential campaign and the Kremlin came from Crowdstrike, the cybersecurity company hired
by the Democratic National Committee to oversee the security of its computers and databases.
This was done to deflect attention away from Hillary Clinton's illegal use of a personal
server at home to conduct government business during her time as US State Secretary (2009 -
2013), business which among other things included plotting with the US embassy in Libya (and
the then US ambassador Chris Stevens) to overthrow Muammar Gaddhafi's government in 2011, and
conspiring also to overthrow the elected government in Honduras in 2010.
The business of Christopher Steele's dossier (part or even most of which could have been
written by Sergei Skripal, depending on who you read) and George Papadopoulos' conversation
with the half-wit Australian "diplomat" Alexander Downer in London were brought in to bolster
the Russiagate claims and make them look genuine.
As B says, Crowdstrike does indeed have a Ukrainian nationalist agenda: its founder and
head Dmitri Alperovich is a Senior Fellow at The Atlantic Council (the folks who fund
Bellingcat's crapaganda) and which itself receives donations from Ukrainian oligarch Viktor
Pinchuk. Crowdstrike has some association with one of the Chalupa sisters (Alexandra or
Andrea - I can't be bothered dredging through DuckDuckGo to check which - but one of them was
employed by the DNC) who donated money to the Maidan campaign that overthrew Viktor
Yanukovych's government in Kiev in February 2014.
thanks b... i would like russiagate to be finished, but i tend to see it much like kadath
@2.. the link @2 is worth the read as a reminder of how far the usa has sunk in being a
nation of passive neocons... emptywheel can't say no to this as witnessed by her article
from today.. ) as a consequence, i agree with @14 dh-mtl's conclusion - "It looks today
like the the societal decline is acellerating. Russia-gate is just one of many indicators."
the irony for those of us who don't live in the usa, is we are going to have watch this
sad state of affairs continue to unravel, as the usa and the west continue to unravel in
tandem.. the msm as corporate mouthpiece is not going to be tell us anything of relevance..
instead it will be continued madcow, or maddow bullshit 24-7... amd as kadath notes @2 - if
any of them are to step up as a truth teller - they will be marginalized or silenced... so
long as the mainstream swallow what they are fed in the msm, the direction of the titanic is
still on track...
@19 hopehely... you can forget about anything like that happening..
What Difference Does it Make?
They don't really need Russia-gate anymore. It bought them time. As we speak nuclear bombers
make runs near Russian borders every day and Russian consulates get attacked with heavy
weaponry in the EU and no Russian outlet is even making a reference,while Israel is ready to
move heavy artillery in to Golan targeting Russia bases in Syria and China raking all their
deals for civilian projects in the Med.
Russia got stuffed in the corner getting all the punches.
What a horrible witch hunt, but the msm will keep on denying and keep creating new hoaxes
about Trump, Russia.
Heck the media even deny there was no collussion, they keep spinning it in different ways!
Thanks for citing Caitlin Johnstone's wonderful epitaph, b--Russiavape indeed!
During the fiasco, the Outlaw US Empire provided excellent proof to the world that it does
everything it accused Russia of doing and more, while Russia's cred has greatly risen.
Meanwhile, there're numerous other crimes Trump, his associates, Clinton, her
associates--like Pelosi--ought to be impeached, removed from office, arrested, then tried in
court, which is diametrically opposed to the current--false--narrative.
Scotch Bingeington , Mar 23, 2019 4:47:39 PM |
link
The people who steered us into two years of Russiavape insanity are the very last people
anyone should ever listen to ever again when determining the future direction of our world.
Yes, absolutely. And not just regarding the world's future, but even if you happen to be
in the same building with one of them and he/she bursts into your already smoke-filled room
yelling that the house is on fire.
Btw, whatever authority has ever ruled that "ex-MI6 dude" Steele (who doesn't remind me of
steel at all, but rather of a certain nondescript entity named Anthony Blair) is in fact
merely 'EX'? He himself? The organisation? The Queen perhaps?
Expose them at every opportunity, they should not get away with this like nothing
happend:
If you think a single Russiagate conspiracist is going to be held accountable for media
malpractice, you clearly haven't been awake the past 2 decades. No one will pay for being
wrong. This profession is as corrupt & rotten as the kleptocracy it serves
defeatism isn't the answer -- should remind & mock these hacks every opportunity.
Just need to be aware of the beast we're up against.
The establishment plays on peoples fears and so we all sink together as we all cling to
our "lesser evils", tribal allegiances, and try to avoid the embarrassment of being
wrong.
Although everyone is aware of the corruption and insider dealing, no one seems to want to
acknowledge the extent, or to think critically so as to reveal any more than we already
know.
It's almost as though corruption (the King's nudity) is a national treasure and revealing
it would be a national security breach in the exceptional nation.
And so to the Deep State cabal continues to rule unimpeded.
The oligarchy that runs the country responded to the American people's decision by
inventing a completely cock-and-bull story about Donald Trump being a Russian agent who the
American people were tricked into voting for by nefarious Russian mind-control operatives,
getting every organ of the liberal corporate media to disseminate and relentlessly promote
this story on a daily basis for nearly three years
Posted by: Ken | Mar 23, 2019 2:09:31 PM | 4
You people don't get it do you?
'The Plan' was to get rid of Turkey-Russia-Israel (and a few others) with one fell
swoop....
Russia gate was both a diversion from the real collusions (Russian Mafia , China and Israel)
and a clever ruse to allow Trump to back off from his campaign promise to improve relations
with Russia. US policy toward Russia is no different under Trump than it was during Obamas
administration. Exactly what the Russia Gaters wanted and Trump delivered.
That Mueller could find nothing more than some tax/money laundering/perjury charges in
which the culprits in the end get pardoned is hardly surprising given his history. Want
something covered up? Put Mueller on it.
To show how afraid Trump was of Mueller he appointed his long term friend Barr as AJ and
pretended he didn't know how close they were when it came out. There is no lie people wont
believe. Lol
Meanwhile Trumps Russian Mafia connections stay under the radar in MSM, Trump continues as
Bibi's sock puppet, the fake trade war with China continues as Ivanka is rolling in China
trademarks .
The Rothschild puppet that bailed out Trumps casinos as Commerce Secretary overseeing
negotiations that will open the doors for more US and EU (they willy piggy back on the deal
like hyenas) jobs to go to China (this time in financial/services) and stronger IPR
protections that will facilitate this transfer, and will provide companies more profits in
which to buyback stocks but wont bring manufacturing jobs back.
The collusion story has been hit badly and it will likely lose its momentum, but I wonder how
far reaching this loss of momentum is. There are many variants. The 'unwitting accomplice' is
an oxymoron which isn't finished yet. The Russians hacking the election: not over. The
Russians sowing discord and division. Not over. Credibility of the Russiagate champions
overall? Not clear. Some could take a serious hit. Brennan and other insiders who made it
onto cable tv?
It is possible that the whole groupthink about Russiagate changes drastically
and that 'the other claims' also lose their credibility but it's far from certain. After
years of building up tension Russia's policies are also changing. I think they have shown
restraint but their paranoia and aggressiveness is also increasing and some claims will
become true after all.
"Russiagate" has always been a meaningless political fraud.
When folks like Hillary Clinton sign on to something and give it a great deal of weight,
you really do know you are talking about an empty bag of tricks. She is a psychopathic liar,
one with a great deal of blood on her hands.
My problem with this official result is that it may tend to give Trump a boost, new
credibility.
The trouble with Trump has never been Russia - something only blind ideologues and people
with the minds of children believe - it is that he is genuinely ignorant and genuinely
arrogant and loud-mouthed - an extremely dangerous combination.
And in trying to defend himself, this genuine coward has completely surrendered American
foreign policy to its most dangerous enemies, the Neocons.
Blaming Russiagate on Hillary is very easy for those who hate her or hope that Trump will
deliver on his faux populist fake-agenda.
No one wants to contemplate the possibility that Hillary and Trump, and the duopoly they
lead, fixed the election and planned Russiagate in advance.
It seems a bridge too far, even for the smart skeptics at MoA.
So funny.
Trump has proven himself to be a neocon. He broke his campaign promise to investigate
Hillary within DAYS of being elected. He has brought allies of his supposed enemies into his
Administration.
Yet every one turns from the possibility that the election was fixed. LOL.
The horrible possibility that our "democracy" is managed is too horrible to contemplate.
Lets just blame it all on Hillary.
Those who have been holding their breath for two years can finally exhale. I guess the fever
of hysteria will have to be attended a while longer. A malady of this kind does not easily
die out overnight. Those who have been taken in, and duped for so long, can not so easily
recover. The weight of so much cognitive dissonance presses down on them like a boulder. The
dust of the stampeded herd behind Russiagate is enough paralyze the will of those who have
succumbed.
As Joseph Conrad once wrote, "The ways of human progress are inscrutable."
Russiagate is a pendulum, it reached the dead point, it would hange in the air for a moment,
then it would start swinging right backwards at full speed crashign everything in the way!
It would be revealed, it was Russia who paid Muller to start that hysteria and stole money
from American tax-payers and make America an international laughing stock. "Putin benefited
from it", highly likely!
Muller's investigation is paid for with Manafort's seized cash and property and Manafort
has made Yanukovich king of Ukraine, so Manafort is Putin's agent, so Muller is working of
Putin's money, so it was Putin's collusion everything that Muller is doing! Highly
likely.
There is no "Liberal Media". Those whom claim to be Liberal and yet support the Warmonger
Democratic Party (Republican lite) are frauds. Liberalism does not condone war and it most
certainly does not support wars of aggression - especially those wars waged against
defenseless nations. Neither can liberalism support trade sanctions or the subjugation of
Palestinians in the Apartheid State of ISreal.
We must be very careful with the words we choose, in order to paint the correct
conjuncture and not to throw the bathtub with the baby inside.
It's one thing to say Bernie Sanders is not a revolutionary; it's another completely
different thing to say he was in cahoots with the Clintons.
If Bernie Sanders really was a "friend" of the Clintons, then he wouldn't even have
disputed the primaries against Hillary. Not only he chose to do so, but he only didn't win
because the DNC threw all its weight against him.
Now, I agree he's not a revolutionary socialist. He's an imperialist who believes the
spoils of the empire should be also used to build a Scandinavian-style Welfare State for the
American people only. A cynic would tell you this would make him a Nazi without the race
theme, but you have to keep in mind societies move in a dialectical patern, not a linear one:
if you preach for "democratic socialism", you're bringing the whole package, not only the
bits you want.
I believe the rise of Bernie Sanders had an overall positive impact in the world as it
exists. Americans are more aware of their own contradictions (more enlightened) now than
before he disputed those faithful primaries of 2016. And the most important ingredient for
that, in my opinion, was the fact he was crushed by both parties; that the "establishment"
acted in unison not to let him get near the WH. That was a didactic moment for the American
people (or a signficant part of it).
But I agree Russiagate went well beyond just covering the Clintons' dirt in the DNC.
It may have be born like that, but, if that was the case, the elites quickly realized it
had other, ampler practical uses. The main one, in my opinion, was to drive a wedge between
Trump's Clash of Civilizations's doctrine -- which perceives China as the main long term
enemy, and Russia as a natural ally of the West -- and the public opinon. The thing is most
of the American elite is far too dependent on China's productive chain; Russia is not, and
can be balkanized.
There is a funny video compilation of the TV talking heads predicting the end of Trump, new
bombshells, impeachment, etc., over the last two years.
Unfortunately, the same sort of compilation could be made of sane people predicting "this new
information means the end of Russiagate" over the same time period.
The truth is that the truth doesn't matter, only the propaganda, and it has not stopped, only
spun onto new hysteria.
As others have said, hard core Russiagaters will likely not be convinced that they have been
wrong all along. They have too much emotional investment in the grand conspiracy theory to
simply let it go. Rather, they will forever point to what they believe are genuine bits of
evidence and curse Mueller for not following the leads. And the Dems in the House of
Representatives will waste more time and resources on pointless investigations in an effort
to keep the public sufficiently distracted from more important matters, such as the endless
wars and coups that they support. A pox on all their houses, both Democrats and
Republicans.
"...hard core Russiagaters will likely not be convinced that they have been wrong all along."
Wrong about what? There seems to be "narrative" operative here that there are only two
positions on this matter: the "right" one and the "wrong" one and nothing else.
Ben's and other comments might make this a little bit superfluous but it's short.
A case of divide and conquer against the population
This time it was a fabricated scandal.
Continued control over "facts" and narratives, the opportunity for efficient misdirection
and distraction, stealing and wasting other people's time and effort, spurious disagreements,
wearing down relations.
The illusion of choice, (false) opposition, blinded "oversight", and mythical claims
concerning a civilian government (in the case of the US: "of, for, and by" or something like
that).
Who knew or knows is irrelevant as long as the show goes on. There's nothing to prove
anything significant about who if anyone may or may not be behind the curtain and thus on
towards the next big or small scandal we go because people will be dissatisfied and hungry
and ready to bite as hard as possible on some other bait for or against something.
Maybe "Russiagate" was impeccably engineered or maybe it organically outcompeted other
distractions on offer that would ultimately also waste enormous amounts of time and
effort.
Management by crisis
The scandals, crises, "Science says" games and rubbish, outrage narratives, and any other
manipulations attempt and perhaps succeed at controlling the US and the world through
spam.
Jonathan @39: Of course it was fixed. That's what the Electoral College is for.
Well, you can say the same think about money-as-speech , gerrymandering, voter
suppression, etc. Despite all these, Americans believe that their democracy works.
I contend that what we witnessed in 2016 was a SHOW. Like American wrestling. It was
(mostly) fake. The proper term for this is kayfabe .
My advice to the yanks mourning Russiagate: move to the UK. The sick Brits will keep the
Russia hating cult alive even after they spend a decade puking over Brexit.
Jackrabbit @18
So, you don't think HRC qualifies as a nationalist? She can't fake populist, but she can do
nationalist.
I also think she is much too ambitious to have intentionally thrown the election. It was her
turn dammit! Take a look at her behavior as First Lady if you think she's the kind of
personality that is content to wield power from behind the scenes.
They didn't fall for the Steele dossier. I recall that emptywheel had discredited the dossier
during the election as it was known to have been rejected by major media outlets leading up
to the election. I think they merely fell behind the others as the outgoing administration,
the Democrats, the CIA, and the media chose to use the dossier to 'blackmail' Trump.
The most important fruit of russiagate, from the view of the establishment of the hegemon, is
that America has now taken a giant step towards full bore censorship.
We must be very careful ... and not to throw the bathtub with the baby
inside.
Don't we already have plenty of evidence that there is no precious democratic baby in the
bath? What do you think the Yellow Vests are doing every weekend?
If Bernie Sanders really was a "friend" of the Clintons, then he wouldn't even have
disputed the primaries against Hillary.
Why not? Do you know him personally? Can you vouch for him?
Bernie referred to Hillary as "my friend" many times on the campaign trail. He told
Politico that he's known her for 25 years but they are not "best friends". That's Sander's
typical word judo. Like when he was asked about Zionism, his response: what's
that?
The fact is, Bernie is friendly with all the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him
and Schumer wouldn't allow funding for democratic candidates that opposed him.
Then there's other strangeness. Like Bernie's refusal to release his 2014 tax
returns. Bernie said his returns were "boring" but when his 2015 tax return was delayed the
press asked him to release his 2014 return (Hillary boasted that she had released 10 years of
returns). Bernie refused.
Now, I agree he's not a revolutionary socialist.... I believe the rise of Bernie
Sanders had an overall positive impact in the world as it exists.
Really? LOL. Sanders REFUSED to lead a Movement for real change. That might've changed things
for the better Mi>- like the Yellow Vests are changing things for the better.
What have we seen from the Democratics since 2016? Bullshit like Russiagate,
meaningless astroturf activism around bathrooms and statues, and outlandish policies like
open borders. These things just irritate most Americans and will lead to more failure for the
Democrats and another 4 years for Trump.
Lastly, you said nothing about Bernie's refusal to attack Hillary on character
issues and to counter her assertion that she NEVER changed her vote for money. Other
examples: Bernie refused to discuss Hillary's home email server, never mentioned Hillary's
well known work to squash investigations of Bill Clinton for abusing women (Jennifer
Flowers), and didn't talk about other scandals like Benghazi ("What difference does it make")
and her glee at the overthrow of Quadaffi ("we came, we saw, we kicked his ass").
And what of Trump? He was the ONLY republican populist in a field of 19. Do you find
that even a little bit strange?
We must be very careful ... and not to throw the bathtub with the baby
inside.
Don't we already have plenty of evidence that there is no precious democratic baby in the
bath? What do you think the Yellow Vests are doing every weekend?
If Bernie Sanders really was a "friend" of the Clintons, then he wouldn't even have
disputed the primaries against Hillary.
Why not? Do you know him personally? Can you vouch for him?
Bernie referred to Hillary as "my friend" many times on the campaign trail. He told
Politico that he's known her for 25 years but they are not "best friends". That's Sander's
typical word judo. Like when he was asked about Zionism, his response: what's that?
The fact is, Bernie is friendly with all the top Democrats: Obama campaigned for him and
Schumer wouldn't allow funding for democratic candidates that opposed him.
Then there's other strangeness. Like Bernie's refusal to release his 2014 tax returns.
Bernie said his returns were "boring" but when his 2015 tax return was delayed the press
asked him to release his 2014 return (Hillary boasted that she had released 10 years of
returns) . Bernie refused.
Now, I agree he's not a revolutionary socialist.... I believe the rise of Bernie
Sanders had an overall positive impact in the world as it exists.
Really? LOL. Sanders REFUSED to lead a Movement for real change. That might've changed things
for the better Mi>- like the Yellow Vests are changing things for the better.
What have we seen from the Democratics since 2016? Bullshit like Russiagate, meaningless
astroturf activism around bathrooms and statues, and outlandish policies like open borders.
These things just irritate most Americans and will lead to more failure for the Democrats and
another 4 years for Trump.
Lastly, you said nothing about Bernie's refusal to attack Hillary on character issues and
to counter her assertion that she NEVER changed her vote for money. Other examples: Bernie
refused to discuss Hillary's home email server, never mentioned Hillary's well known work to
squash investigations of Bill Clinton for abusing women (Jennifer Flowers), and didn't talk
about other scandals like Benghazi ("What difference does it make") and her glee at the
overthrow of Quadaffi ("we came, we saw, we kicked his ass").
And what of Trump? He was the ONLY republican populist in a field of 19. Do you find that
even a little bit strange?
mourning dove @57: Exactly! It's the Electoral College that decides elections, not
voters.
Do you think Hillary didn't know that? She refused to campaign in the three mid-western
states that would've won her the electoral college. Each of the states were won by Trump by a
thin margin.
Gosh and Blimey!
Comment #56 in a thread about an utterly corrupt political system and no-one has mentioned
the pro-"Israel" Lobby?
Words fail me. So I'll use someone else's...
From Xymphora March 21, 2019.
"Truth or Trope?" (Sailer):
"Of the top 50 political donors to either party at the federal level in 2018, 52 percent
were Jewish and 48 percent were gentile. Individuals who identify as Jewish are usually
estimated to make up perhaps 2.2 percent of the population.
Of the $675 million given by the top 50 donors, 66 percent of the money came from Jews and 34
percent from gentiles.
Of the $297 million that GOP candidates and conservative causes received from the top 50
donors, 56 percent was from Jewish individuals.
Of the $361 million Democratic politicians and liberal causes received, 76 percent came from
Jewish givers.
So it turns out that Rep. Omar and Gov. LePage appear to have been correct, at least about
the biggest 2018 donors. But you can also see why Pelosi wanted Omar to just shut up about
it: 76 percent is a lot."
Next up another false flag operation. The thing is, it would have be non-trivial and
involving the harming of people to jolt the narrative back to that favoring the deep state.
And taking off the proverbial media table, that Mueller found no collusion. Yes, election in
2016 no collusion, but Putin was behind the latest horrific false flag, "oh look, Trump is
not confronting Putin"...
Not even getting into the "treason", "putin's c*ckholster", "what's the time on Moscow,
troll!" crap we've been subjected to for 3 years, please enjoy this mashup: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qjUvfZj-Fm0.
I've said before that she's a terrible strategist and she ran a terrible campaign and she's
terribly out of touch. I think she expected a cake walk and was relying on Trump being so
distasteful to voters that they'd have no other option.
I think Trump legitimately won the election and I don't believe for a second that she won the
popular vote. There were so many problems with the election but since they were on the losing
side, nobody cares. In 2012 I didn't know anyone else who was voting for Jill Stein, way too
many people were still in love with Obama. She got .4% of the vote. In 2016 most of the
people I knew were voting for Jill Stein, she drew a large crowd from DemExit, but they say
she got .4% of the vote. Total bullshit. There was also ballot stuffing and lots of other
problems, but it still wasn't enough.
I'm also convinced that Trump and Clinton colluded, but that they did so in order to get her
elected. I don't think he really wanted the job. But still, Hillary can do nationalist, and
the designs of the Empire would have proceeded either way.
Trump is a crook who takes money wherever he can get it, from subcontractors foolish enough
to work for him to bankers dumb enough to believe his financial statements. No doubt he has
helped Russian crooks sanitize their booty, but that is apparently too difficult for Mueller
to prove.
It is not good news that this troglodyte was not indicted, but it is good news that
Russia was not found guilty of electing him. Russiagate is an existential issue for the
"national security" establishment and just another propaganda offensive designed to justify
the largely useless & destructive activities of the Pentagon.
It is time to build
cooperation not continue the stupidity of US unilateralism and pursuit of global hegemony.
Trump and his team have to be removed from office. Democrats don't need Russiagate to do it.
The truth will work better.
This month marks the 20th anniversary of Operation Allied Force, NATO's 78-day air war against Yugoslavia. It was a war waged
as much against Serbian civilians – hundreds of whom perished – as it was against Slobodan Milošević's forces, and it was a campaign
of breathtaking hypocrisy and selective outrage. More than anything, it was a war that by President Bill Clinton's own admission
was fought for the sake of NATO's credibility.
One Man's Terrorist
Our story begins not in the war-torn Balkans of the 1990s but rather in the howling wilderness of Afghanistan at the end of the
1980s as defeated Soviet invaders withdrew from a decade of guerrilla warfare into the twilight of a once-mighty empire. The United
States, which had provided arms, funding and training for the mujahideen fighters who had so bravely resisted the Soviet occupation,
stopped supporting the jihadis as soon as the last Red Army units rolled across the Hairatan Bridge and back into the USSR. Afghanistan
descended deeper into civil war.
The popular narrative posits that Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaeda network, Washington's former mujahideen allies, turned on the
West after the US stationed hundreds of thousands of infidel troops in Saudi Arabia – home to two out of three of Sunni Islam's holiest
sites – during Operation Desert Shield in 1990. Since then, the story goes, the relationship between the jihadists and their former
benefactors has been one of enmity, characterized by sporadic terror attacks and fierce US retribution. The real story, however,
is something altogether different.
From 1992 to 1995, the Pentagon flew
thousands of al-Qaeda mujahideen, often accompanied by US Special Forces, from Central Asia to Europe to reinforce Bosnian Muslims
as they fought Serbs to gain their independence from the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The Clinton administration
armed and trained these fighters in
flagrant violation of United Nations accords; weapons purchased by Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran were secretly shipped to the jihadists
via Croatia, which netted a hefty profit from each transaction. The official Dutch inquiry into the 1995 Srebrenica massacre, in
which thousands of Bosniak (Bosnian Muslim) men and boys were slaughtered by Bosnian Serb and Serbian paramilitary forces, concluded
that the United States was "very closely involved" in these arms transfers.
When the Bosnian war ended in 1995 the United States was faced with the problem of thousands of Islamist warriors on European
soil. Many of them joined the burgeoning Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), which mainly consisted of ethnic Albanian Kosovars from what
was still southwestern Yugoslavia. Emboldened by the success of the Slovenes, Croats, Macedonians and Bosnians who had won their
independence from Belgrade as Yugoslavia literally balkanized, KLA fighters began to violently expel as many non-Albanians from Kosovo
as they could. Roma, Jews, Turks and, above all, Serbs were all victims of Albanian ethnic cleansing.
The United States was initially very honest in its assessment of the KLA. Robert Gelbard, the US special envoy to Bosnia,
called it "without any question a terrorist
group." KLA backers allegedly included Osama bin Laden
and other Islamic radicals; the group largely bankrolled its activities by trafficking heroin and sex slaves. The State Department
accordingly added the KLA to its list of terrorist organizations in 1998.
However, despite all its nastiness the KLA endeared itself to Washington by fighting the defiant Yugoslavian President Slobodan
Milošević. By this time Yugoslavia, once composed of eight nominally autonomous republics, had been reduced by years of bloody civil
war to a rump of Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo. To Serbs, the dominant ethnic group in what remained of the country, Kosovo is regarded
as the very birthplace of their nation. Belgrade wasn't about to let it go without a fight and everyone knew it, especially the Clinton
administration. Clinton's hypocrisy was immediately evident; when Chechnya fought for its independence from Moscow and Russian forces
committed horrific atrocities in response, the American president
called the war an internal Russian affair
and barely criticized Russian President Boris Yeltsin. But when Milošević resorted to brute force in an attempt to prevent Yugoslavia
from further fracturing, he soon found himself a marked man.
Although NATO
called
the KLA "the main initiator of the violence" in Kosovo and blasted "what appears to be a deliberate campaign of provocation" against
the Serbs, the Clinton administration was nevertheless determined to attack the Milošević regime. US intelligence confirmed that
the KLA was indeed provoking harsh retaliatory strikes by Serb forces in a bid to draw the United States and NATO into the conflict.
President Clinton, however, apparently wasn't listening. The NATO powers, led by the United States, issued Milošević an ultimatum
they knew he could never accept: allow NATO to occupy all of Kosovo and have free reign in Serbia as well. Assistant US Secretary
of State James Rubin later
admitted that "publicly we had to make clear we were seeking an agreement but privately we knew the chances of the Serbs agreeing
were quite small."
Wagging the Dog?
In 1997 the film Wag the Dog debuted to rave reviews. The dark comedy concerns a Washington, DC spin doctor and a Hollywood
producer who fabricate a fictional war in Albania to distract American voters from a presidential sex scandal. Many observers couldn't
help but draw parallels between the film and the real-life events of 1998-99, which included the Monica Lewinsky scandal, Clinton's
impeachment and a very real war brewing in the Balkans. As in Wag the Dog , there were exaggerated or completely fabricated
tales of atrocities, and as in the film the US and NATO powers tried to sell their war as a humanitarian intervention. An attack
on Yugoslavia, we were told, was needed to avert Serb ethnic cleansing of Albanians.
There were two main problems with this. First, there was no Serb ethnic cleansing of Albanian Kosovars until after NATO
began mercilessly bombing Yugoslavia. The German government
issued several reports confirming this. One, from October 1998, reads, in part:
The violent actions of the Yugoslav military and police since February 1998 were aimed at separatist activities and are no
proof of a persecution of the whole Albanian ethnic group in Kosovo or a part of it. What was involved in the Yugoslav violent actions
and excesses since February 1998 was a selective forcible action against the military underground movement (especially the KLA) A
state program or persecution aimed at the whole ethnic group of Albanians exists neither now nor earlier.
Subsequent German government reports issued through the winter of 1999 tell a similar story. "Events since February and March
1998 do not evidence a persecution program based on Albanian ethnicity," stated one report released exactly one month before the
NATO bombing started. "The measures taken by the armed Serbian forces are in the first instance directed toward combating the KLA
and its supposed adherents and supporters."
While Serbs certainly did commit atrocities (especially after the ferocious NATO air campaign began), these were often greatly
exaggerated by the Clinton administration and the US corporate mainstream media. Clinton claimed – and the media dutifully parroted
– that 600,000 Albanians were "trapped within Kosovo lacking shelter, short of food, afraid to go home or buried in mass graves."
This was completely false . US diplomat David
Scheffer claimed that "225,000 ethnic Albanian men are missing, presumed dead." Again, a
total fabrication . The FBI, International War Crimes
Tribunal and global forensics experts flocked to Kosovo in droves after the NATO bombs stopped falling; the total number of victims
they found was around 1 percent of the figure claimed by the United States.
However, once NATO attacked, the Serb response was predictably furious. Shockingly, NATO commander Gen. Wesley Clark declared
that the ensuing Serbian atrocities against the Albanian Kosovar population had been
"fully anticipated" and were apparently of little concern to Washington.
Not only did NATO and the KLA provoke a war with Yugoslavia, they did so knowing that many innocent civilians would be killed, maimed
or displaced by the certain and severe reprisals carried out by enraged Serb forces. Michael McGwire, a former top NATO planner,
acknowledged that "to describe the bombing as a humanitarian intervention is really grotesque."
Bloody Hypocrites
The other big problem with the US claiming it was attacking Yugoslavia on humanitarian grounds was that the Clinton administration
had recently allowed – and was at the time allowing – far worse humanitarian catastrophes to rage without American intervention.
More than 800,000 men, women and children were slaughtered while Clinton and other world leaders stood idly by during the 1994 Rwandan
genocide. The US also courted the medievally brutal
Taliban regime in hopes of achieving stability in Afghanistan and with an eye toward building a gas pipeline from Turkmenistan through
Afghanistan to Pakistan. Clinton also did nothing to stop Russian forces from viciously crushing nationalist uprisings in the Caucuses,
where Chechen rebels were fighting for their independence much the same as Albanian Kosovars were fighting the Serbs.
Colombia, the Western Hemisphere's leading recipient of US military and economic aid, was waging a fierce, decades-long campaign
of terror against leftist insurgents and long-suffering indigenous peoples. Despite
horrific brutality and pervasive human rights violations, US aid to Bogotá increased year after year. In Turkey, not only did
Clinton do nothing to prevent government forces from committing widespread atrocities against Kurdish separatists, the administration
positively encouraged its NATO ally with billions of dollars in loans and arms sales. Saudi Arabia, home to the most repressive fundamentalist
regime this side of Afghanistan, was – and remains – a favored US ally despite having one of the
world's worst human rights
records. The list goes on and on.
Much closer to the conflict at hand, the United States tacitly approved the largest ethnic cleansing campaign in Europe since
the Holocaust when as many as 200,000 Serbs were
forcibly expelled from the Krajina region of Croatia by that country's US-trained military during Operation Storm in August 1995.
Krajina Serbs had purged the region of its Croat minority four years earlier in their own ethnic cleansing campaign; now it was the
Serbs' turn to be on the receiving end of the horror. Croatian forces stormed through Krajina, shelling towns and slaughtering innocent
civilians. The sick and the elderly who couldn't escape were executed or burned alive in their homes as Croatian soldiers machine-gunned
convoys of fleeing refugees.
"Painful for the Serbs"
Washington's selective indignation at Serb crimes both real and imagined is utterly inexcusable when held up to the horrific and
seemingly indiscriminate atrocities committed during the NATO air campaign against Yugoslavia. The prominent Australian journalist
John Pilger noted that "in the attack on Serbia, 2 percent of NATO's missiles hit military targets, the rest hit hospitals, schools,
factories, churches and broadcast studios." There is little doubt that US and allied warplanes and missiles were targeting the Serbian
people as much as, or even more than, Serb forces. The bombing knocked out electricity in 70 percent of the country as well as much
of its water supply.
NATO warplanes also deliberately bombed a building containing the headquarters of Serbian state television and radio in the middle
of densely populated central Belgrade. The April 23, 1999 attack occurred without warning while 200 employees were at work in the
building. Among the 16 people killed were a makeup artist, a cameraman, a program director, an editor and three security guards.
There is no doubt that the attack was meant to demoralize the Serbian people. There is also no doubt that those who ordered the bombing
knew exactly what outcome to expect: a NATO planning document viewed by Bill Clinton, UK Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President
Jacques Chirac forecast as
many as 350 deaths in the event of such an attack, with as many as 250 of the victims expected to be innocent civilians living in
nearby apartments.
Allied commanders wanted to fight a "zero casualty war" in Yugoslavia. As in zero casualties for NATO forces, not the people they
were bombing. "This will be painful for the Serbs," Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon sadistically predicted. It sure was. NATO warplanes
flew sorties at 15,000 feet (4,500 meters), a safe height for the pilots. But this decreased accuracy and increased civilian casualties
on the ground. One attack on central Belgrade mistakenly
hit Dragiša Mišović hospital with a laser-guided "precision" bomb, obliterating an intensive care unit and destroying a children's
ward while wounding several pregnant women who had the misfortune of being in labor at the time of the attack. Dragana Krstić, age
23, was recovering from cancer surgery – she just had a 10-pound (4.5 kg) tumor removed from her stomach – when the bombs blew jagged
shards of glass into her neck and shoulders. "I don't know which hurts more," she lamented, "my stomach, my shoulder or my heart."
Dragiša Mišović wasn't the only hospital bombed by NATO. Cluster bombs dropped by fighter jets of the Royal Netherlands Air Force
struck a hospital and a market in the city of Niš on May 7,
killing 15 people and wounding 60 more. An emergency clinic
and medical dispensary were also bombed in the
mining town of Aleksinac on April 6, killing at least five people and wounding dozens more.
Bridges were favorite targets of NATO bombing. An international passenger train traveling from Belgrade to Thessaloniki, Greece
was
blown apart by two missiles as it crossed over Grdelica gorge on April 12. Children and a pregnant woman were among the 15 people
killed in the attack; 16 other passengers were wounded. Allied commander Gen. Wesley Clark claimed the train, which had been damaged
by the first missile, had been traveling too rapidly for the pilot to abort the second strike on the bridge. He then offered up a
doctored video that was sped up more than three times so that the pilot's behavior would appear acceptable.
On May 1, at least 24 civilians, many of them children, were killed when NATO warplanes
bombed a bridge in Lužane just as a bus was crossing.
An ambulance rushing to the scene of the carnage was struck by a second bomb. On the sunny spring afternoon of May 30, a bridge over
the Velika Morava River in the small town of Vavarin was
bombed by low-flying German Air Force F-16 fighters while hundreds of local residents gathered nearby to celebrate an Orthodox
Christian holiday. Eleven people died, most of them when the warplanes returned and bombed the people who rushed to the bridge to
help those wounded in the first strike.
No One Is Safe
The horrors suffered by the villagers of Surdulica shows that no one in Serbia was safe from NATO's fury. They endured some 175
bombardments during one three-week period alone, with 50 houses destroyed and 600 others damaged in a town with only around 10,000
residents. On April 27, 20 civilians, including 12 children,
died when bombs meant to
destroy an army barracks slammed into a residential neighborhood. As many as 100 others were wounded in the incident. Tragedy
befell the tiny town again on May 31 when NATO
warplanes returned to bomb an ammunition depot but instead hit an old people's home; 23 civilians, most of them helpless elderly
men and women, were blown to pieces. Dozens more were wounded. The US military initially said "there were no errant weapons" in the
attack. However, Deputy Defense Secretary John Hamre later testified before Congress that it "was a case of the pilot getting confused."
The CIA was also apparently confused when it relied on what it claimed was an outdated map to approve a Stealth Bomber strike
on what turned out to be the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. Three Chinese journalists were killed and 27 other people were wounded.
Some people aren't so sure the attack was an accident – Britain's Observer later
reported that the US deliberately bombed the
embassy after discovering it was being used to transmit Yugoslav army communications.
There were plenty of other accidents, some of them horrifically tragic and others just downright bizarre. Two separate attacks
on the very Albanians NATO was claiming to help killed 160 people, many of them women and children. On April 14, NATO warplanes bombed
refugees along a 12-mile (19-km) stretch of road between the towns of Gjakova and Deçan in western Kosovo, killing 73 people including
16 children and wounding 36 more. Journalists reported
a grisly scene of "bodies charred or blown to pieces, tractors reduced to twisted wreckage and houses in ruins." Exactly one month
later, another column of refugees was
bombed near Koriša, killing
87 – mostly women, children and the elderly – and wounding 60 others. In the downright bizarre category, a wildly errant NATO missile
struck a residential neighborhood in the Bulgarian capital Sofia, some 40 miles (64 km) outside of Serbia. The American AGM-88 HARM
missile blew the roof off
of a man's house while he was shaving in his bathroom.
NATO's "Murderous Thugs"
As the people of Yugoslavia were being terrorized by NATO's air war, the terrorists of the Kosovo Liberation Army stepped up their
atrocities against Serbs and Roma in Kosovo. NATO troops deployed there to keep the peace often failed to protect these people from
the KLA's brutal campaign. More than 164,000 Serbs fled or
were forcibly driven from the Albanian-dominated province and by the summer of 2001 KLA ethnic cleansing had rendered Kosovo almost
entirely Albanian, with just a few die-hard Serb holdouts living in fear and surrounded by barbed wire.
The KLA soon expanded its war into neighboring Macedonia. Although NATO Secretary-General Lord Robertson called the terror group
"murderous thugs," the United States – now with George W. Bush as president – continued to offer its invaluable support. National
Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice personally
intervened in an attempt to persuade Ukraine to halt arms sales to the Macedonian army and when a group of 400 KLA fighters were
surrounded at Aracinovo in June 2001, NATO ordered Macedonian forces to hold off their attack while a convoy of US Army vehicles
rescued the besieged militants. It later
emerged that 17 American military advisers were embedded with the KLA at Aracinovo.
Credibility Conundrum
The bombing of Yugoslavia was really about preserving the credibility of the United States and NATO. The alliance's saber rattling
toward Belgrade had painted it into a corner from which the only way out was with guns blazing. Failure to follow threats with deadly
action, said President Clinton, "would discredit NATO." Clinton
added
that "our mission is clear, to demonstrate the seriousness of NATO's purpose." The president seemed willfully ignorant of NATO's
real purpose, which is to defend member states from outside attack. British Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed with Clinton,
declaring on the eve of the war that
"to walk away now would destroy NATO's credibility." Gary Dempsey, a foreign policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institute,
wrote that the Clinton administration
"transformed a conflict that posed no threat to the territorial integrity, national sovereignty or general welfare of the United
States into a major test of American resolve."
Waging or prolonging war for credibility's sake is always dangerous and seems always to yield disastrous results. Tens of thousands
of US troops and many times as many Vietnamese, Laotian and Cambodian soldiers and civilians died while Richard Nixon sought an "honorable"
way out of Vietnam. Ronald Reagan's dogged defense of US credibility cost the lives of 299 American and French troops killed in Hezbollah's
1983 Beirut barracks bombing. This time, ensuring American credibility meant backing the vicious KLA – some of whose fighters had
trained at Osama bin Laden's terror camps in Afghanistan. This, despite the fact that al-Qaeda had already been responsible for deadly
attacks against the United States, including the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.
It is highly questionable whether bombing Yugoslavia affirmed NATO's credibility in the short term. In the long term, it certainly
did not. The war marked the first and only time NATO had ever attacked a sovereign state. It did so unilaterally, absent any threat
to any member nation, and without the approval of the United Nations Security Council. "If NATO can go for military action without
international blessing, it calls into question the reliability of NATO as a security partner," Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak,
then Moscow's ambassador to NATO, told me at a San Francisco reception.
Twenty years later, Operation Allied force has been all but forgotten in the United States. In a country that has been waging
nonstop war on terrorism for almost the entire 21st century, the 1999 NATO air war is but a footnote in modern American history.
Serbs, however, still seethe at the injustice and hypocrisy of it all. The bombed-out ruins of the old Yugoslav Ministry of Defense,
Radio Television of Serbia headquarters and other buildings serve as constant, painful reminders of the horrors endured by the Serbian
people in service of NATO's credibility.
Brett Wilkins is a San Francisco-based author and activist. His work, which focuses on issues of war and peace and human rights,
is archived atwww.brettwilkins.com
Now that Robert Mueller has closed his investigation into Russian meddling in the 2016
election without bringing any new indictments, some Twitter users have lashed out at former at
political analyst and former CIA director for his recent prediction that Mueller would be
bringing additional charges before finishing his probe.
Brennan
appeared on MSNBC earlier this month, where he predicted that the special counsel's office
would soon be bringing indictments to add to the list of 34
individuals already charged by Mueller's team.
In that interview, Brennan also opined that he expected that any indictment of anyone close
to President Trump, including his family or extended family, would be named at the conclusion
of the investigation.
"Bob Mueller and his team knows if he were to do something -- indicting a Trump family
member or if he were to go forward with indictment on criminal conspiracy involving U.S.
persons -- that would basically be the death of the special counsel's office, because I don't
believe Donald Trump would allow Bob Mueller to continue in the aftermath of those types of
actions," Brennan explained at the time.
Yet Mueller closed his investigation without bringing any further indictments and without
any charges being brought against anyone within Trump's closest circle. The president's
supporters and others took this opportunity to pounce on Brennan via Twitter.
Journalist Glenn Greenwald, who has been openly critical of the Russia investigation, was
among the first to call out Brennan's indictment prediction.
"You can't blame MSNBC viewers for being confused," tweeted Greenwald in the wake of news
that Mueller had submitted his report. "They largely kept dissenters from their Trump/Russia
spy tale off the air for 2 years. As recently as 2 weeks ago, they had @JohnBrennan strongly
suggesting Mueller would indict Trump family members on collusion as his last act"
He later added, "The worst part of this video is how Brennan said Mueller would indict Trump
Family members for conspiring with Russia before March 15 or after, because he was too noble to
do it on the Ides of March. Will MSNBC or Brennan apologize? Will there be consequences for any
of this? LOL"
Conservative political pundit Charlie Kirk listed Brenna on a list of other frequent targets
-- Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama, former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, among others
-- of people who should be investigated, though it was not clear which laws Kirk believes any
of these individuals might have broken.
Actor Dean Cain likened Brennan's indictment prediction to Vermont Governor Howard Dean's
infamous "Dean Scream" that helped to tank Dean's 2004 presidential campaign.
Conservative political consultant Frank Luntz used the incorrect Brennan prediction to
criticize media outlets for what he saw as a failure to acknowledge errors on their part.
W e are still trying to fathom the apparent but transient palace-coup attempts of Rod
Rosenstein and Andrew McCabe. No one has gotten to the bottom of the serial lying by McCabe and
James Comey, much less their systematic and illegal leaking to pet reporters.
We do not know all the ways in which James Clapper and John Brennan seeded the dossier and
its related gossip among the press and liberal politicians -- only that both were prior
admitted fabricators who respectively while under oath misled congressional representatives on
a host of issues.
The central role of Hillary Clinton in funding the anti-Trump, Russian-"collusion,"
Fusion/GPS/Christopher Steele dossier is still not fully disclosed. Did the deluded FISA court
know it was being used by Obama-administration DOJ and FBI officials, who withheld from it
evidence to ensure permission to spy on American citizens? Could any justice knowingly be so
naïve?
Do we remember at all that Devin Nunes came to national prominence when he uncovered
information that members of the Obama administration's national-security team, along with
others, had systematically unmasked surveilled Americans, whose names then were leaked
illegally to the press?
One day historians will have the full story of how Robert Mueller stocked his legal team
inordinately with partisans. He certainly did not promptly disclose the chronology of, or the
interconnected reasons for, the firings of Lisa Page and Peter Strozk. And his team has largely
used process-crime allegations to leverage mostly minor figures to divulge some sort of
incriminating evidence about the president -- none of it pertaining to the original mandated
rationale of collusion.
These are the central issues and key players of this entire sordid attempt to remove a
sitting president.
But we should remember there were dozens of other minor players who did their own parts in
acting unethically, and in some cases illegally, to destroy a presidency. We have mostly
forgotten them. But they reflect what can happen when Washington becomes unhinged, the media go
berserk, and a reign of terror ensues in which any means necessary is redefined as what James
Comey recently monetized as a "Higher Loyalty" to destroy an elected president.
Here are just a few of the foot soldiers we have forgotten.
Anonymous
On September 5, 2018 (a date seemingly picked roughly to coincide with the publication of Bob
Woodward's sensational tell-all book about the inside of the Trump White House), the New
York Times printed a credo from a supposed anonymous Republican official deep within the
Trump administration. In a supposed fit of ethical conviction, he (or she) warned the nation of
the dangers it faced under his boss, President Trump, and admitted to a systematic effort to
subvert his presidency:
The dilemma -- which he does not fully grasp -- is that many of the senior officials in
his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda
and his worst inclinations. I would know. I am one of them.
Anonymous elaborated:
Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of
invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president.
But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer
the administration in the right direction until -- one way or another -- it's over.
We do not know whether Anonymous was describing the coup attempt as described by Andrew
McCabe that apparently entailed Rod Rosenstein at the Justice Department informally polling
cabinet officials, or marked a wider effort among Never Trump Republicans and deep-state
functionaries to ensure that Trump failed -- whether marked by earlier efforts to leak
confidential calls with foreign officials or to serve up unsubstantiated rumors to muckrakers
or simply slow-walk or ignore presidential directives.
In any case, Anonymous's efforts largely explain why almost daily we hear yet another mostly
unsubstantiated account that a paranoid, deranged, and dangerous Trump is holed up in his
bedroom with his Big Macs as he plans unconstitutional measures to wreck the United States --
and then, by accident, achieves near-record-low peacetime unemployment, near-record-low
minority unemployment, annualized 3 percent GDP growth, record natural-gas and oil production,
record deregulation, comprehensive tax reform and reduction, and foreign-policy breakthroughs
from the destruction of ISIS to cancellation of the flawed Iran deal.
James Baker
In the course of congressional testimony, it was learned that the FBI general counsel, James
Baker, for a time had been under investigation for leaking classified information to the press.
Among the leaks were rumored scraps from the Steele dossier passed to Mother Jones
reporter David Corn (who has denied any such connection) that may have fueled his sensational
pre-election accusation of Trump–Russian collusion.
Nonetheless, about a week before the 2016 election, Corn of Mother Jones was writing
lurid exposés, such as the following, to spread gossip likely inspired from the
Christopher Steele dossier (italics inserted):
Does this mean the FBI is investigating whether Russian intelligence has attempted to
develop a secret relationship with Trump or cultivate him as an asset? Was the former
intelligence officer and his material deemed credible or not?
An FBI spokeswoman says, "Normally, we don't talk about whether we are investigating
anything." But a senior US government official not involved in this case but familiar with
the former spy tells Mother Jones that he has been a credible source with a proven record of
providing reliable, sensitive, and important information to the US government. In June,
the former Western intelligence officer -- who spent almost two decades on Russian
intelligence matters and who now works with a US firm that gathers information on Russia for
corporate clients -- was assigned the task of researching Trump's dealings in Russia and
elsewhere, according to the former spy and his associates in this American firm.
What does "assigned" mean, and by whom? That Fusion/GPS (which, in fact, is a generic
opposition-research firm with no particular expertise in Russia) hired with disguised Clinton
campaign funds a has-been foreign-national spy to buy dirt from Russian sources to subvert a
presidential campaign?
Those leaks of Christopher Steele's dirt also did their small part in planting doubt in
voters' minds right that electing Trump was tantamount to implanting a Russian asset in the
White House. Baker has been the alleged center of a number of reported leaks, even though the
FBI's general counsel should have been the last person to disclose any government communication
to the press during a heated presidential campaign. And there is still no accurate information
concerning what role, if any, Baker played in Andrew McCabe's efforts to discuss removing the
president following the Comey firing.
Evelyn Farkas
On March 1, 2017, just weeks after Trump took office, the New York Times revealed that.
in a last-minute order, outgoing president Obama had vastly expanded the number of government
officials with access to top-secret intelligence data. The Obama administration apparently
sought to ensure a narrative spread that Trump may have colluded with the Russians. The day
following the disclosure, a former Pentagon official, Evelyn Farkas (who might have been a
source for the strange disclosure of a day earlier), explained Obama's desperate eleventh-hour
effort in an MSNBC interview:
I was urging my former colleagues, and, and frankly speaking the people on the Hill . . .
it was more actually aimed at telling the Hill people, get as much information as you can,
get as much intelligence as you can before President Obama leaves the administration.
Because I had a fear that somehow that information would disappear with the senior people
who left so it would be hidden away in the bureaucracy, um, that the [stutters] Trump folks
-- if they found out how we knew what we knew about their [the] Trump staff, dealing
with Russians -- that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we no
longer have access to that intelligence.
So I became very worried because not enough was coming out into the open and I knew that
there was more. We have very good intelligence on Russia, so then I had talked to some of my
former colleagues and I knew that they were also trying to help get information to the
Hill.
Despite media efforts to spin Farkas's disclosure, she was essentially contextualizing how
outgoing Obama officials were worried that the incoming administration would discover their own
past efforts ("sources and methods") to monitor and surveil Trump-campaign officials, and would
seek an accounting. Her worry was not just that the dossier-inspired dirt would not spread
after Trump took office, but that the Obama administration's methods used to thwart Trump might
be disclosed (e.g., " if they found out how we knew what we knew about their [the] Trump
staff, dealing with Russians -- that they would try to compromise those sources and methods,
meaning we no longer have access to that intelligence" ).
So Farkas et al. desperately sought to change the law so that their rumors and narratives
would be so deeply seeded within the administrative state that the collusion narrative would
inevitably lead to Congress and the press, and thereby overshadow any shock at the improper or
illegal methods the Obama-administration officials had authorized to monitor the Trump
campaign.
And Farkas was correct. Even today, urination in a Russian hotel room has overshadowed
perjury traps, warping the FISA courts, illegal leaking, inserting a spy into the Trump
campaign, and Russian collusion with Clinton hireling and foreign agent Christopher Steele.
Samantha Power
We now forget that for some reason, in her last year in office, but especially during and after
the 2016 election, Power, the outgoing U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, reportedly asked
to unmask the names of over 260 Americans picked up in government surveillance. She offered no
real explanations of such requests.
Even stranger than a U.N. ambassador suddenly playing the role of a counterintelligence
officer, Power continued her requests literally until the moments before Trump took office in
January 2017. And, strangest of all, after Power testified before the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee, Representative Trey Gowdy reported that "her testimony is 'they
[the unmasking requests] may be under my name, but I did not make those requests.'"
Who, in the world, then, did make those requests and why and, if true, did she know she was
so being used?
And were some of those unmasking requests leaked, thus helping to fuel media rumors in late
2016 and early 2017 that Trump officials were veritable traitors in league with Russia? And why
were John Brennan, James Clapper, Susan Rice, and Sally Yates reportedly in the last days (or,
in some cases, the last hours) requesting that the names of Americans swept up in surveillance
of others be unmasked? What was the point of it all?
In sum, did a U.N. ambassador let her name be used by aides or associates to spread rumors
throughout the administrative state, and thereby brand them with classified government
authenticity, and then all but ensure they were leaked to the press?
We the public most certainly wondered why the moment Trump was elected, the very name Carter
Page became synonymous with collusion, and soon Michael Flynn went from a respected
high-ranking military official to a near traitor, as both were announced as emblematic of their
erstwhile complicit boss.
Ali Watkins and James Wolf
Watkins was the young reporter for Buzzfeed (which initially leaked the largely fake
Steele dossier and erroneously reported that Michael Cohen would implicate Trump in suborning
perjury) who conducted an affair with James Wolf, a staffer, 30 years her senior, on the Senate
Intelligence Committee.
Wolf, remember, systematically and illegally began leaking information to her that found its
way into sensationalized stories about collusion. But as Margot Cleveland of the
Federalist pointed out, Watkins was also identified by Buzzfeed "in court filings
as one of the individuals who 'conducted newsgathering in connection with the Dossier before
Buzzfeed published the Article' on the dossier. This fact raises the question of whether
Watkins received information from Wolfe concerning the dossier and, if so, what he leaked."
In other words, the dossier was probably planted among U.S. senators and deliberately leaked
through a senior Senate aide, who made sure that the unverified dirt was published by the press
to damage Donald Trump.
And it did all that and more.
The list of these bit players could be easily expanded. These satellites were not
coordinated in some tight-knit vast conspiracy, but rather took their cue from their superiors
and the media to freelance with assumed impunity, as their part in either preventing or ending
a Trump presidency. And no doubt the Left would argue that the sheer number of federal
bureaucrats and political appointees, in a variety of cabinets and agencies, throughout the
legislative and the executive branches, all proves that Trump is culpable of something.
Perhaps. But the most likely explanation is that a progressive administrative state, a
liberal media, and an increasingly radicalized liberal order were terrified by the thought of
an outsider Trump presidency. Therefore, they did what they could, often both unethically and
illegally, to stop his election, and then to subvert his presidency.
In their arrogance, they assumed that their noble professions of higher loyalties and duties
gave them exemption to do what they deemed necessary and patriotic. And others like them will
continue to do so, thereby setting the precedent that unelected federal officials can break the
law or violate any ethical protocols they please -- if they disagree with the ideology of the
commander in chief. We ridicule Trump for going ballistic at each one of these periodically
leaked and planted new stories that raised some new charge about his stupidity, insanity,
incompetence, etc. But no one has before witnessed any president subjected to such a
comprehensive effort of the media, the deep state, political opponents, and his own party
establishment to destroy him.
Subversion is the new political opposition. The nation -- and the Left especially -- will
come to regret the legacy of the foot soldiers of the Resistance in the decades to come.
But Clintons are mobsters in disguise, so what's the difference. Jared Kushner father is as close to a mobster as one can get (hiring a prostitute to compromise relative is one of his tricks)
Notable quotes:
"... Don't ever think the Democratic establishment is your friend. They want you to die in foreign wars and your children to work in starvation-wage service jobs until they're 70 so that the top 0.1% can buy their kids' way into Yale ..."
Don't ever think the Democratic establishment is your friend. They want you to die in foreign wars and your children to
work in starvation-wage service jobs until they're 70 so that the top 0.1% can buy their kids' way into Yale
Navi 9:50 AM - 22 Mar 2019
"It's already happening" while the DCCC is trying their best to stop primary challenges is a little shortsighted no? If you
don't call out what is wrong what are you really 'fixing'? We can walk and chew gum at the same time!
"... Another house manager, Alfredo Rodriguez, told Recarey that very young girls were giving Epstein massages at least twice a day, and in one instance, Epstein had Rodriguez deliver one dozen roses to Mary, at her high school. ..."
"... Palm Beach prosecutors said the evidence was weak, and after presenting the case to a grand jury, Epstein was charged with only one count of felony solicitation of prostitution. In 2008, he pleaded guilty and nominally served 13 months of an 18-month sentence in a county jail: Epstein spent one day a week there, the other six out on "work release." ..."
"... Today, Jeffrey Epstein is a free man, albeit one who routinely settles civil lawsuits against him, brought by young women, out of court. As of 2015, Epstein had settled multiple such cases. ..."
In 2005, the world was introduced to reclusive billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, friend to princes and an American
president, a power broker with the darkest of secrets: He was also a pedophile, accused of recruiting dozens of underage girls into
a sex-slave network, buying their silence and moving along, although he has been convicted of only one count of soliciting prostitution
from a minor. Visitors to his private Caribbean island, known as "Orgy Island," have included Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew and Stephen
Hawking.
According to a 2011 court filing by alleged Epstein victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre, she saw Clinton and Prince Andrew on the
island but never saw the former president do anything improper. Giuffre has accused Prince Andrew of having sex with her when she
was a minor, a charge Buckingham Palace denies.
"Epstein lives less than one mile away from me in Palm Beach," author James Patterson tells The Post. In the 11 years since Epstein
was investigated and charged by the Palm Beach police department, ultimately copping a plea and serving 13 months on one charge of
soliciting prostitution from a 14-year-old girl, Patterson has remained obsessed with the case.
"He's a fascinating character to read about," Patterson says. "What is he thinking? Who is he?"
Patterson's new book,
"Filthy Rich:
A Powerful Billionaire, the Sex Scandal That Undid Him, and All the Justice That Money Can Buy," is an attempt to answer such
questions. Co-authored with John Connolly and Tim Malloy, the book contains detailed police interviews with girls who alleged sexual
abuse by Epstein and others in his circle. Giuffre alleged that Epstein's ex-girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the late media
tycoon Robert Maxwell, abused her. Ghislaine Maxwell has denied allegations of enabling abuse.
Epstein has spent the bulk of his adult life cultivating relationships with the world's most powerful men. Flight logs show that
from 2001 to 2003, Bill Clinton flew on Epstein's private plane, dubbed "The Lolita Express" by the press, 26 times. After Epstein's
arrest in July 2006, federal tax records show Epstein donated $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation that year.
Bill Clinton in 1994. AP
Epstein was also a regular visitor to Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago, and the two were friends. According to the Daily Mail, Trump
was a frequent dinner guest at Epstein's home, which was often full of barely dressed models. In 2003, New York magazine reported
that Trump also attended a dinner party at Epstein's honoring Bill Clinton.
Last year, The Guardian reported that Epstein's "little black book" contained contact numbers for A-listers including Tony Blair,
Naomi Campbell, Dustin Hoffman, Michael Bloomberg and Richard Branson.
In a 2006 court filing, Palm Beach police noted that a search of Epstein's home uncovered two hidden cameras. The Mirror reported
that in 2015, a 6-year-old civil lawsuit filed by "Jane Doe No. 3," believed to be the now-married Giuffre, alleged that Epstein
wired his mansion with hidden cameras, secretly recording orgies involving his prominent friends and underage girls. The ultimate
purpose: blackmail, according to court papers.
Britain's Prince Andrew in 2012 AP
"Jane Doe No. 3" also alleged that she had been forced to have sex with "numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business
executives, a well-known prime minister, and other world leaders."
"We uncovered a lot of details about the police investigation and a lot about the girls, what happened to them, the effect on
their lives," Patterson says.
"The reader has to ask: Was justice done here or not?"
Epstein, now 63, has always been something of an international man of mystery. Born in Brooklyn, he had a middle-class upbringing:
His father worked for the Parks Department, and his parents stressed hard work and education.
'We uncovered a lot of details about the police investigation and a lot about the girls, what happened to them, the effect
on their lives.'
- James Patterson
Epstein was brilliant, skipping two grades and graduating Lafayette High School in 1969. He attended Cooper Union but dropped
out in 1971 and by 1973 was teaching calculus and physics at Dalton, where he tutored the son of a Bear Stearns exec. Soon, Epstein
applied his facility with numbers on Wall Street but left Bear Stearns under a cloud in 1981. He formed his own business, J. Epstein
& Co.
The bar for entry at the new firm was high. According to a 2002 profile in New York magazine, Epstein only took on clients who
turned over $1 billion, at minimum, for him to manage. Clients also had to pay a flat fee and sign power of attorney over to Epstein,
allowing him to do whatever he saw fit with their money.
Still, no one knew exactly what Epstein did, or how he was able to amass a personal billion-dollar-plus fortune. In addition to
a block-long, nine-story mansion on Manhattan's Upper East Side, Epstein owns the $6.8 million mansion in Palm Beach, an $18 million
property in New Mexico, the 70-acre private Caribbean island, a helicopter, a Gulfstream IV and a Boeing 727.
"My belief is that Jeff maintains some sort of money-management firm, though you won't get a straight answer from him," one high-level
investor told New York magazine. "He once told me he had 300 people working for him, and I've also heard that he manages Rockefeller
money. But one never knows. It's like looking at the Wizard of Oz -- there may be less there than meets the eye."
Jeffrey Epstein's Palm Beach home Splash News
"He's very enigmatic," Rosa Monckton told Vanity Fair in 2003. Monckton was the former British CEO of Tiffany & Co. and confidante
to the late Princess Diana. She was also a close friend of Epstein's since the 1980s. "He never reveals his hand . . . He's a classic
iceberg. What you see is not what you get."
Both profiles intimated that Epstein had a predilection for young women but never went further. In the New York magazine piece,
Trump said Epstein's self-professed image as a loner, an egghead and a teetotaler was not wholly accurate.
Donald Trump in 1990 AP
"I've known Jeff for 15 years," Trump said. "Terrific guy. He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful
women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it -- Jeffrey enjoys his social life."
Three years after that profile ran, Palm Beach Police Officer Michele Pagan got a disturbing message. A woman reported that her
14-year-old stepdaughter confided to a friend that she'd had sex with an older man for money. The man's name was Jeff, and he lived
in a mansion on a cul-de-sac.
Pagan persuaded the woman to bring her stepdaughter down to be interviewed. In his book, Patterson calls the girl Mary. And Mary,
like so many of the other girls who eventually talked, came from the little-known working-class areas surrounding Palm Beach.
A friend of a friend, Mary said, told her she could make hundreds of dollars in one hour, just for massaging some middle-aged
guy's feet. Lots of other girls had been doing it, some three times a week.
Mary claimed she had been driven to the mansion on El Brillo Way, where a female staffer escorted her up a pink-carpeted staircase,
then into a room with a massage table, an armoire topped with sex toys and a photo of a little girl pulling her underwear off.
Ghislaine Maxwell Getty Images
Epstein entered the room, wearing only a towel, Mary said.
"He took off the towel," Mary told Pagan. "He was a really built guy. But his wee-wee was very tiny."
Mary said Epstein got on the table and barked orders at her. She told police she was alone in the room with him, terrified.
Pagan wrote the following in her incident report:
"She removed her pants, leaving her thong panties on. She straddled his back, whereby her exposed buttocks were touching Epstein's
exposed buttocks. Epstein then turned to his side and started to rub his penis in an up-and-down motion. Epstein pulled out a purple
vibrator and began to massage Mary's vaginal area."
Palm Beach assigned six more detectives to the investigation. They conducted a "trash pull" of Epstein's garbage, sifting through
paper with phone numbers, used condoms, toothbrushes, worn underwear. In one pull, police found a piece of paper with Mary's phone
number on it, along with the number of the person who recruited her.
On Sept. 11, 2005, detectives got another break. Alison, as she's called in the book, told Detective Joe Recarey that she had
been going to Epstein's house since she was 16. Alison had been working at the Wellington Green Mall, saving up for a trip to Maine,
when a friend told her, "You can get a plane ticket in two hours . . . We can go give this guy a massage and he'll pay $200," according
to her statement to the police.
Alison told Recarey that she visited Epstein hundreds of times. She said he had bought her a new 2005 Dodge Neon, plane tickets,
and gave her spending money. Alison said he even asked her to emancipate from her parents so she could live with him full-time as
his "sex slave."
She said Epstein slowly escalated his sexual requests, and despite Alison's insistence that they never have intercourse, alleged,
"This one time . . . he bent me over the table and put himself in me. Without my permission."
Alison then asked if what Epstein had done to her was rape and spoke of her abject fear of him.
An abridged version of her witness statement, as recounted in the book:
Alison : Before I say anything else . . . um, is there a possibility that I'm gonna have to go to court or anything?
Recarey : I mean, what he did to you is a crime. I'm not gonna lie to you.
Alison : Would you consider it rape, what he did?
Recarey : If he put himself inside you without permission . . . That, that is a crime. That is a crime.
Alison : I don't want my family to find out about this . . . 'Cause Jeffrey's gonna get me. You guys realize that, right? . . . I'm
not safe now. I'm not safe.
Recarey : Why do you say you're not safe? Has he said he's hurt people before?
Alison : Well, I've heard him make threats to people on the telephone, yeah. Of course.
Recarey : You're gonna die? You're gonna break your legs? Or --
Alison : All of the above!
Alison also told Recarey that Epstein got so violent with her that he ripped out her hair and threw her around. "I mean," she
said, "there's been nights that I walked out of there barely able to walk, um, from him being so rough."
Two months later, Recarey interviewed Epstein's former house manager of 11 years, documented in his probable-cause affidavit as
Mr. Alessi. "Alessi stated Epstein receives three massages a day . . . towards the end of his employment, the masseuses . . . appeared
to be 16 or 17 years of age at the most . . . [Alessi] would have to wash off a massager/vibrator and a long rubber penis, which
were in the sink after the massage."
Another house manager, Alfredo Rodriguez, told Recarey that very young girls were giving Epstein massages at least twice a
day, and in one instance, Epstein had Rodriguez deliver one dozen roses to Mary, at her high school.
In May 2006, the Palm Beach Police Department filed a probable-cause affidavit, asking prosecutors to charge Epstein with four
counts of unlawful sexual activity with a minor -- a second-degree felony -- and one count of lewd and lascivious molestation of
a 14-year-old minor, also a second-degree felony.
Today, Jeffrey Epstein is a free man, albeit one who routinely settles civil lawsuits against him, brought by young women,
out of court.
Palm Beach prosecutors said the evidence was weak, and after presenting the case to a grand jury, Epstein was charged with
only one count of felony solicitation of prostitution. In 2008, he pleaded guilty and nominally served 13 months of an 18-month sentence
in a county jail: Epstein spent one day a week there, the other six out on "work release."
Today, Jeffrey Epstein is a free man, albeit one who routinely settles civil lawsuits against him, brought by young women,
out of court. As of 2015, Epstein had settled multiple such cases.
Giuffre has sued Ghislaine Maxwell in Manhattan federal court, charging defamation -- saying Maxwell stated Giuffre lied about
Maxwell's recruitment of her and other underage girls. Epstein has been called upon to testify in court this month, on Oct. 20.
The true number of Epstein's victims may never be known.
He will be a registered sex offender for the rest of his life, not that it fazes him. "I'm not a sexual predator, I'm an 'offender,' "
Epstein told The Post in 2011. "It's the difference between a murderer and a person who steals a bagel."
Yves here. This post focuses on an important slice of history in what "freedom" has meant in
political discourse in the US. But I wish it had at least mentioned how a well-funded, then
extreme right wing effort launched an open-ended campaign to render US values more friendly to
business. They explicitly sought to undo New Deal programs and weaken or end other social
safety nets. Nixon Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell codified the strategy for this initiative
in the so-called Powell Memo of 1971.
One of the most effective spokesmen for this libertarian program was Milton Friedman, whose
bestseller Free to Choose became the foundation for a ten-part TV series.
America is having a heated debate about the meaning of the word socialism . We'd be
better served if, instead, we were debating the meaning of freedom .
The
Oregonian reported last week that fully 156,000 families are on the edge of homelessness in
our small-population state. Every one of those households is now paying more than 50 percent of
its monthly income on rent, and none of them has any savings; one medical bill, major car repair
or job loss, and they're on the streets.
While socialism may or may not solve their problem, the more pressing issue we have is an
entire political party and a huge sector of the billionaire class who see homelessness not as a
problem, but as a symptom of a "free" society.
The words freedom and liberty are iconic in American culture -- probably more so than with
any other nation because they're so intrinsic to the literature, declarations and slogans of our
nation's founding.
The irony -- of the nation founded on the world's greatest known genocide (the systematic
state murder of tens of millions of Native Americans) and over three centuries of legalized
slavery and a century and a half of oppression and exploitation of the descendants of those
slaves -- is extraordinary. It presses us all to bring true freedom and liberty to all
Americans.
But what do those words mean?
If you ask the Koch brothers and their buddies -- who slap those words on pretty much
everything they do -- you'd get a definition that largely has to do with being "free" from
taxation and regulation. And, truth be told, if you're morbidly rich, that makes a certain amount
of sense, particularly if your main goal is to get richer and richer, regardless of your
behavior's impact on working-class people, the environment, or the ability of government to
function.
On the other hand, the definition of freedom and liberty that's been embraced by so-called
"democratic socialist" countries -- from Canada to almost all of Europe to Japan and Australia --
you'd hear a definition that's closer to that articulated by Franklin D. Roosevelt when he
proposed, in January 1944, a " second Bill
of Rights " to be added to our Constitution.
FDR's proposed amendments included the right to a job, and the right to be paid enough to
live comfortably; the right to "adequate food and clothing and recreation"; the right to start a
business and run it without worrying about "unfair competition and domination by monopolies"; the
right "of every family to a decent home"; the right to "adequate medical care to achieve and
enjoy good health"; the right to government-based "protection from the economic fears of old age,
sickness, accident, and unemployment"; and the right "to a good education."
Roosevelt pointed out that, "All of these rights spell security." He added, "America's own
rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have
been carried into practice for our citizens. For unless there is security here at home there
cannot be lasting peace in the world."
The other nations mentioned earlier took President Roosevelt's advice to heart. Progressive
"social democracy" has kept Europe, Canada, and the developed nations of the East and South
Pacific free of war for almost a century -- a mind-boggling feat when considering the history of
the developed world since the 1500s.
Just prior to FDR winning the White House in the election of 1932, the nation had been
treated to 12 years of a bizarre Republican administration that was the model for today's GOP. In
1920, Warren Harding won the presidency on a campaign of "more industry in government, less
government in industry" -- privatize and deregulate -- and a promise to drop the top tax rate of
91 percent down to 25 percent.
He kept both promises, putting the nation into a sugar-high spin called the Roaring '20s,
where the rich got fabulously rich and working-class people were being beaten and murdered by
industrialists when they tried to unionize. Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover (the three Republican
presidents from 1920 to 1932) all cheered on the assaults, using phrases like "the right to work"
to describe a union-free nation.
In the end, the result of the "
horses and sparrows " economics advocated by Harding ("feed more oats to the horses and
there'll be more oats in the horse poop to fatten the sparrows" -- that generation's version of
trickle-down economics) was the Republican Great Depression (yes, they called it that until after
World War II).
Even though Roosevelt was fabulously popular -- the only president to be elected four times --
the right-wingers of his day were loud and outspoken in their protests of what they called
"socialist" programs like Social Security, the right to unionize, and government-guaranteed job
programs including the WPA, REA, CCC, and others.
The Klan and American Nazis were assembling by the hundreds of thousands nationwide -- nearly
30,000 in Madison Square Garden
alone -- encouraged by wealthy and powerful "economic royalists" preaching "freedom" and "
liberty ." Like the Kochs' Freedomworks , that generation's huge and well-funded
(principally by the DuPonts' chemical fortune) organization was the Liberty League .
Roosevelt's generation had seen the results of this kind of hard-right "freedom" rhetoric in
Italy, Spain, Japan and Germany, the very nations with which we were then at war.
Speaking of "the grave dangers of 'rightist reaction' in this Nation," Roosevelt told America in that same speech that: "[I]f
history were to repeat itself and we were to return to the so-called 'normalcy' of the 1920s --
then it is certain that even though we shall have conquered our enemies on the battlefields
abroad, we shall have yielded to the spirit of Fascism here at home."
Although right-wingers are still working hard to disassemble FDR's New Deal -- the GOP budget
for 2019 contains massive cuts to Social Security, as well as to Medicare and Medicaid -- we got
halfway toward his notion of freedom and liberty here in the United States:
You're not free if
you're old and deep in poverty, so we have Social Security (although the GOP wants to gut it).
You're not free if you're hungry, so we have food stamps/SNAP (although the GOP wants to gut
them). You're not free if you're homeless, so we have housing assistance and homeless shelters
(although the GOP fights every effort to help homeless people). You're not free if you're sick
and can't get medical care, so we have Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare (although the GOP wants
to gut them all). You're not free if you're working more than 40 hours a week and still can't
meet basic expenses, so we have minimum wage laws and the right to unionize (although the GOP
wants to gut both). You're not free if you can't read, so we have free public schools (although
the GOP is actively working to gut them). You're not free if you can't vote, so we've passed
numerous laws to guarantee the right to vote (although the GOP is doing everything it can to keep
tens of millions of Americans from voting).
The billionaire class and their wholly owned Republican politicians keep trying to tell us
that "freedom" means the government doesn't provide any of the things listed above.
Instead, they tell us (as Ron Paul famously did in a GOP primary debate years ago) that, if we're
broke and sick, we're "free" to die like a feral dog in the gutter.
Freedom is homelessness, in the minds of the billionaires who own the GOP.
Poverty, lack of education, no access to health care, poor-paying jobs, and barriers to voting
are all proof of a free society, they tell us, which is why America's lowest life expectancy,
highest maternal and childhood death rates, lowest levels of education, and lowest pay
are almost all in GOP-controlled states .
America -- particularly the Democratic Party -- is engaged in a debate right now about the
meaning of socialism . It would be a big help for all of us if we were, instead, to have
an honest debate about the meaning of the words freedom and liberty .
Let us not forget the other propaganda arm of Republican party and big money- Fox news. They
spew the freedom nonsense while not adhering to any definition of the word.
I worked in the midwest as an Engineer in the 90s to early 2000s and saw plants being
gutted/shifted overseas, Union influence curtailed and mid level and bottom pay stay flat for
decades; all in the name of free market.
Sadly the same families that are the worst affected vote Republican! But we know all this
and have known it for a while. What will change?
The intro to this post is spot on. The Powell memo outlined a strategy for a corporate
coup d'eta. Is was completely successful. Now that the business class rules America, their only
vision is to continue the quest and cannibalize the country and enslave its people by any means
possible. What tools do they use to achieve these ends? -- debt, fear, violence and pandering
to human vanity as a motivator. Again, very successful.
Instead of honest public debate- which is impossible when undertaken with liars and thieves,
a good old manifesto or pamphlet like Common Sense is in order. Something calling out concrete
action that can be taken by commoners to regain their social respect and power. That should
scare the living daylights out of the complacent and smug elite.
Its that, or a lot of public infrastructure is gong to be broken up by the mob- which
doesn't work out in the long run. The nations that learn to work with and inspire their
populations will prosper- the rest will have a hard time of it. Look no further than America's
fall.
This piece raises some important points, but aims too narrowly at one political party,
when the D-party has also been complicit in sharing the framing of "freedom" as less
government/regulation/taxation. After all, it was the Clinton administration that did welfare
"reform", deregulation of finance, and declared the end of the era of "big government", and
both Clinton and Obama showed willingness to cut Social Security and Medicare in a "grand
bargain".
If in place of "the GOP," the author had written, "The national Democratic and Republican
parties over the past fifty years," his claim would be much more accurate. To believe what he
says about "the GOP," you have to pretend that Clinton, and Obama, and Pelosi, and Schumer, and
Feinstein simply don't exist and never did. The author's implicit valorization of Obamacare is
even more disheartening.
But perhaps this is the *point* of the piece after all? If I were a consultant to the DNC
(and I make less than $100,000/yr so I am clearly not), I would advocate that they commission,
underscore, and reward pieces exactly like this one. For the smartest ones surely grasp that
the rightist oligarchic policy takeover has in fact happened, and that it has left in its wake
millions of disaffected, indebted, uneducated, uninsured Americans.
(Suggesting that it hadn't was the worst idiocy of Clinton's 2016 campaign. It would have
been much better had she admitted it and blamed it on the Republican Senate while holding dear
old Obama up as a hamstrung martyr for the cause. I mean, this is what everybody at DailyKos
already believes, and the masses -- being poor and uneducated and desperate -- can be brought
around to believe anything, or anyway, enough of them can be.)
I would advocate that the DNC double down on its rightful claims to Roosevelt's inheritance,
embrace phrases like "social democracy" and "freedom from economic insecurity," and shift
leftward in all its official rhetoric. Admit the evisceration of the Roosevelt tradition, but
blame it all on the GOP. Maybe *maybe* even acknowledge that past Democratic leaders were a
little naive and idealistic in their pursuit of bipartisanship, and did not understand the
truly horrible intentions of the GOP. But today's Democrats are committed to wresting back the
rights of the people from the evil clutches of the Koch Republicans. This sort of thing.
Would my advice be followed? Or would the *really* smart ones in the room demure? If so, why
do you think they would?
In short, I read this piece as one stage in an ongoing dialectic in the Democratic Party in
the run-up to the 2020 election wherein party leaders try to determine how leftward its
"official" rhetoric is able to sway before becoming *so* unbelievable (in light of historical
facts) that it cannot serve as effective propaganda -- even among Americans!
Team Blue elites are the children of Bill Clinton and the Third Way, so the echo chamber was
probably terrible. Was Bill Clinton a bad President? He was the greatest Republican President!
The perception of this answer is a key. Who rose and joined Team Blue through this run? Many
Democrats don't recognize this, or they don't want to rock the boat. This is the structural
problem with Team Blue. The "generic Democrat" is AOC, Omar, Sanders, Warren, and a handful of
others.
Can the Team Blue elites embrace a Roosevelt identity? The answer is no. Their ideology is
so wildly divergent they can't adjust without a whole sale conversion.
More succinctly, the Third Way isn't about helping Democrats win by accepting not every
battle can be won. Its about advancing right wing politics and pretending this isn't what its
about. If they are too clear about good policy, they will be accused of betrayal.
This article makes me wonder if the GOP is still a political party anymore. I know, I know,
they have the party structure, the candidates, the budget and all the rest of it but when you
look at their policies and what they are trying to do, the question does arise. Are they doing
it because this is what they believe is their identity as a party or is it that they are simply
a vehicle with the billionaires doing the real driving and recruiting? An obvious point is that
among billionaires, they see no need to form their own political party which should be telling
clue. Certainly the Democrats are no better.
Maybe the question that American should ask themselves is just what does it mean to be an
American in the year 2020? People like Norman Rockwell and his Four Freedoms could have said a
lot of what it meant some 60 years ago and his work has been updated to reflect the modern era
( https://www.galeriemagazine.com/norman-rockwell-four-freedoms-modern/
) but the long and the short of it is that things are no longer working for most people anymore
-- and not just in America. But a powerful spring can only be pushed back and held in place for
so long before there is a rebound effect and I believe that I am seeing signs of this the past
few years.
" a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be
established for all -- regardless of station, race, or creed.
Among these are:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of
the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and
his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from
unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and
unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security."
America is having a heated debate about the meaning of the word socialism. We'd be better
served if, instead, we were debating the meaning of freedom.
I agree, and we should also be having a debate about capitalism as it actually exists. In
the US capitalism is always talked about in rosy non-specific terms (e.g. a preference for
markets or support for entrepreneurship) while anybody who says they don't necessarily support
capitalism has to answer for Stalin's gulag's or the Khmer Rouge. All the inequalities and
injustices that have helped people like Howard Schultz or Jeff Bezos become billionaire
capitalists somehow aren't part of capitalism, just different problems to be solved somehow but
definitely not by questioning capitalism.
Last night I watched the HBO documentary on Elizabeth Holmes and Theranos and I couldn't
help but laugh at all these powerful politicians, investors, and legal giants going along with
someone who never once demonstrated or even explained how her groundbreaking innovation
actually worked. $900 million was poured into that company before people realized something
that a Stanford professor interviewed in the documentary saw when she first met Holmes.
Fracking companies have been able to consistently raise funding despite consistently losing
money and destroying the environment in the process. Bank balance sheets were protected while
working people lost everything in the name of preserving American capitalism. I think it's good
to debate socialism and capitalism, but there's not really any point if we aren't going to be
talking about Actually Existing Capitalism rather than the hypothetical version that's trotted
out anytime someone suggests an alternative.
There was a great comment here on NC a little while ago, something to the effect of
"capitalism has the logic of a cancer cell. It's a pile of money whose only goal is to become a
bigger pile of money." Of course good things can happen as a side effect of it becoming a
bigger pile of money: innovation, efficiencies, improved standard of living, etc. but we need
government (not industry) regulation to keep the bad side effects of capitalism in check (like
the cancer eventually killing its host).
Shoot, must have missed that comment but it's a good metaphor. Reminds me of Capital vol. 1,
which Marx starts with a long and dense treatment of the nature of commodities and
commodification in order to capture this process whereby capitalists produce things people
really do want or need in order to get at what they really want: return on their
investment.
I also agree but I think we need to have a the same heated debate over what capitalism
means. Over the years I have been subjected to (exposed) to more flavors of socialism than I
can count. Yet, other than an introductory economics class way back when, no debatable words
about what 'capitalism' is seems to get attention. Maybe it's time to do that and hope that
some agreeable definition of 'freedom' falls out.
of course maybe socialism is the only thing that ever really could solve homelessness, given
that it seems to be at this point a worldwide problem, although better some places than others
(like the U.S. and UK).
This article lets the Dems off the hook. They have actively supported the Billionaire
Agenda for decades now; sometimes actively (like when they helped gut welfare) and sometimes by
enabling Repubs objectives (like voter suppression).
At this point in time, the Dem leadership is working to deep six Medicare for All.
With 'friends' like the Dems, who needs the Repubs?
1) In the history, a mention of the attempted coup against FDR would be good. See The
Plot to Seize the White House by Jules Archer. ( Amazon link )
2) For the contemporary intellectual history, I really appreciated Nancy MacLean's
Democracy in Chains . ( Amazon
link ) Look her up on youtube or Democracy Now . Her book got a bit of press and she
interviews well.
This post seems heavily slanted against the GOP and does not take into account how
pro-business the Democrats have become. I tenuously agree with Yves intro that much of the
current pro business value system campaign in the US was started with the political far right
and the Lewis Powell Memo. And that campaign kicked into high gear during the Reagan
Presidency.
But as that "pro business campaign" gained steam, the Democratic Party, IMO, realized that
they could partake in the "riches" as well and sold their political soul for a piece of the
action. Hartman's quote about the billionaire class should include their "wholly owned
Republicans and Democrat politicians".
As Lambert mentions (paraphrasing), "The left puts the working class first. Both liberals
and conservatives put markets first, liberals with many more layers of indirection (e.g.,
complex eligibility requirements, credentialing) because that creates niches from which their
professional base benefits".
As an aside, while the pro-business/capitalism on steroids people have sought more
"freedom", they have made the US and the world less free for the rest of us.
Also the over focusing on freedom is not uniquely GOP. As Hartman mentions, "the words
freedom and liberty are iconic in American culture -- probably more so than with any other
nation because they're so intrinsic to the literature, declarations and slogans of our nation's
founding." US culture has taken the concept of freedom to an extreme version of
individualism.
That is not surprising given our history.
The DRD4 gene is a dopamine receptor gene. One stretch of the gene is repeated a variable
number of times, and the version with seven repeats (the "7R" form) produces a receptor protein
that is relatively unresponsive to dopamine. Being unresponsive to dopamine means that people
who have this gene have a host of related traits -- sensation and novelty seeking, risk taking,
impulsivity, and, probably most consistently, ADHD. -- -- Seems like the type of people that
would value extreme (i.e. non-collective) forms of freedom
The United States is the individualism poster child for at least two reasons. First
there's immigration. Currently, 12 percent of Americans are immigrants, another 12 percent are
children of immigrants, and everyone else except for the 0.9 percent pure Native Americans
descend from people who emigrated within the last five hundred years.
And who were the immigrants?' Those in the settled world who were cranks, malcontents,
restless, heretical, black sheep, hyperactive, hypomanic, misanthropic, itchy, unconventional,
yearning to be free, yearning to be rich, yearning to be out of their, damn boring repressive
little hamlet, yearning. -- -- Again seems like the type of people that would value freedom in
all aspects of life and not be interested in collectivism
Couple that with the second reason -- for the majority of its colonial and independent
history, America has had a moving frontier luring those whose extreme prickly optimism made
merely booking passage to the New World insufficiently, novel -- and you've got America the
individualistic.
The 7R variant mentioned above occurs in about 23 percent of Europeans and European
Americans. And in East Asians? 1 percent. When East Asians domesticated rice and invented
collectivist society, there was massive selection against the 7R variant. Regardless of the
cause, East Asian cultural collectivism coevolved with selection against the 7R variant.
So which came first, 7R frequency or cultural style? The 4R and 7R variants, along with the
2R, occur worldwide, implying they already existed when humans radiated out of Africa 60,000 to
130,000 years ago. A high incidence of 7R, associated with impulsivity and novelty seeking, is
the legacy of humans who made the greatest migrations in human history.
So it seems that many of the people who immigrated to the US were impulsive, novelty
seeking, risk takers. As a counterpoint, many people that migrated to the US did not do so by
choice but were forced from their homes and their countries by wars.
The point of this long comment is that for some people the concept of freedom can be taken
to extreme -- a lack of gun control laws, financial regulation, extremes of wealth, etc. After
a brief period in the 1940's, 1950's, and early 1960's when the US was more collective, we
became greedy, consumerist, and consumption oriented, aided by the political and business
elites as mentioned in the post.
If we want the US to be a more collective society we have to initially do so in our
behaviors i.e. laws and regulations that rein in the people who would take the concept of
freedom to an extreme. Then maybe over an evolutionary time period some of the move impulsive,
sensation seeking, ADHDness, genes can be altered to a more balance mix of what makes the US
great with more of the collective genes.
IMO, if we do not begin to work on becoming a collective culture now, then climate change,
water scarcity, food scarcity, and resource scarcity will do it for us the hard way.
In these days of short attention spans I apologize for the long comment. The rest of my day
is busy and I do not have more time to shorten the comment. I wanted to develop an argument for
how the evolutionary and dysfunctional forms of freedom have gotten us to this point. And what
we need to do to still have some freedom but also "play nice and share in the future sandbox of
climate change and post fossil fuel society.
Epstein, a billionaire and friend of the Clintons (Bill Clinton flew on his "Lolita
Express" Boeing 727 jet dozens of times), was convicted of soliciting an underage girl for
prostitution. Published
The legal team for Attorney Alan Dershowitz has cautioned against press access to a hearing
regarding his former client and associate, convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein – who was
given a slap on the wrist in 2008 by then-US Attorney for southern Florida (and current Labor
Secretary) Alex Acosta. Epstein, who reportedly has an egg shaped penis , sexually abused dozens of underage girls
in his Palm Beach mansion, while Acosta is under fire separately of the sealed records
appeal.
Epstein, a billionaire and friend of the Clintons (Bill Clinton flew on his "Lolita Express"
Boeing 727 jet dozens of
times ), was convicted of soliciting an underage girl for prostitution – on of two
counts for which he served 13 months in "custody with work release."
Epstein, now 66, reached the deal in 2008 with then-Miami U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta's
office to end the federal probe that could have landed him in prison for life. Epstein
instead pleaded guilty to lesser state charges, spent 13 months in jail, paid financial
settlements to victims and is a registered sex offender. – Time
Background facts from 2/21/2019 ruling in Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 vs. United States
The sealed records appeal relates to a 2015 defamation lawsuit in New York brought by
Epstein victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre against British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell. Giuffre
says Maxwell helped Epstein traffic herself and other underage girls to sex parties at the
billionaire pedophile's many residences. The case was settled in 2017 and the records were
sealed – leading to an appeal by the Miami Herald and several other parties seeking to
make them public in the hopes of shedding more light on the scope of Epstein's crimes –
along with determining who else was involved and whether any undue influence tainted the case
.
Dershowitz's attorney asked a New York judge whether the media should be barred from
Wednesday's hearing in the US District Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, since " his
oral arguments on behalf of his client could contain sensitive information that has been under
seal ," reports the Miami Herald 's
Julie K. Brown.
The appeals court had not responded to his concern as of Friday, but if the hearing is
closed during his lawyer's argument, it would represent the latest in a long history of
successful efforts to keep details of Epstein's sex crimes sealed .
Two women -- one of whom was underage -- have said Epstein and his partner, British
socialite and environmentalist Ghislaine Maxwell, directed them to have sex with Dershowitz,
80, and other wealthy, powerful men. Dershowitz and Maxwell have denied the claim s. –
Miami
Herald
Dershowitz – having been publicly implicated in Epstein's crimes by Giuffre, attempted
to have the judge to unseal certain records in the case which he claims will exonerate him.
Conservative pundit Mike Cernovich, a Dershowitz associate, also filed a motion to release some
of the sealed documents. Both requests were denied in 2016, as the case (which settled in 2017)
was ongoing, with the judge citing the need to avoid taining a potential jury pool.
After the case was settled, the Herald filed a more extensive motion, arguing that with
the case now closed, all the documents should be made public. The motion, filed in April
2018, came as the Herald was working on an investigative series, Perversion of Justice ,
which detailed how Epstein and his lawyers manipulated federal prosecutors to obtain one of
the most lenient sentences for a child sex offender in history.
Dershowitz's lawyer, Andrew G. Celli Jr., emphasized to the Herald that Dershowitz is not
trying to ban the media from the proceeding; he is simply giving the court a heads up that
his arguments could include information that has never been made public because it's under
seal. – Miami
Herald
"What the letter says very clearly is we intend to make reference to the sealed material in
open court, so we want to notify the judges that this is my intention to make my arguments,"
said Dershowitz attorney, Andrew Celli. "We want the courtroom to be open so long as we can
argue the substance of what we want to unseal."
HealthcareHot TopicsPoliticsUS/Global Economics Brad DeLong got
a huge amount of attention by saying it was time for neoliberals such as Brad DeLong to pass
the baton to those to their left. Alarmingly, he seems to have written this first on twitter.
Zach Beuchamp rescued it from tawdry twitter to now very respectable blogosphere with
an interview.
One interesting aspect is that Brad has very little criticism of 90s era Brad's policy
proposals. Basically, the argument is that Democrats must stick together, because Republicans
are purely partisan and no compromise with them is possible. I absolutely agree with Brad on
this.
But I also want to look at criticisms of Clinton/Obama center left policy as policy.
Brad tries to come up with 2 examples
I could be confident in 2005 that [recession] stabilization should be the responsibility
of the Federal Reserve. That you look at something like laser-eye surgery or rapid
technological progress in hearing aids, you can kind of think that keeping a market in the
most innovative parts of health care would be a good thing. So something like an
insurance-plus-exchange system would be a good thing to have in America as a whole.
It's much harder to believe in those things now. That's one part of it. The world appears
to be more like what lefties thought it was than what I thought it was for the last 10 or 15
years.
Now monetary vs fiscal policy is only considered right vs left because of the prominence and
fanaticism of Milton Friedman. Is see no connection between laser eye surgery, hearing aids,
and private health insurance. Medicare for all is not a National Health Service (note I am not
conceding that a national health service would be bad for medical innovation). Brad did not
advocate insurance/plus/exchange system in 1993. He (and Bentson, Summers and Rubin) advocated
a payroll tax financed system not the Clinton-Clinton and Magaziner mess. I think he is
stretching to get a second example.
I think the first isn't really left vs right and the second is and always was a bad
political calculation. IIRC Obama certainly said that he thought single payer was better policy
but politically impossible. That was the general line on the center left wonkosphere. I think
the case for insurance-plus-exchange was at most a bad political argument disguised as a bad
policy argument.
In another twitter thread (no not the one where he says twitter is a horrible medium for
serious discussion) Paul Krugman comments
I want to focus on two of his tweets
Last point: wages. Here's where research has convinced me and others that wages are much
less determined by supply and demand, much more determined by market power, than we used to
believe. This implies a much bigger role for "predistribution" policies like minimum wage
hikes 10/
Pro-union policies, and more than we used to think. "Let the market do its thing, but
spend more on education/training and a bigger EITC" no longer sounds like wisdom 11/
I listed this as the one economist's mea culpa based on empirical evidence which came to my
mind. A lot of center left economists used to oppose minimum wage increases and were convinced
by empirical evidence (mostly by Card and Krueger) that this is actually good policy. But I
don't see any problem with the EITC. Rather, economics 101 based arguments against the minimum
wage and unions have been undermined by evidence*.
I think Krugman's problem with "a bigger EITC" is political. It appears on the Federal
budget so deficit hawks won't allow a really huge increase. In contrast, people can think firms
pay the minimum wage, so increasing it sounds like a cheap way to help the working poor.
More generally, I don't see any reason to abandone redistribution (like the EITC). In fact,
I think that is both excellent policy and political dynamite. I note that Bill Clinton and
Barack Obama campaigned promising to raise taxes on the rich and cut taxes on everyone else.
Also they won. Other Democrats didn't promise that and they lost. A more progressive income tax
is a relatively market respecting policy long supported by left of center economists. Oh and
also Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. I don't think there is any evidence against the Clinton 1993 tax
increase combined with EITC increase.
The fact that it is totally obvious that it is good politics (rejected absolutely by the
Republican party and supported by most self identified Republicans) doesn't mean that it is too
obvious to stress. It means debating redistribution vs predistribution is a distraction
(which
one here is not like the others) ?
I personally have criticisms of Bill Clinton type neoliberalism after the jump
OK so what can I add ?
I could bring up a really bad Clinton administration policy proposal based on neoliberalism:
financial deregulation, and, in particular, Clinton's last act signing the commodity futures
modernization act. This was absolutely policy based on pro free market beliefs of people who
cared about fighting poverty (Rubin himself was a relative skeptic compared to other people and
the Clinton Treasury whom I will not name and criticize).
I won't discuss welfare reform or the Clinton crime bill. Both were opposed by the center
left wonks. That was politics not policy.
But there was strong support among neoliberal wonks for reinventing government, that is for
outsourcing and replacing public provision of services with vouchers. There clearly was a
strong view that the private sector is more efficient than the public sector. There was I think
sincere support for reducing the number of Federal employees.
I think there is now strong evidence that the public sector is often more efficient than the
private sector. Part of the case was politics disguised as policy. Voters hate the bloated
Federal Bureacuracy (based on total fantasy about its size and cost). There is a theoretical
argument that civil servants don't work because it is very hard to fire them. In fact, they do
work. This is a failure of vulgar economics 101 in which people are assumed to care only about
consumption and leisure.
In contrast there are huge problems with contracting out to private firms. The incentives
civil servants face is enough to overcome the laziness of people less lazy than me (almost
everyone) but it is nothing compared to the incentives private contractors have to take
advantage of the government. What I always say is that a large state is costly, but the cost
depends on the surface area -- it is very costly for the state for modestly paid civil servants
negotiate with businessmen and highly paid private managers (before going out the revolving
door). Reinventing government makes it more costly. The key example is not a Clinton reform
(although Clinton reluctantly signed the bill) Medicare Advantage was supposed to cause
Medicare to wither on the vine because the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)
couldn't compete with private insurance. By 2010 defenders of private insurance (crucially
including Joe Lieberman) were absolutely determined to prevent the CMS from competing with
private insurance, because they knew private insurance companies couldn't survive the
competition.
Also school vouchers have been shown to have large negative
effects on achievement.
I'd say considerable evidence of positive long term effects of welfare programs has
accumulated. The assumption based on economimics 101 that welfare reduces pre-transfer income
by distorting incentives has not fared so well. The evidence tends to suggest direct benefits.
I promised not to discuss this one, because I am sure that welfare reform was based on
political calculations not bad policy analysis (it was not a policy of the Rubin wing of the
party -- Rubin advised Clinton to veto the bill).
Now on another topic. How about winning elections. Isn't that important too ?
In the interview, Brad discusses policy and parliamentary (in the USA Congressional)
politics. He could also argue about electoral politics and say Democrats have to move left to
win elections. In any case I will argue that.
Brad's argument is distantly related to the mobilize the base vs capture the center
political strategies. He doesn't stress this in the twitter thread or the interview, but he
could discuss voters and how few genuinely indpendent voters there are. Like me, he can vividly
recall the 80s when lots of smart Democrats (and also Robert Waldmann) argued that the party
had to move rightward to recapture the center. I recall reading something by Robert Kuttner
about what the party needed was left populism and this was blocked by the power of money in the
Democratic party (think Bernie Sanders back when Sanders was mayor of Burlington). When I first
read that, I thought it was crazy. Now I think it is totally right. Also note that, by
promoting the internet, Al Gore saved the party from centrists like Al Gore. Now candidates and
candidate-candidates can raise huge amounts of money with small donations and don't have to get
along with and flatter rich people. Obama proved this 8 years before Sanders proved it
again.
There are fewer swing voters and much less ticket splitting than their used to be. This
means that elections are determined mainly by whether young people vote. Sneering and
Alexandria Ocasio Cortez is not good political strategy (also unwise unless one is a smart as
she is and few people are).
* I have to say what I think of unions there was a liberaltarian argument that unions help
insiders and create inequality (and support racial segregation). Also it was argued that unions
prevented productivity growth by featherbeading and generally being rigid. These claims were
never supported by evidence (empirically oriented labor economists like Richard Friedman always
contested them}. In any case, the extreme decline of unions in the USA provides strong evidence
that unions weren't the problem. They declined at the same time that there was a huge increase
in inequality (there has also been an increase in racial wage differentials). Also their
decline correlated with a marked decline in the rate of productivity growth. This is crude
evidence, but detailed evidence long contradicted the case against unions. I think part of the
shift is new evidence and part of the shift is more respect for evidence vs theory among
economists. On the other hand, it's a whole lot easier to raise taxes on the rich and cut taxes
on the non rich than to bring unions back.
"... Both Clinton and Trump were close to Epstein. To me this smells like there was a bi-partisan consensus to bury this, and only now that the Clintons are no longer dominating the Democrat party, do we get some results. ..."
"... "I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy," Trump said of Epstein during a 2002 interview with New York magazine. "He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side." ..."
"... "The Government aligned themselves with Epstein, working against his victims, for 11 years..." THE SAME can be said for this: "The Government aligned themselves with APARTHEID Israhell, working against their Palestinians victims, for over 70 years... " WARNING: Graphic Images ..."
"... Epstein has dirt on EVERYONE ... If he ever gets in a legitimate court room? - many, many, shitty people will be in trouble ... GOP and Democrat. ..."
"... The ruling comes after Senators on the Judiciary Committee asked that the DOJ open an investigation into the deal, which was offered at a time when Robert Mueller was running the FBI . ..."
"... I assume MOSSAD & friends will have to pull some very fancy rabbits out of their hat to get this buried again . The $wamp can't afford to have him cooperating, so I'm guessing Epstein will have to 'retire' to Tel-Aviv - or have an accident/become 'depressed, etc.' ..."
Both Clinton and Trump were close to Epstein. To me this smells like there was a bi-partisan consensus to bury this, and
only now that the Clintons are no longer dominating the Democrat party, do we get some results.
While Trump has recently distanced himself from Epstein, a 64-year-old financier, it wasn't always that way.
"I've known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy," Trump said of Epstein during a 2002 interview with New York magazine.
"He's a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger
side."
Attorney Spencer Kuvin, one of dozens of lawyers who successfully sued Epstein on behalf of roughly 30 women who claimed
he lured them to his Palm Beach mansion for sexually-charged massages when they were as young as 14, said he always found the
comment curious.
"How would he know that?" he said of Trump's acknowledgement of Epstein's penchant for young women. The interview came nearly
six years before Epstein's secret sex life exploded into public view when the money manager pleaded guilty to Florida charges
of procuring and soliciting a minor for prostitution. "Why would he make a joke like that?" the West Palm Beach attorney asked.
Be nice if someone found the guest list because Bill Clinton wouldn't be able to kill that many people to cover it up. It'd
be sweet if they found evidence that Trump went, because he definitely did. He's probably the one to name it "Lolita Express."...no,
that was probably Bill.
"The Government aligned themselves with Epstein, working against his victims, for 11 years..." THE SAME can be said for
this: "The Government aligned themselves with APARTHEID Israhell, working against their Palestinians victims,
for over 70 years... " WARNING:
Graphic Images
I assume MOSSAD & friends will have to pull some very fancy rabbits out of their hat to get this buried again. The
$wamp can't afford to have him cooperating, so I'm guessing Epstein will have to 'retire' to Tel-Aviv - or have an accident/become
'depressed, etc.'
I will further bet that JE has had adequate notice of all this to be getting out of the USA to Balfourstan - a non-extradition
country - ASAP.
As you dig into these stories, one singular theory emerges again and again: Sexual deviants and psychos have been groomed for
office because they are easier to blackmail and control.
Human society is way to complex for alpha males to succeed unconditionally... Quite a different set of traits is often needed.
Notable quotes:
"... Superficially, Hemingway was correct. But on a deeper level, he missed the reality of the heightened sense of entitlement that the very rich possess, as well as the deference that so many people automatically show to them. ..."
"... Hemingway is saying: take away all that money and the behavior would change as well. It's the money (or the power in your example) that makes the difference. ..."
"... I feel Fitzgerald got the basic idea right ..."
"... Apparently Fitzgerald was referring specifically to the attitudes of those who are born rich, attitudes that Fitzgerald thought remained unaltered by events, including the loss of economic status. ..."
"... "They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are better than we are. They are different." ..."
"... "He thought they were a special glamorous race and when he found they weren't it wrecked him as much as any other thing that wrecked him." ..."
Superficially, Hemingway was correct. But on a deeper level, he missed the reality of the heightened sense of
entitlement that the very rich possess, as well as the deference that so many people automatically show to them. The rich
shouldn't be different in this way, but they are. In some other societies, such entitlement and deference would accrue to
senior party members, senior clergymen, or hereditary nobility (who might not have much money at all).
"Go with the winner." That is how it works for the alpha male (a chimp, an ape, or a gorilla) for most followers anyway. Some will challenge. If victorious, followers will line up (more go-with-the-winner). If defeated, an outcast.
Without a doubt Hemingway had a rather catty attitude toward his literary rival, but in this instance I think the debunking
is merited. It's quite possible that rich people act the way we would act if we were rich, and that Fitzgerald's tiresome obsession
with rich people didn't cut very deep. Hemingway is saying: take away all that money and the behavior would change as well. It's
the money (or the power in your example) that makes the difference.
In my opinion, the fact that if they had less money would change the way they think, does not change the fact that, while they
have more money, they think differently, and different rules apply to them.
Addendum: The fact that an Alpha Chimp would act differently if someone else was the Alpha Chimp does not change the fact that
an Alpha Chimp has fundamentally different behavior than the rest of the group.
"Hemingway is responsible for a famous misquotation of Fitzgerald's. According to Hemingway, a conversation between him and
Fitzgerald went:
Fitzgerald: The rich are different than you and me. Hemingway: Yes, they have more money.
This never actually happened; it is a retelling of an actual encounter between Hemingway and Mary Colum, which went as follows:
Hemingway: I am getting to know the rich.
Colum: I think you'll find the only difference between the rich and other people is that the rich have more money."
Just want to point out that that quote of Hemingways wasn't about Fitzgerald and wasn't even by Hemingway. Anyway I was more
attacking the "rich have more money" thing than I was trying to defend Fitzgerald, but I feel Fitzgerald got the basic idea
right
Apparently Fitzgerald was referring specifically to the attitudes of those who are born rich, attitudes that Fitzgerald
thought remained unaltered by events, including the loss of economic status.
"They think, deep in their hearts, that they are better than we are because we had to discover the compensations
and refuges of life for ourselves. Even when they enter deep into our world or sink below us, they still think that they are
better than we are. They are different."
Hemingway suggested that Fitzgerald had once been especially enamored of the rich, seeing them as a "special glamorous race"
but ultimately became disillusioned.
"He thought they were a special glamorous race and when he found they weren't it wrecked him as much as any other thing
that wrecked him."
Pedophilia has come up in the mainstream a lot lately, as PizzaGate came to light fairly recently and more and more pedophile
rings are being exposed, some of which have involved government officials.
If you're unfamiliar with PizzaGate, it refers to a wide range of email correspondence leaked from the DNC that allegedly unearthed
a high-level elitist global pedophile ring in which the U.S. government was involved.
It emerged when Wikileaks released tens of thousands of emails from the former White House Chief of Staff under Bill Clinton,
John Podesta, who also served as Hillary Clinton's campaign manager. It's because of these emails that many claimed John Podesta
was a part of these child trafficking rings as well.
Since then, conspiracy theorists and world renowned journalists alike have been looking into the topic and speculating how big
this problem could be and who could be involved within these underground rings.
For example, award winning American journalist Ben Swann explained the Pizzagate controversy in detail on mainstream news:
Not long after, Swann's entire online personal brand and accounts had all but vanished from the
internet. Why?
More recently, there's been some speculation that these pedophile rings could stretch into pop culture, potentially involving
more pedophilia scandals and symbolism within the media. The question here is: Is there any tangible evidence of all of this, or
is it mere speculation?
Pedophilia Symbolism
I'd like to begin by identifying the symbols that are used by pedophiles to identify themselves and make their requests within
underground networks. Here is a link
to a declassified FBI document illustrating the symbols and images used by pedophiles to "identify their sexual preferences."
So, how do these images relate to pizza? First of all, before PizzaGate was even suggested, "cheese pizza" was used as
a code word to discuss "child porn" (hint: it's the same initials, CP). A quick Google search will reveal that the market for underage
sex workers is fairly substantial, and you can even see a 2015 post on
Urban Dictionary that explains
how "cheese pizza" is used as code for child porn.
As per PizzaGate and the symbolism, it all started when multiple emails involving John Podesta, his brother, and Hillary Clinton
simply didn't add up. Strange wording discussing pizza and cheese left readers confused, and because the emails made so little sense,
it led many to suspect that they were code for something else.
For example, this email addressed to John Podesta
reads: "The realtor found a handkerchief (I think it has a map that seems pizza-related)," and
this email sent from John Podesta asks: "Do you
think I'll do better playing dominos on cheese than on pasta?" There are many more examples, and I encourage you to go through
the Wikileaks vault to explore.
On top of that, the DNC was associated with two pizza places, Comet Ping Pong and Besta Pizza, which use very clear symbols of
pedophilia in their advertising and have strange images of children and other ritualistic type images and suspicious videos on their
social media accounts – which has since been made private given the controversy over the images and their link to the DNC, but again,
a quick Google search will show you what those images looked like. You can read the email correspondence between John Podesta and
Comet Ping Pong's owner, James Alefantis,
here .
It's really interesting that I was listening to a Boston sports radio station as the thing
with Kraft and prostitution was unfolding and ESPN's reporter Adam Schefter was on and he
denied his initial reporting about the 200 other guys and "bigger fish".
It looks like an effort is going on to stamp out news of what these other "bigger fish"
were up to.
edit to expound on that. Adam Schefter got caught, and remains in, a fake news warp. Right
before he came on the WEEI radio show they had a TMZ guy come on and he said the names they
showed were the only ones.
Schefter said what he said and the radio guys were talking about it and asked him about
the 200 names and the bigger fish and he denied saying it. So what happened as far as I can
tell is TMZ got the memo from fake news hqtrs to *** it and Schefter/ESPN did not.
People are
saying who cares about old guys paying for blow jobs - but according to the popo spokesman -
this multi-agency investigation is not about prostitution but about human trafficking which
moves the needle from raunchy to sinister.
"... Trump didn't drain the swamp, he pour fertilizer in it. ..."
"... The shekel counting big snout alligators? They're particularly nasty. ..."
"... Acosta = Epstein Pedogate Prosecutor "When I first heard the name Alexander Acosta, Trump's new pick for Labor Secretary, I knew it sounded eerily familiar. And then it dawned on me. He was the U.S. Attorney in charge of the Southern District of Florida from 2006 through 2009, and oversaw a sweetheart deal for Jeffrey Epstein." ..."
"... Trump - Epstein civil suit COMPLAINT FOR RAPE, SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTS, SEXUAL ABUSE, FORCIBLE TOUCHING, ASSAULT, BATTERY, INTENTIONAL AND RECKLESS INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, DURESS, FALSE IMPRISONMENT, AND DEFAMATION ..."
"... Over 200 children. 12,13,14 years old. Broken homes. Different countries. "Punishment" = Empty wing of a comfy 'prison' with liberal leave privledges for him to work from his office, where he could receive guests including females. That's not prison Tyler's, it's ******* daycare - which is the kind of place he's attracted to. Stop calling it / quoting it as a "prison sentence". ..."
So Trump appoints the prosecutor who slapped Epstein on the wrist for a cabinet position. This is so obvious as Trump was part
of the Lolita Express as was lifelong Democrat Alan Dershowitz who has suddenly flipped to Trump's most ardent supporter as well
as the usual group of pervs like Clinton and Spacey (who cares I guess).
Trump didn't drain the swamp, he pour fertilizer in it.
Acosta = Epstein Pedogate Prosecutor
"When I first heard the name Alexander Acosta, Trump's new pick for Labor Secretary, I knew it sounded eerily familiar. And
then it dawned on me. He was the U.S. Attorney in charge of the Southern District of Florida from 2006 through 2009, and oversaw
a sweetheart deal for Jeffrey Epstein."
Trump - Epstein civil suit COMPLAINT FOR RAPE, SEXUAL MISCONDUCT, CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTS, SEXUAL ABUSE, FORCIBLE TOUCHING, ASSAULT, BATTERY, INTENTIONAL
AND RECKLESS INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, DURESS, FALSE IMPRISONMENT, AND DEFAMATION
Over 200 children. 12,13,14 years old. Broken homes. Different countries. "Punishment" = Empty wing of a comfy 'prison' with
liberal leave privledges for him to work from his office, where he could receive guests including females. That's not prison Tyler's,
it's ******* daycare - which is the kind of place he's attracted to. Stop calling it / quoting it as a "prison sentence".
Must be some really compromising video footage with some very powerful people on it to get that kind of deal. Day of the rope
for that **** and all who let him walk. No exceptions.
I had to search this up to believe what you said. Holy ****... the rabbit hole is deeper than most realize:
" Instead of being sent to state prison, Epstein was housed in a private wing of the Palm Beach County jail. And rather
than having him sit in a cell most of the day, the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office allowed Epstein work release privileges,
which enabled him to leave the jail six days a week, for 12 hours a day, to go to a comfortable office that Epstein had set up
in West Palm Beach. This was granted despite explicit sheriff's department rules stating that sex offenders don't qualify for
work release ."
Note how they spent hours to placate and kowtow to the pedophile while dumping on the victims. That is because the government
is loaded with dog **** like the half monkey Epstein and his fellow tribe members. The only justice left to Americans will come
from the streets. I am completely against torture and war, yet this piece of scum should be waterboarded for names. They need
to clear out those members of government who have been compromised by the activities of the tribe.
The websites contain not only virus, malware, spyware whatever. .. (depends on your PC protection)
It is a ripoff . You never get paid a cent. But if one is gullible and naive enough to give away to shady strangers personal
data as address, birth date, social security number, credit card number, bank account etc., they empty your account , and they
do Identity theft.
p.e. They ask for an initial payment for training, or they sell you a starter kit etc., so they get your data. Or they promise
you to pay salary in advance, before they ever saw you. Sometimes they have "real" job interviews with a "recruiter" by Skype
or Smartphones facial, no skills required, with faked websites of real companies, faked or personal email addresses.
Every last pedophile is dead meat just like Judaica is dead meat which promoted it. No, you cannot touch a kid any longer,
ignorant arrogant sick followers of the Talmud and Kabbalah, for the Talmud and Kabbalah will be burned out of every last Synagogue
on the planet just as the entire religion will be burned down to the ground. Including many dumb parts of the Bible. Take for
example that sick *** stupid mother ******* event where some guy holds a knife up to his son because God told him to. You ignorant
arrogant assholes. God never said any such thing, and God sure as hell never said you were chosen! Well, I take that back. You
see, God told me that you are actually especially chosen for the *** kicking of a millenia.
This is the manner that the scum in the so called "Justice Department" works to protect pedophiles. If it wasn't for an intense
amount of corruption, Epstein would have been prosecuted by the full extent of the law. Instead, sneaky deals by the scum bags
that "prosecuted" this fraud of a case ended up with a plea agreement which "punished" this slimy creep with a measly 13 month
sentence.
To add insult to injury to the victims, the civil case is dragged on for 11 years.
This is the same type of "justice" that is in place that has protected the Catholic clergy pedophiles, which for the most part,
never saw the inside of a court room for their unspeakable crimes.
Why are pedophiles seemingly protected in this society? Is it because pedophilia is rampant among so many that are in powerful
positions? I think we all know the answer to that one.
And then there are all Epstein's friends, who enjoyed themselves with little girls on that benighted island: hearsay includes
both the Clintons among them, and the Queen of England's second son, prince someone or the other. I assume that what they did
on that island was felonious. Need to go after them.
And then there's ACOSTA - our current Federal Secretary of Labor. TRUMP NEEDS TO FIRE HIM, perhaps to prosecute him.
Shhhh, never let the facts get in the way of a good story. Orange Jesus is their messiah. He can do no wrong. He was misquoted
when he said he'd bang his daughter, ignore those creepy photos too.
Facts? Oh you mean like the Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislane Maxwell connection? Yeah. Wait, they obviously never met
right? "He's a lot of fun to be with," "It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on
the younger side."
This ****** is toast. If you don't get that, you're just not ready for what's happening, and it's OK. The adults have stepped
in, and are cleaning house. The streets will be paved with the carcases of these pedophiles, satanists, and assorted scumbags.
Some will be from the dregs of society, others from the highest echelons, but none will escape.
[So it has been spoken, so it shall be done... (Yul Brenner as Pharoah - from The Ten Commandments)]
I figure God helps those that help themselves,there is an afterlife though,the trick is being in this world but not of it.I
have a roof over my head,a full belly,an income and good family and friends hell thats better than 70 per cent on this planet
so I tend not to be much of a God botherer.
I must apologize, it seems his pimpette (?) named Ghislaine was there, representing Prince Andrew, who also seems to like them
young, ... not sure if thats why Fergie left him... its complicated...
As far as the Clinton Foundation paying for the 3 million dollar wedding, well that's murky too
Far more important in the here and now is Bernie Sanders refused to go with the Dims and back fat Mike's 'Guido' in Venezuela.
The head of the Clinton Foundation , a Congresswoman from Florida and ex Bill Clinton Secretary of something, loudly condemned
Bernie and said he will NEVER be the Dems candidate for President.
For all of you ZH'rs who hate civil trial lawyers, there were several prominent ones who
literally devoted a decade to this (many at the risk of their practices, taking on TPTB). And
without any real chance of ever seeing a penny for their efforts. Kudos and cheers for the
victory in the battle.
If they do see vindication, The Miami Herald should get some credit. The reporters
there have been doing the investigative work to reveal that there were many children
involved. Funny how the MSM couldn't get to the bottom of this story. ///
It wasn't just Bill Clinton and actor Kevin Spacey who got ferried, (sorry, but when it
comes to Spacey, there's an inside joke there I'm sure). Sen. Bob Menendez was also a
passenger, and who knows who else. I personally would like for AG Barr to have a chance at
squeezing Epstein's nutz for evidence on the [DS].
Trump's BIGGEST single mistake was making Sessions AG and then failing to fire Sessions
after Sessions recused himself. We now know Sessions is Trump's Judas Iscariot.
How about the very well documented and obvious Crimes & Felonies:
1. On Rosenstein's advice, Sessions recused himself from getting involved with any Trump
campaign related investigations - here come the Trump campaign related investigations.
2. Sessions appoints Rosenstein assistant AG.
3. Rosenstein recommends that Comey be fired.
4. Trump fires Comey.
5. Rosenstein recommends Wray, good buddy of Comey & Mueller, to be new FBI director.
6. Comey testifies that he leaked a memo (stuff he made up) because he knew it would trigger
a special council to investigate the Trump campaign for Russia collusion (how did Comey know
that? Was it part of the plan with Rosenstein?)
7. Rosenstein appoints Mueller (good friend of Rosenstein & Comey) as the special council
with open authority to investigate "collusion", a suspected activity that is not a crime if
it did exist. We now know Mueller's appointment & authority might be illegal.
8. Rosenstein & Wray stonewall congressional investigations into DOJ & FBI
criminality.
9. Sessions refuses to appoint special council to investigate obvious Hitlary, DOJ & FBI
criminality.
10. Sessions appoints John Huber, Obama appointee & swamp rat, to assist Inspector
General without any power to subpoena or seat a Grand Jury.
11. Stormy Daniels is used to demoralize Trump and is assisted by FBI. Since when does the
FBI get involved in the kind of civil actions raised by a prostitute?
12. Michael Cohen is raided by FBI regarding an issue that should be reserved for state
court. Attorney client privilege is violated. This alone is a criminal act but nobody to
prosecute it.
13. Months before the Cohen raid, Rosenstein-Mueller used the Cohen-Stormy situation to
launch investigation into Cohen and thereby spy on Trump conversations with his attorney.
14. Judge appointed to hear the Cohen case is Prog Hack & Soros-Clinton crony Kimba
Wood.
Conclusion: Sessions, Rosenstein, Comey, Wray and Mueller conspired to assist the
"Soros-Clinton-Obama Resistance" to thwart all efforts to indict Clintons and Obama and
expose the corruption at the FBI, DOJ and State Dept.
How many of those who actually vote in an election watch debates? Back in horse and buggy
days, a debate was the premier way to reach the 'interested' parties in a district. Debates,
and hand shaking, baby kissing and newspaper/handbill politics was the game before electronic
media.
Then there is that indefinable quality known a "charisma." There, the 'art' part of
politics comes into play. To get someone who is marginally cognizant of policies to vote for
one, there must be some affinity between candidate and voter. To the extent that 'charisma'
drives the political relationship, 'charisma' is that "eternal quality."
In that regard, 'charisma' is not a media trope, but a personal quality. Thus, villains
like Hitler can succeed. If you read contemporary accounts of Hitler's political style, he
was very popular and actually described as "charismatic." An American villain such as Bill
Clinton likewise had charismatic qualities. From further back, an anti-Establishment outsider
like Huey Long was successful through building an almost visceral connection to his
electorate. He was killed.
Clinton Democrats (DemoRats) are so close to neocons that the current re-alliance is only natural and only partially caused by
Trump. Under Obama some of leading figures of his administration were undistinguishable from neocons (Samantha Power is a good
example here -- she was as crazy as Niki Haley, if not more). There is only one "war party in the USA which
continently consists of two wings: Repugs and DemoRats.
Notable quotes:
"... Both GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham , one of the country's most reliable war supporters, and Hillary Clinton , who repeatedly criticized former President Barack Obama for insufficient hawkishness, condemned Trump's decision in very similar terms, invoking standard war on terror jargon. ..."
"... That's not surprising given that Americans by a similarly large plurality agree with the proposition that "the U.S. has been engaged in too many military conflicts in places such as Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan for too long and should prioritize getting Americans out of harm's way" ..."
"... But what is remarkable about the new polling data on Syria is that the vast bulk of support for keeping troops there comes from Democratic Party voters, while Republicans and independents overwhelming favor their removal. The numbers are stark: Of people who voted for Clinton in 2016, only 26 percent support withdrawing troops from Syria, while 59 percent oppose it. Trump voters overwhelmingly support withdraw by 76 percent to 14 percent. ..."
"... This case is even more stark since Obama ran in 2008 on a pledge to end the war in Afghanistan and bring all troops home. Throughout the Obama years, polling data consistently showed that huge majorities of Democrats favored a withdrawal of all troops from Afghanistan ..."
"... While Democrats were more or less evenly divided early last year on whether the U.S. should continue to intervene in Syria, all that changed once Trump announced his intention to withdraw, which provoked a huge surge in Democratic support for remaining ..."
"... At the same time, Democratic policy elites in Washington are once again formally aligning with neoconservatives , even to the point of creating joint foreign policy advocacy groups (a reunion that predated Trump ). The leading Democratic Party think tank, the Center for American Progress, donated $200,000 to the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and has multilevel alliances with warmongering institutions. ..."
"... By far the most influential [neo]liberal media outlet, MSNBC, is stuffed full of former Bush-Cheney officials, security state operatives, and agents , while even the liberal stars are notably hawkish (a decade ago, long before she went as far down the pro-war and Cold Warrior rabbit hole that she now occupies, Rachel Maddow heralded herself as a "national security liberal" who was "all about counterterrorism"). ..."
"... All of this has resulted in a new generation of Democrats, politically engaged for the first time as a result of fears over Trump, being inculcated with values of militarism and imperialism, trained to view once-discredited, war-loving neocons such as Bill Kristol, Max Boot, and David Frum, and former CIA and FBI leaders as noble experts and trusted voices of conscience. It's inevitable that all of these trends would produce a party that is increasingly pro-war and militaristic, and polling data now leaves little doubt that this transformation -- which will endure long after Trump is gone -- is well under way. ..."
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP'S December 18 announcement that he intends to withdraw all U.S.
troops from Syria produced some isolated support in the
anti-war wings of bothparties , but largely provoked
bipartisan outrage among in Washington's reflexively pro-war establishment.
Both
GOP Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the country's most reliable war supporters, and Hillary
Clinton, who repeatedly criticized former President Barack Obama for insufficient
hawkishness, condemned Trump's decision in very similar terms, invoking standard war on terror
jargon.
But while official Washington united in opposition, new polling data from
Morning Consult/Politico shows that a large plurality of Americans support Trump's Syria
withdrawal announcement: 49 percent support to 33 percent opposition.
That's not surprising given that Americans by a similarly large plurality agree with the
proposition that "the U.S. has been engaged in too many military conflicts in places such as
Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan for too long and should prioritize getting Americans out of harm's
way" far more than they agree with the pro-war view that "the U.S. needs to keep troops in
places such as Syria, Iraq, and Afghanistan to help support our allies fight terrorism and
maintain our foreign policy interests in the region."
But what is remarkable about the new polling data on Syria is that the vast bulk of support
for keeping troops there comes from Democratic Party voters, while Republicans and independents
overwhelming favor their removal. The numbers are stark: Of people who voted for Clinton in
2016, only 26 percent support withdrawing troops from Syria, while 59 percent oppose it. Trump
voters overwhelmingly support withdraw by 76 percent to 14 percent.
A similar gap is seen among those who voted Democrat in the 2018 midterm elections (28
percent support withdrawal while 54 percent oppose it), as opposed to the widespread support
for withdrawal among 2018 GOP voters: 74 percent to 18 percent.
Identical trends can be seen on the question of Trump's announced intention to withdraw half
of the U.S. troops currently in Afghanistan, where Democrats are far more supportive of keeping
troops there than Republicans and independents.
This case is even more stark since Obama ran in 2008 on a pledge to end the war in
Afghanistan and bring all troops home. Throughout the Obama years, polling data
consistently showed that huge majorities of Democrats favored a withdrawal of all
troops from Afghanistan:
With Trump rather than Obama now advocating troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, all of this
has changed. The new polling data shows far more support for troop withdrawal among Republicans
and independents, while Democrats are now split or even opposed . Among 2016 Trump voters,
there is massive support for withdrawal: 81 percent to 11 percent; Clinton voters, however,
oppose the removal of troops from Afghanistan by a margin of 37 percent in favor and 47 percent
opposed.
This latest poll is far from aberrational. As the Huffington Post's Ariel Edwards-Levy
documented early this week , separate polling shows a similar reversal by Democrats on
questions of war and militarism in the Trump era.
While Democrats were more or less evenly divided early last year on whether the U.S. should
continue to intervene in Syria, all that changed once Trump announced his intention to
withdraw, which provoked a huge surge in Democratic support for remaining. "Those who voted for
Democrat Clinton now said by a 42-point margin that the U.S. had a responsibility to do
something about the fighting in Syria involving ISIS," Edwards-Levy wrote, "while Trump voters
said by a 16-point margin that the nation had no such responsibility." (Similar trends can be
seen among GOP voters, whose support for intervention in Syria has steadily declined as Trump
has moved away from his posture of the last two years --
escalating bombings in both Syria and Iraq and killing far more civilians , as he
repeatedly vowed to do during the campaign -- to his return to his other campaign pledge to
remove troops from the region.)
This is, of course, not the first time that Democratic voters have wildly shifted their
"beliefs" based on the party affiliation of the person occupying the Oval Office. The party's
base spent the Bush-Cheney years denouncing war on terror policies, such as assassinations,
drones, and Guantánamo as moral atrocities and war crimes, only to suddenly support those
policies once they
became hallmarks of the Obama presidency .
But what's happening here is far more insidious. A core ethos of the anti-Trump #Resistance
has become militarism, jingoism, and neoconservatism. Trump is frequently attacked by Democrats
using longstanding Cold War scripts wielded for decades against them by the far right: Trump is
insufficiently belligerent with U.S. enemies; he's willing to allow the Bad Countries to take
over by bringing home U.S. soldiers; his efforts to establish less hostile relations with
adversary countries is indicative of weakness or even treason.
By far the most influential [neo]liberal media outlet,
MSNBC, is
stuffed full of former Bush-Cheney officials, security state operatives, and agents , while
even the liberal stars are notably hawkish (a decade ago, long before she went as far down the
pro-war and Cold Warrior rabbit hole that she now occupies, Rachel Maddow heralded herself as a
"national security liberal" who was "all about counterterrorism").
All of this has resulted in a new generation of Democrats, politically engaged for the first
time as a result of fears over Trump, being inculcated with values of militarism and
imperialism, trained to view once-discredited, war-loving neocons such as Bill Kristol, Max
Boot, and David Frum, and former CIA and FBI leaders as noble experts and trusted voices of
conscience. It's inevitable that all of these trends would produce a party that is increasingly
pro-war and militaristic, and polling data now leaves little doubt that this transformation --
which will endure long after Trump is gone -- is well under way.
Obama strategy in Syria was replica of Clinton strategy in Yugoslavia during the Balkan Wars. Divide everybody up by ethnicity
or religion (Croats are Catholics, Serbians are Orthodox not to mention the various Muslims and Albanians lurking about), arm
them, create false flags to set them at each other's throats. Enjoy the results.
Obama like Clinton before him was a real wolve in sheep's clothing
Notable quotes:
"... Jackrabbit, I agree with Bevin. Obama was really useful to the deep state because, as the "First Black President" he was widely popular, not just inside the US but outside it as well. Before the 2016 election, there was a widespread hope inside the US elite that Hillary Clinton, as the "First Woman President" would be able to serve a similar function in giving US imperialism a pleasing face. ..."
"... Trump, by contrast, hurts the US deep state because his true nature as a greedy, incompetent egotist is just too blatantly obvious to too many people. And he won't follow a script, the way GW Bush usually did. That's why we see major sections of the US deep state going out of their way to be publically hostile towards Trump. ..."
But the notion that it is part of a complex and tightly scripted conspiracy in which he
plays his public part and the deep state play theirs, pretending to be at odds with each
other, is bizarre.
I would've agreed with you before Obama. I followed the criticisms of Obama from true
progressives closely. It was clear within 2 or 3 years that Obama was betraying his 'base'.
His lofty rhetoric didn't match his actions. His Nobel Peace Prize can only be viewed
today as a ruse. He talked of peace and fairness but worked behind the scenes to further the
establishment.
Fast forward to the 2016 election where Sanders was a sheepdog and Hillary ran a terrible
campaign. It's difficult to look back and not be at least somewhat suspicious of the 2016
election. A populist nationalist was what the Deep State NEEDED to face the threat from
Russia and China to their NWO project. And that is what they got. After recognizing the
threat in 2013-14 (when Russia countered the Empire in Syria and Ukraine).
Similar excuses are made for both Obama and Trump. We are told that they were FORCED to
succumb to Deep State scheming and political power. But a much more logical view is that
these "populists" know exactly what they are doing: they know what their 'job' is to serve
the establishment and act as the leader of the Deep State's political arm. In return they get
financial gain, social standing, and life long protection. Sweet.
Obama 'turned the page' on the Bush Administration's warmongering. He promised a more
peaceful USA. But he conducted covert wars and bragged of his drone targeting.
Trump 'turned the page' on Obama's deceitfulness. He promised to put 'America First' but
within months attacked Syria with missiles "for the babies". Evidence that his first attack
was prompted by a false flag didn't deter him from attacking AGAIN - also based on a false
flag. Trump is still helping the Saudis in Yemen. And he's not doing what's necessary to get
peace in Korea.
Obama promised 'transparency' ("Sunlight is the best disinfectant") but 'no drama' Obama
protected CIA torturers, NSA spies, and bankers. Trump promised to "drain the swamp" but has
welcomed oligarchs and neocons into his Administration.
How much sly BS do we have to see before people connect the dots? A real populist will
NEVER be elected in USA unless there is a revolution; USA political elites are fully
committed to a neoliberal economics that make society neofeudal, and a neoconservative-driven
foreign policy that demands full spectrum dominance that brooks no opposition to its NWO
goals.
Anyone who believes otherwise has drunk the Kool-Aid, an addictive, saccharine concoction,
provided without charge and in abundance.
Glenn Brown | Jan 5, 2019 10:27:14 PM |
39@ 10 17
Jackrabbit, I agree with Bevin. Obama was really useful to the deep state because, as the "First Black President" he
was widely popular, not just inside the US but outside it as well. Before the 2016 election, there was a widespread hope
inside the US elite that Hillary Clinton, as the "First Woman President" would be able to serve a similar function in giving
US imperialism a pleasing face.
Trump, by contrast, hurts the US deep state because his true nature as a greedy, incompetent egotist is just too
blatantly obvious to too many people. And he won't follow a script, the way GW Bush usually did. That's why we see major
sections of the US deep state going out of their way to be publically hostile towards Trump.
Yes, their public rejection of Trump is partly motivated by the need to be able to claim that Trump is an aberration from
all previous US Presidents, as opposed to Trump and his policies being just a particularly explicit continuation of the same
underlying trends.
But I see no reason to doubt that the US elites really wish they had someone as President who was better at supplying the
right propaganda and less obviously an incompetent fool. So I don't understand why you think the US oligarchy and deep state
would have thought they needed someone like Trump, or would have greatly preferred him to Hillary Clinton.
"... early in its life and throughout its existence ..."
"... The foundation began acting as an agent of foreign governments early in its life and continued doing so throughout its existence, as such, the foundation should have registered under FARA. ..."
"... good foundation for truth and transparency ..."
"... "These are not our facts. They are not your facts. They are the facts of the Clinton Foundation," ..."
"... misuse of donated public funds ..."
"... falsely attested that it received funds and used them for charitable purposes which was, in fact, not the case. Rather the foundation pursued in an array of activities both domestically and abroad ..."
"... properly characterized as profit-oriented and taxable undertakings of private enterprise, again failing the operational tests of philanthropy referenced above ..."
"... it was hard to tell where the Clinton State Department ended and the Clinton Foundation began ..."
"... Alice in Wonderland ..."
"... We have a ruling saying there is sufficient grounds to go forward with a criminal investigation of the Trump Foundation, not the Clinton Foundation ..."
Fraud
investigators have exposed the Clinton Foundation's alleged misdeeds in a Congressional
hearing, describing it as a de facto "foreign agent" devoted not to charity but to "advancing
the personal interests of its principals." The Clinton Foundation acted as an agent of foreign
governments " early in its life and throughout its existence ," according to testimony
by former government forensic investigator John Moynihan, which, if true, would not only render
it in violation of the Foreign Agents Registration Act but also would violate its nonprofit
charter, putting it on the hook for a massive quantity of unpaid taxes.
The foundation began acting as an agent of foreign governments early in its life and
continued doing so throughout its existence, as such, the foundation should have registered
under FARA.
Moynihan and fellow ex-government investigator Lawrence Doyle shared 6,000 pages of evidence
with the IRS over 18 months ago, only to be met with silence. They shared them with the FBI
multiple times – ditto. Yet when the pair testified before the House Oversight and
Government Reform Committee, they refused to turn over the documents, stating they did not want
to interfere with any ongoing investigations.
The committee chairman Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) said witnesses' reluctance to share all the
documents was hardly a " good foundation for truth and transparency ," while Rep. Jody
Hice (R-GA) said he felt the duo was " using " the panel for their own benefit.
"These are not our facts. They are not your facts. They are the facts of the Clinton
Foundation," said Moynihan, maintaining his interest in the case is purely financial
– not political.
Testifying on their findings, Doyle highlighted the Foundation's alleged " misuse of
donated public funds ," explaining that it " falsely attested that it received funds
and used them for charitable purposes which was, in fact, not the case. Rather the foundation
pursued in an array of activities both domestically and abroad ," which included
activities " properly characterized as profit-oriented and taxable undertakings of private
enterprise, again failing the operational tests of philanthropy referenced above ,"
referring to the equally non-charitable pursuit of funding the Clinton Presidential
Library.
John Huber, appointed by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions to investigate the Clinton
Foundation after Sessions recused himself from doing so, was conspicuously absent from the
hearing, even though his job is to probe Clinton's approval of the sale of US uranium assets to
Russia.
Judicial Watch's Tom Fitton also gave testimony, outlining how " it was hard to tell
where the Clinton State Department ended and the Clinton Foundation began " – so
much so that the King of Bahrain, unable to meet with Clinton as Secretary of State, secured a
meeting with the Foundation instead.
Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-VA) likened the testimony to " Alice in Wonderland ,"
claiming yet another investigation of the Clintons was an attempt to distract from the ongoing
investigations of Trump. " We have a ruling saying there is sufficient grounds to go
forward with a criminal investigation of the Trump Foundation, not the Clinton Foundation
," he said, adding that the committee had an informant in the Uranium One deal-making process
who was unable to present any evidence of wrongdoing.
Meanwhile, the FBI has missed a deadline to turn over information on why they raided the
home of another Clinton Foundation whistleblower, Nathan Cain, earlier this week. Cain's lawyer
says his client – who reportedly gave the Justice Department documents showing federal
officials failed to investigate criminal activity related to the Uranium One deal – was
accused of possessing stolen federal property.
Yves: "Homer had this figured out long ago: "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts." But the press has done a great job of presenting
squillionaires trying to remake society along their preferred lines as disinterested philanthropy. "
Notable quotes:
"... By Lynn Parramore, Senior Research Analyst, the Institute for New Economic Thinking. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... America's new "philanthrocapitalists" are enabling social problems rather than solving them ..."
"... British novelist Anthony Trollope once observed, "I have sometimes thought that there is no being so venomous, so bloodthirsty as a professed philanthropist." ..."
"... Legendary short seller Jim Chanos, who teaches business students to spot fraud, understands why: when he scrutinizes a company for signs of shady activity, one of the things he looks for is an uptick in philanthropy -- a strategy business ethics professor Marianne Jennings has named as one of the "seven signs of ethical collapse" in organizations. Chanos refers to the ruse as "doing good to mask doing bad." ..."
America's new "philanthrocapitalists" are enabling social problems rather than solving
them
A new breed of wealthy do-gooders armed with apps and PowerPoints claim they want to change
the world. But with their market-oriented values and often-shortsighted prescriptions, are
really they going to change it for the better?
Or change it at all?
Anand Giridharadas, who has traveled first-class in the rarefied realm of 21 st
-century "philanthrocapitalists," harbors serious doubts. In his acclaimed book, "
Winners Take All: The Elite Charade of Changing the World ," the business reporter and
former McKinsey consultant exposes the willful blindness of bright-eyed social entrepreneurs
and TED-talking executives who, having drunk their own late-stage capitalist Kool-Aid, are now
ready to serve us all. Compliments of the house.
Doing Good, Masking Bad
British novelist Anthony Trollope once observed, "I have sometimes thought that there is no
being so venomous, so bloodthirsty as a professed philanthropist."
Legendary short seller Jim Chanos, who teaches business students to spot fraud, understands
why: when he
scrutinizes a company for signs of shady activity, one of the things he looks for is an
uptick in philanthropy -- a strategy business ethics professor Marianne Jennings has named
as one of the "seven signs of ethical collapse" in organizations. Chanos refers to the ruse as
"doing good to mask doing bad."
Such cynical public relations gambits are familiar enough to New Yorkers using Citi Bike,
the public-private bike share system funded by Citigroup, whose misdeeds helped spark the
global financial crisis of 2007-8. Or visitors to the Sackler Gallery at the Metropolitan
Museum of Art, named for the family whose members own Purdue, the pharmaceutical company that
fueled America's opioid crisis through deceptive marketing of the addictive painkiller
OxyContin.
But another sort of deep-pocketed philanthropist is harder to pin down. The harm she causes
seems less direct; her motives more lofty. This type is fond of touting "win-win" solutions to
social problems and tossing out terms like "impactful" and "scalable" and "paradigm-shifting"
-- the kind of lingo fed to business school students in lieu of critical thinking. Members of
this group nevertheless refer to themselves as "thought leaders."
These would-be benefactors of humanity tend to like former president Bill Clinton, whose
Clinton Global Initiative became the ultimate road show for eager converts to what Giridharadas
calls the faith of "win-winnerism," i.e. "I'm doing great in this racket, and so can you."
Inhabiting Silicon Valley start-ups, venture capital firms, think tanks, and consulting
companies in large metropolitan areas, philanthrocapitalists speak reverently of global
poverty, but rarely touch down in places like Appalachia or rural Mississippi.
They are people like John Mackey, the chief executive of Whole Foods Market, whose book
"Conscious Capitalism" is the bible for those aspiring to the win-win faith. In his
formulation, CEOs are not simply the heads of companies, but transcendent beings that find
"great joy and beauty in their work, and in the opportunity to serve, lead, and help shape a
better future." Mackey's philosophy is one in which the beneficiaries of commerce should
dedicate themselves to social improvement because they are obviously the best equipped to do
the job. The public is meant to humbly follow.
This last bit, as Giridharadas shrewdly points out, may be far more radical than the old
trickle-down philosophy of yesterday's winners, who lobbied the government to get out of their
way so that the bounteous by-products of their cutthroat activities could descend unimpeded to
the poor. The new winners want something even more audacious: to replace the role of government
as guardian of the common good.
Giridharadas presents searching conversations with well-educated, often well-meaning people
floating above and apart from the lives of ordinary Americans, wishing to ease their
consciences but failing both to clearly see the problems of society and to notice, for more
than a nagging moment, the ways in which their own lives are financed by the fruits of
injustice. They end up embracing a warm-and-fuzzy vision of changing the world that leaves
brutal underlying structures securely in place.
The author has said what few who have traveled in this world have said plainly, lest their
passport be revoked: the efforts of philanthrocapitalists are largely disruptive, rather than
beneficial, to public life.
You can see it in the kind of ideas they embrace. Lecture slots at Davos don't get doled out
for discussing the need to expand popular, time-tested programs like Social Security and
Medicare that are proven to reduce poverty and economic inequality. Such sensible fare is not
nearly "innovative" or exotic enough -- and besides, it might require the wealthy to pay
additional taxes. Better are schemes like universal basic income that tend to favor elite
interests (such as continuing to pay workers inadequate wages) or creating technological
solutions like the one offered in the book by a young win-winnerist: an app that charges
workers to manage the unpredictable cash flow caused by erratic work schedules.
And what of campaigning to outlaw the exploitative business practice that causes the problem
in the first place? Notsomuch.
Talking about victims plays well on the philanthrocapitalist circuit, but pointing out
perpetrators is largely forbidden. You can wow the crowd by peddling for-profit schemes to help
the poor, but you won't get the same applause by calling to jail criminal executives. Yet, as
Giridharadas makes clear, even the fanciest app will not erase the feeling among ordinary
people that the system has been captured by a small group of the rich and powerful -- a feeling
that drives them away in disgust from establishment politics and makes them very angry
indeed.
What the philanthrocapitalist has a hard time admitting is that meaningful structural change
involves a lot more than an app and a PowerPoint. It means taking on financialized corporations
that engage in
stock market manipulation to enrich shareholders rather than investing in workers and
products that are actually useful to human beings. It requires fixing a regressive tax system
in which the wealthy pay less on their investments than working people pay on their earned
income. It means empowering workers and taking on the coercive hierarchies of wealth and power
that are locking into place a dual economy where the affluent become so removed from the
struggles of the majority that they hardly speak the same language.
Antidemocratic and unaccountable, the new philanthropists emerge in Giridharadas's
cautionary book less as the solvers of social problems than the deluded enablers. The emperor
may stand there in his organic underpants waving a pie chart, but in the court of public
opinion, it is increasingly obvious that he's not in the least interested in dismantling his
own palace.
"The last two Democratic presidencies largely involved talking progressive while serving
Wall Street and the military-industrial complex. The obvious differences in personalities and
behavior of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama diverted attention from their underlying political
similarities. In office, both men rarely fought for progressive principles -- and routinely
undermined them."
With all of this verifiable information out there, and yet there are still so many that
believe even more of fabricated lies propagated by the Bush, Obama and Clinton crime
families. At some point you must ask yourself who was more likely to have enough power,
influence and connections to collude with foreign governments. Now remember, all of this
started long before anyone thought Donald J. Trump would even win the primaries, let alone
the Presidency. Realizing that Santa Claus was just a fairy tale was a difficult
disillusionment for children, but at some point, they had to grow up. Barrack, Hillary, and
all of these high level government employees all reek of criminal activity, and if you cannot
see this, you likely still believe in fairy tales.
Having served in the military and currently being a Federal Officer, I was able read rough
the media camouflage to protect Obama, Hillary, Comie, and the rest. I have been able to put
the players on the board, but not see how it all fit together. This speech made it all
crystal clear. Thank you Dan; for your service and God bless your courage.
Dan Dan Dan... How could you miss this?? Democrats trade in the dirty secrets of others.
Do you really think the NSA spying Network is there because they want to know what I had for
breakfast? Oh sure they'll keep a file on me and if I ever make trouble they can pull it up
and then use everything about me to trash me in public... But come on the people they really
want to spy on its each other! They have compromising information on one another and people
they wish to control... How many people have we seen do the strangest things suddenly...
Chief Justice John Roberts writing Obama care for them... they own the compromised, the
complicit, and the corrupt people with power and they are legion
Dan's the Man. Saved to file, images of Dan from 10-15 years ago standing behind Hillary
as agent to protecting them. There is nothing Dan doesn't know. We owe Dan huge respect of
his knowledge - I'd be first shaking his hand. Those watching, you'd be smart to download
this, to play back from any device, even if just a sound file. Cheers
I am from the UK, and our country is dying. The neo liberal elites are destroying the
culture. We MUST have Trump safe and America as a bastion of freedom in the West. Those who
did this to Trump MUST be found and imprisoned. They are a threat to Western culture at a
time when the world is moving into a very difficult phase of its history. Personally, I would
want to see them executed as traitors, endangering a sitting President and attacking the
State. THAT is extremely serious and deserves execution.
This nest of corruption involves the "progressive" establishment and was their attempt to
seize and maintain power. Their agenda is geared towards bringing the kind of political
consolidation we see in the EU to our shores. What that will mean is the whittling down of
our national sovereignty. In other words, the end of the USA as we know it, all under the
guise of American values and progress. Open borders, the whole works. All while keeping
American citizens divided using what is known as identity politics, under the pretense that
they are bringing people together. Up is down and down is up. Thank God Trump got
elected.
When Hillary Clinton pivoted to Russia hacking her campaign during the 2016 Presidential
debates after she was caught in lie after lie after more Wikileaks lies, she said that 17
intel agencies confirm Russia did the hacking...she said so but provided not one source or
name. We now know she lied because nobody knows (aside from Assange) who leaked or hacked the
emails. But when she kept blaming Russia for "interfering in our elections and democracy"
because her campaign was hit and exposed I knew she would further the Putin-Trump narrative.
You can actually see these wheels spinning in her head as Trump says he doesn't know Putin,
but it'd be good to get along with Russia...she and those protecting her are a scourge a
cancer in America. I say this as someone mentally healthy and if I were suicided I just want
it on record that I am no way no how ever going to commit suicide. That said Russia
Investigation and Mueller are a political hit job, a concerted effort with their media to
cloud and confuse the average American who has no clue what is going on.
The Military Tribunals will have to get the job done. The justice system is too corrupt
and guilty as well of sedition and Treason.Remember the Kavanaugh hearing when Sen. Graham
brought up the function of Military Tribunals for high ranking officials to be tried and
sentenced. The evidence is all there and it is now up to the President to invoke the
Constitutional powers to arrest all of them for committing Treason and Sedition. It's the
only way to drain the swamp for good.
Sure, they were corrupt.... yes, and so was Trump and his people for meeting with Russian
KGB. Trump also pressure Comey into dropping the investigation into Flynn. There is also the
question of him placing relatives in positions they know nothing about, pardoning individuals
for political reasons, campaigning for political purposes with taxpayer money... flying
around during the mid-terms. Rogers is the good guy? He is also the sponsor of the Cyber
Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act which is the biggest invasion into your privacy in
history. There is plenty of corruption to go around and both sides regularly abuse their
power.
msm is propaganda and left wing activism that supports communist control and destruction
of anyone who is able to protect our rights to own property and remain prosperous by using
self sustainability as a means of securing our communities, our states and our country by
shutting down illegal immigration invasions that steal jobs from people born here. and they
vote for communism, the thing they ran from in their country. makes no sense. they're used
and then turned on by democrats after they gain power.
The problem of confirmation bias, is that people seek supportive insights. Less than two
weeks after special counsel Robert Mueller indicted 13 individuals and a trio of Russian
companies for "interference operations targeting the United States," NSA Director Mike Rogers
told members of Congress that the Trump administration hasn't even authorized him to take
measures to prevent election meddling going forward. In response to a question from Sen. Jack
Reed (D-RI) about the authority that NSA "mission teams" have to "do something" about foreign
interference, Rogers pointed out that he's only empowered to do something when "if granted
the authority." "I don't have the day-to-day authority to do that," he said, prompting Reed
to follow up about whether he has been "directed to do so given the strategic threat that
face the united States and the significant consequences you recognize already?" "No I have
not," Rogers replied. Mr Rogers...an interesting character.
Dan, you have joined all the dots, hammered all the nails for so many, many of us who are
prone to critical thinking and never bought this Russian collusion delusion because which
ever way we looked at it, it just didn't add up, it just didn't make sense. Thank you, thank
you, thank you. I'm trying to get a copy of your book in Australia. There are just no winners
in this terrible, horrible story. Best regards and stay safe my friend. Eric from
DownUnder
This is the Second biggest Scam in American history and Obama and Clinton are involved in
both of them. The biggest scam ever perpetrated on the world was the one that got Obama
elected to the Presidency and kept him there for 8 long year with the scam still continuing
every time someone mentions the Forged Birth Certificate that has been presented as real just
like the Gay Muslim Hypocrite that continues to lie and keep us all in the dark even though
many of us know the truth.
Imagine being so powerful and well connected to every head of all the alphabet agencies
that you can break laws that amount to treason and walk away unscathed. It's truly amazing to
see this unfold. The only this works if everyone is dirty. Clinton's made hundreds of
millions of dollars and set the standard on how to get away with it by brokering power and
influence at the highest levels for a price. The sheep love her and celebrate her and her
rapist husband. Fucking amazing.
Please be advised that the crime family Obama is a lot bigger than the story that Dan
tells. Everyone involved is married or some kind of relation or through political favors and
government taxpayer pay outs and there are hundreds of crooks that can all be traced back to
Obama or someone in his group of Liars & Thieves.
Cohen pleading guilty makes this all very problematic. The potential for Cohen doing
illegal stuff for Trump is massively high. It is as high as Hillary doing illegal stuff. The
massive problem with this whole story is that if it is true, Trump has had it for two years,
and done nothing. That makes no sense. I trust not a one of them. I KNOW Hillary is a
horrible piece of dirt that protects her sex abusing husband, but I also KNOW Trump has done
so many dirty deals, and slept with innumerable low life wealth and power groupies, so
neither is Snow White. Dirty Vs Filthy. I like Trump, and despise Hillary, but I am not
delusional enough to think he is not hiding shit he does not want the people to
know.
Agent Dan Bongino brought up this video today in his podcast, He and the crew are quite
surprised how it exploded viral. Other news channel sites have now posted the direct video
link to here as well. One is forced to hit stop every 11 seconds to Take notes, download it,
and it will obviously educate everyone that never had a clue, or at least update as it
unfolds further. No Doubt, everyone Bongino noted,,, watch now, as they scramble & bail
packing as others did. Oh the hell, another one suddenly retires. Someone claimed Dan's
knowledge _ is for some reason, he's deep state,,, clearly, they have no idea about the 7th
floor. I'll just leave it there. Cheers
Thank you Dan Bongino!!! We know that if you keep exposing the lies and liars, your life
will be in jeopardy, so I'm praying God's DEVINE protection over your life, family and
property...and calling ALL GOD-FEARING BELIEVERS do likewise!
Obama ,Hilary , should get the death penalty! To betray the American people and ABUSE
there authority. That is the lowest of lows. Trump is the best thing that has happened in the
USA, EVER!
I'm black from South Africa - and believe me, the USA is the last hope for mankind, if the
day ever comes that the USA dies - I wanna be long dead by then...
MAGA❤️🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸❤️❤️❤️🇺🇸🇺🇸
funny how some of these liberals are for open borders but live in a gated ,guarded
community .With an additional fence around their houses. hypocrites
With all of this verifiable information out there, and yet there are still so many that
believe even more of fabricated lies propagated by the Bush, Obama and Clinton crime
families. At some point you must ask yourself who was more likely to have enough power,
influence and connections to collude with foreign governments. Now remember, all of this
started long before anyone thought Donald J. Trump would even win the primaries, let alone
the Presidency. Realizing that Santa Claus was just a fairy tale was a difficult
disillusionment for children, but at some point, they had to grow up. Barrack, Hillary, and
all of these high level government employees all reek of criminal activity, and if you cannot
see this, you likely still believe in fairy tales.
Having served in the military and currently being a Federal Officer, I was able read rough
the media camouflage to protect Obama, Hillary, Comie, and the rest. I have been able to put
the players on the board, but not see how it all fit together. This speech made it all
crystal clear. Thank you Dan; for your service and God bless your courage.
Nothing can be done ???!! Why....tons of evidence...its pretty obvious...and nothing can
be done ? One party who lost can do everthing and get oway with it ..and conservatives cant
do anything about it ???! Strange....conservatives won....they have evidence...they have
conservative meda...and still nothing can be done ? Why ????! Somehow i just cannot buy
it...!!! Dems can do everything..and u can do nothing ??? Sometning is wrong with it
....UNLESS....AND THIS IS MY GUT FEELING....UNLESS THE LEFT WING AND THE RIGHT WING...BELONGS
TO THE SAME BIRD.....!!!!????!!!!
Dan Dan Dan... How could you miss this?? Democrats trade in the dirty secrets of others.
Do you really think the NSA spying Network is there because they want to know what I had for
breakfast? Oh sure they'll keep a file on me and if I ever make trouble they can pull it up
and then use everything about me to trash me in public... But come on the people they really
want to spy on its each other! They have compromising information on one another and people
they wish to control... How many people have we seen do the strangest things suddenly...
Chief Justice John Roberts writing Obama care for them... they own the compromised, the
complicit, and the corrupt people with power and they are legion
Dan's the Man. Saved to file, images of Dan from 10-15 years ago standing behind Hillary
as agent to protecting them. There is nothing Dan doesn't know. We owe Dan huge respect of
his knowledge - I'd be first shaking his hand. Those watching, you'd be smart to download
this, to play back from any device, even if just a sound file. Cheers
Dan is awesome! The Obama administration is so disgusting. They all need to be
incarcerated! For 8 years we've had nothing but corrupt Turds! It's such a shame. Thank you
again Dan.
We must take back our media and wake the NPC left up. I feel like most of them would be on
our side if they knew the truth. How could they not be? Whatever label you give the democrats
the truth of them is pure evil. These aren't the democrats I used to hang out with. They used
to have more morals than me.
I am from the UK, and our country is dying. The neo liberal elites are destroying the
culture. We MUST have Trump safe and America as a bastion of freedom in the West. Those who
did this to Trump MUST be found and imprisoned. They are a threat to Western culture at a
time when the world is moving into a very difficult phase of its history. Personally, I would
want to see them executed as traitors, endangering a sitting President and attacking the
State. THAT is extremely serious and deserves execution.
This nest of corruption involves the "progressive" establishment and was their attempt to
seize and maintain power. Their agenda is geared towards bringing the kind of political
consolidation we see in the EU to our shores. What that will mean is the whittling down of
our national sovereignty. In other words, the end of the USA as we know it, all under the
guise of American values and progress. Open borders, the whole works. All while keeping
American citizens divided using what is known as identity politics, under the pretense that
they are bringing people together. Up is down and down is up. Thank God Trump got
elected.
George Soros real name is Guy Orgy Schwartz. Look it up. Baracka Hussein Obamas real name
is bath house Barry SODOMITE Soetoro. Michelle Obamas real name is RAMROD!
There's no media because it's owned by George Soros and the Socialist New World Order ....
So they are puppets and work on demand with no dignity and no soul
1 million! This is exploding. Keep spreading this everywhere. Doesn't matter what your
politics is. Obama wasn't a progressive lol. Just a con artist. Have a good day.
(cough, clearing throat) ..... The President of the United States of America ....... has
been ripping off mattress tags .... IMPEACH! IMPEACH! IMPEACH!
And I thought my dog disappearing for a half hour every day hopping the fence doing the
"Wild Thing" with my neighbors goat was drama... WOW !!!!! Glad he figured this All out for
ME and us !!!! He's got them nailed down for sure !!!! MAGA...!!
When Hillary Clinton pivoted to Russia hacking her campaign during the 2016 Presidential
debates after she was caught in lie after lie after more Wikileaks lies, she said that 17
intel agencies confirm Russia did the hacking...she said so but provided not one source or
name. We now know she lied because nobody knows (aside from Assange) who leaked or hacked the
emails. But when she kept blaming Russia for "interfering in our elections and democracy"
because her campaign was hit and exposed I knew she would further the Putin-Trump narrative.
You can actually see these wheels spinning in her head as Trump says he doesn't know Putin,
but it'd be good to get along with Russia...she and those protecting her are a scourge a
cancer in America. I say this as someone mentally healthy and if I were suicided I just want
it on record that I am no way no how ever going to commit suicide. That said Russia
Investigation and Mueller are a political hit job, a concerted effort with their media to
cloud and confuse the average American who has no clue what is going on.
Can't be a criminal thief and a good father at the same time. Typical conservative empathy
that is wonderful in a high trust society, suicidal in a multi cultural low trust
society.
Dan bongino is awesome! He is a down to earth real hardworking Patriotic American. God
Bless him & keep him safe, we need him in this fight! If you have Amazon Prime, watch
this documentary: "Enemy Of The State". It was written by a New Zealander, and is about the
Communists hiding in plain sight in America. Very eye opening, and scary!
eventually, maybe 2, 5, 10, 20 years the truth will come out. Borrock Hoosayn Obammah will
be investigated for this crime against the USA. this is THE biggest crime in American
history. PERIOD.
The Military Tribunals will have to get the job done. The justice system is too corrupt
and guilty as well of sedition and Treason.Remember the Kavanaugh hearing when Sen. Graham
brought up the function of Military Tribunals for high ranking officials to be tried and
sentenced. The evidence is all there and it is now up to the President to invoke the
Constitutional powers to arrest all of them for committing Treason and Sedition. It's the
only way to drain the swamp for good.
Sure, they were corrupt.... yes, and so was Trump and his people for meeting with Russian
KGB. Trump also pressure Comey into dropping the investigation into Flynn. There is also the
question of him placing relatives in positions they know nothing about, pardoning individuals
for political reasons, campaigning for political purposes with taxpayer money... flying
around during the mid-terms. Rogers is the good guy? He is also the sponsor of the Cyber
Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act which is the biggest invasion into your privacy in
history. There is plenty of corruption to go around and both sides regularly abuse their
power.
I'm a congolese in DRC Congo (Central Africa) Love Dan Bongino, Jim Jordan, Trey Gowdy,
Joe Digenova, Mark Levin, Lindsey Graham------ Deep State is against God, America and good
peoples!
WOW, Dan this is brilliant. President Trump is not stupid. These guys are going down.
Clean up on the scrum bags. No wonder Obama gave all that money to Iran. They never expected
Clinton to lose. Massive Corruptions! Knowing the way President Trump is, I see massive
indictments...WATCH!
msm is propaganda and left wing activism that supports communist control and destruction
of anyone who is able to protect our rights to own property and remain prosperous by using
self sustainability as a means of securing our communities, our states and our country by
shutting down illegal immigration invasions that steal jobs from people born here. and they
vote for communism, the thing they ran from in their country. makes no sense. they're used
and then turned on by democrats after they gain power.
POWER GRAB ONE didn't get started for any particular reason,,, it was classic clinton...
BECAUSE THEY COULD AND BECAUSE IT WAS ALREADY THEIR MO.. They didn't even consider they HAD
JUST STEPPED OVER A NEW REAL LINE.
When we have idiot's that report the news in the main street media. The characters that
are in our government like Nancy Pelosi, who can't put two syllables together, the scary
Chucky Schumer and the notorious RBG who reminds me of a Weekend at Bernie's. You have to
appreciate Donald J Trump and his Twitter Machine.
Why won't you ever see Robert Mulluer trying with enthusiasm to present his report in
public with a straight eye...like Dan made his video. I challenge democrates to get Robert
Mulluer,s butt in gear and make an out front video like Dan,s..why is Robert Mulluer hiding?
Robert Mulluer is hiding something. This is his demeanor.
This video needs to be shared to everyone you know. WWG1WGA. The only way to see justice
on this, is if We The People make it happen scream loud and wide and back up what the Trump
Administration knows. The MSM/ big tech has been weaponized by the left, and our voice needs
to be louder than their fake news. Call your representative weekly, write to your Senators,
post memes everywhere, send them to everyone you know, the squeaky wheel gets the grease!
Hillary, Obama, Et al need to be brought to real justice for nearly destroying our nation, a
nation who millions of patriots have spilled blood to give you! We need to DEMAND
Justice!
When this man speaks I damn sure listen !!!! He well knows because hes been there !!! He
protected the clintons for many years and has a great deal of inside knowledge !!
Russian Derapaska is an oligarch connected to Soros, Rothschild, Lindsey Graham, McCain
and other prominent Neoconservatives. President Putin of Russia threw Oligarch Derapaska out
of Russia and humiliated him. Bongino is a liar, deliberately. Bongino there is no Cosmic
justice. There is the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob. Stop covering for Hillary Clinton who
committed espionage for Israel, China and UK and possibly Suadi Arabia. Why? High Technology
was stolen by these nations from the USA to bring in their New World Order and the Silk Road
given to China by the Rothschilds; USA fiat currency is dead. Trump has his ticket to the
"Empty City in China." His kids have learned Mandarin Chinese. During the provoked attack
against Russia for nuclear war, Elite will go under ground to a bullet train which will carry
them to EU, then to China to the "Empty Cities." Nuclear War is what is planned for America
on American military bases, after the Rothschild Banking Network collapses the economy.
Pray for Humanity.
Cosmic Justice? No thanks! If she's not locked away in our lifetime with the way the
cultural Marxists are infiltrating every branch of our lives, there will be NO truthful
writing of history for future generations. See to her NOW!
Your will Be surprise the things ex secret service knows about this governments and
corrupted movement behind close doors they know more than the media knows
Dan Bongino= One of the greatest, brave, strong ,voice of truth, and great American. They
have come against our President, with lies, since before he was even sworn in. The scariest
thing in all of this is the lack of critical thinking skills in many young people. Let's say,
God forbid, if Hillary was in power. Let's say she said... we have to eliminate all non-
necessary citizens,as in everyone but the elites over the age of 50, due to climate change,
for the "common good" of the world. These young, non critical thinking young people, would go
right along with it. She already , during the 2016 election spoke of the need for "fun camps"
AKA concentration camps.
Tyrannical governance is two sets of laws. One for the plebs. The other for the ruling
elite. Lock them up and restore the Rule of Law to the Republic.
Q Sent Me!! Personally, I think that crystal clear transparency, not just transparency is
needed with everything shown!! Regardless of how heinous and sickening it is. We The People
after being lied to for decades deserve that. @
We are literally at the most important turning point in our history - since the original
American Revolution. I can't stress enough how we should focus our attention on supporting
our President. We needed someone strong, brilliant, and unafraid to be our leader...thank Gd
that Donald Trump stepped up to the plate... The Mighty Casey lives!
The Conspiracy is deep my friends. Nothing will change. It depends on you, and YOU KNOW.
We can protest until death: they will not listen. Don't sit back and think this will happen.
They will NEVER give up what they have robbed from us. Stand up and resist. They are fully
prepared for civil war, while we argue about who does what or who says more. They must plunge
the US into a terrible civil conflict. They will destroy the nation, before they can rebuild
it with themselves as the masters. Why have republicans and democrats allowed the invasion of
illegals to continue? Several reasons. Americans will never fall for socialism: Central/South
Americans are socialism friendly. Central/South Americans are poorly educated. Many cannot
read or write spanish. Therefore; they are more aloof of political matters. The illegals are
the beneficiaries of affirmative action. This means that your white american children are now
permanent second class citizens. Politicians have encouraged the Balkanization of the US, by
creating sanctuary cities. The illegals have been repeatedly told that the Southwestern US
was stolen from them by Americans, and is rightfully theirs. The illegals literally call
their "migration"(sic) "the reconquest". South/Central Americans are very "pro" violent
revolution. Did you think that the leftists would take up weapons to fight against patriotic
Americans? The handfuls that will take up arms will act as political commisars, soviet union
style. The illegal immigrants, along with other hostile minority groups, are the standing
army that will fight against American citizens. They are the hessian mercinaries. You see:
the situation is dire
⚡️ President Trump is destroying cultural Marxism. ⚡️
President Trump is ending the war on coal. ⚡️ He's nullifying common
core. ⚡️ He ended the Trans-Pacific Partnership ⚡️
He's de-regulating a bloated bureaucracy. ⚡️ He's bringing factories
back to the U.S. ⚡️ He's ending illegal immigration. ⚡️
President Trump has busted 10,000 pederasts & pedophiles. ⚡️
President Trump rescued America from the job-killing Paris Accords.
The problem of confirmation bias, is that people seek supportive insights. Less than two
weeks after special counsel Robert Mueller indicted 13 individuals and a trio of Russian
companies for "interference operations targeting the United States," NSA Director Mike Rogers
told members of Congress that the Trump administration hasn't even authorized him to take
measures to prevent election meddling going forward. In response to a question from Sen. Jack
Reed (D-RI) about the authority that NSA "mission teams" have to "do something" about foreign
interference, Rogers pointed out that he's only empowered to do something when "if granted
the authority." "I don't have the day-to-day authority to do that," he said, prompting Reed
to follow up about whether he has been "directed to do so given the strategic threat that
face the united States and the significant consequences you recognize already?" "No I have
not," Rogers replied. Mr Rogers...an interesting character.
IF JUSTICE WILL NEVER COME TO THE GUILTY , THEN WHY BOTHER ? I GUESS JUST TO INFORM THOSE
WHO HAVE NO POWER TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT EXCEPT TO VOTE IN ELECTIONS THAT ARE RIGGED BY
DEMOCRATS WITH VOTER FRAUD . VERY SCARY.
Somewhere in Dan's speech, I missed this KEY Point, and everyone wonders, as I do, when do
we show up latenite with LED lit cordless drills, assembling the gallows? Looking for related
data, stumbled on this great site as always, they caught it ~ He stated One of the key points
Bongino highlights is how none of the paper-trail; nothing about the substance of the
conspiracy; can possibly surface until after 'AFTER' #RobertMueller is no
longer in the picture. Until Robert Mueller is removed, none of this information can/will
surface. That's why every political and media entity are desperate to protect Mueller; and
also why Mueller's investigation will never end. 👇 from this site
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2018/11/23/dan-bongino-presentation-of-spygate Makes
me wonder what Stewie would do,, So this is what @Trump was watching the night before -
Rocketman https://youtu.be/fi8MI7jjpSY
Dan, you have joined all the dots, hammered all the nails for so many, many of us who are
prone to critical thinking and never bought this Russian collusion delusion because which
ever way we looked at it, it just didn't add up, it just didn't make sense. Thank you, thank
you, thank you. I'm trying to get a copy of your book in Australia. There are just no winners
in this terrible, horrible story. Best regards and stay safe my friend. Eric from
DownUnder
This is the Second biggest Scam in American history and Obama and Clinton are involved in
both of them. The biggest scam ever perpetrated on the world was the one that got Obama
elected to the Presidency and kept him there for 8 long year with the scam still continuing
every time someone mentions the Forged Birth Certificate that has been presented as real just
like the Gay Muslim Hypocrite that continues to lie and keep us all in the dark even though
many of us know the truth.
Imagine being so powerful and well connected to every head of all the alphabet agencies
that you can break laws that amount to treason and walk away unscathed. It's truly amazing to
see this unfold. The only this works if everyone is dirty. Clinton's made hundreds of
millions of dollars and set the standard on how to get away with it by brokering power and
influence at the highest levels for a price. The sheep love her and celebrate her and her
rapist husband. Fucking amazing.
when he was campaigning Trump I was telling people and Friends he will be the next
president they're not going to let Hillary either president they don't want her to be the
president
This is using facts with conspiracy FBI was investigating Trump for trump. Obama did
authorize spying to catch terrorists plots & successfully & effectively caught many
terrorists. That fact combined with his conspiracy looks pretty good. Probably ? None of
these things are for what HE SAYS they are for LIES! Did you see a shred of evidence? Who
does he use for facts, THE ONE MEDIA OUTLET THAT HE ACCUSES OF BEING FAKE, NONE OTHER THAN
CNN!
If Justice isn't done #WeThePeople Lose every
right and Rouge Government has a the power.. Communism. They allowed our right to elect a
President to be removed. Selling Nuke materials to those that want America Destroyed? They
have destroyed America..
Mueller is arresting people without cause. These people have already been to court and got
sentenced. He brings them in to squeeze them and tell them if they lie he will lighten their
jail time. This in it.s self is illgal. The demorats don.t care. They kill people to get at
Trump and have killed many. no shame from them or their supporters they agree with this
killings. Pigs
Awesome. I love how he explains all the Obama/Clinton shenanigans in an easy to understand
- though difficult to follow- manner. Difficult to follow just bc there are sooooo many
players in this scheme to undermine President Trump.
FOR AN EX SECRETSERVICE AGENT DAN BONGINO HAS COME A LONG WAY AND IS VERY IMPRESSIVE IN
HIS ABILITY TO TIE THINGS TOGETHER SO CONVINCINGLY WITH NAMES AND THERE ASSOCIATION AND
HISTORY. THE BOOK WILL BE A BEST SELLER . DAN WILL PROFIT MONETARILY, BUT AS FAR AS JUSTICE
BEING SERVED ,THE MOST IT WILL DO IS PROVE TO REINFORCE THE NEGATIVE MESSAGE OF HOW CORRUPT
THE POLITICIANS ARE AND THE SWAMP WILL STAY TRUE TO ITSELF.
the law does punish man or women,that steals a goose from off the common,but lets the
greater felon loose,that steals the common from the goose, hillary and russians stole the law
will rightly try all fairly mueller shows us the truth.we americans are but slaves ,and
knaves if we in power say it.
Mr. Bongino I have just one question. With all this proof of scandal why has nothing been
done? Why are all these criminals still walking free? From Oboma and the Clinton Crime
Machine down to the janitor sweeping the floors. Why are they not being prosecuted? Why did
the Republican house investigators wait untill now to call in Comey to testify? Comey will
continue to obstruct and use his stall tactics till the Democrat House majority takes over in
January and all of this will be swept under the rug .Then WHAT? I feel that President Trump
stands alone knee deep in the Washington Swamp. I feel that both the Left and the Right are
the epiitomy of those Swamp Dwellers.All talk to keep us believing that they are working hard
for justice and what happens when nothing comes out of this. They are all in bed with each
other to keep us lining their pockets. WHAT A SCAM. I will continue to support our President.
We the people are all he has. GOD BLESS PRESIDENT TRUMP and GOD BLESS AMERICA.
🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Dan, yet again you've given us tomorrow's headlines today. The fact the the Bushs and the
Clintons are corrupt to the core has now been established beyond all fact and argument. The
missing piece however, what will now rightly demolish the Obama false legacy, is the
declassification of the unredacted email trades between Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton
transmitted on Clinton's unsecured private server account. These emails exist, they are on
file and they will be released. When they do see the public light of day they will testify to
the greatest abuse of political power in the free world of our lifetimes and well beyond. The
Obama/Clinton email exchange will completely vindicate the granular questions that so many of
us have been asking for so long. There are and nor will there be any winners in this whole
disgusting affair other than the whole truth.
I wish Dan Bongiono had a bigger audience!! He makes total common sense and there is an
honesty abouyt hgim that I just know is RIGHT...from my gut instincts..rememberr those or are
you too brainwasshed to know thats what you should count on!
Lol Trump was put as president by the simpsons 2 decades ago if you think for one moment
that it's legit you need to take a look at yourself it's a Hollywood joke....!!!
LOL rich liberals what about the corporations and their top dogs that just got one of the
biggest tax cuts that live in 20,000 square-foot mansions. Thanks conservative
Republicans
I'd like to see Dan sit down with George Webb live on TV. Excellent summary of the plot
but GW has spent three years joining the dots. If he's right & I haven't found anything
to the contrary, then Americans of all political persuasions should be (1st) very angry and
(2nd) extremely worried. George Webb channel on YouTube also on Twitter & the web,
Spyring in Congress. Incredible group of researchers, contributors &
Patriots.
Ok, let me see if I can get this right he says that the left leaning media is lost it's
gone out! In the beginning, true or false? HE'S IMPLYING THAT THEY LIE, RIGHT? Then, as right
wing conservatives do without fail he relies exclusively on the SAME MEDIA OUTLETS TO VARIFY
HIS FACTS ON FOOTNOTES! Tell me people is there ANYTHING WRONG WITH THIS PICTURE?
How do we stop them from impeaching him before he nails them???? They're apparently above
the law, they are the law!!!. They have to take Trump down to save their hinds. Catch
22.
I knew before he ever said out loud he was going to run for presidency that I he will be
president one day and that he would save our country and liberate us from our corrupt gov't.
Truth I am not a psychic don't believe in it but I swear I knew it years before and I never
knew much about him other than he was a business man that spoke out about 9/11 and that he
had a tower in NYC that I seen while visiting there to see ground zero. He is truly God sent
and he is the greatest President and has made History books get a heck of a lot
bigger.
Is it Christmas time again so soon? Time for another scandal or conspiracy theory to plant
seeds of fear. Fear motivates the mindless Americans into consumption. Consumption is the
belief you can hold the wicked world at bay by providing anesthesia to your loved ones by
material offerings. America is Truth, Justice, the American way. How is Trump providing that?
Nationalism, and alternative reality. Yeah, a Flat Earth and Neo-Ns, good work America... now
some orange dude who can't get a believable tan working, wants to rake the forest floor. This
is so dumb. Our old allies laugh at us, and Russia could invade the US today because we've
become the porn star republic. Have a Merry X-Mass with your orange Satan Claus.
DEMOCRAT Has BECOME A SYNONYM FOR HOMOsexual ! DEMS TIME TO #WALKAWAY After being a life-
long Democrat, since Carter ,I'll be voting Republican for ever for several reasons such as
the disproportionate proliferation of HOMOSEXUAL TV programs and movies and the GUN GRAB
ATTEMPTS by the Democrat Party. But , these next reasons really burn me up ! Recently, an
openly HOMOSEXUAL teacher in EFLAND , N.C. recently read the book," KING AND KING ", TO HIS
3RD GRADE CLASS. It's the story of TWO HOMOSEXUAL PRINCES getting married and it shows them
kissing. Also The Girl Scouts of America has been FORCED, by HOMOSEXUAL Groups, TO ACCEPT
BOYS WHO IDENTIFY AS GIRLS. There even pushing to have sex education taught in Kindergarten
"Chicago Passes Sex-Ed for Kindergartners - ABC News" "Obama: Sex Ed for Kindergartners 'Is
the Right Thing to Do' In the state of California, heterosexual married couples can no longer
be referred to as Husbands and Wives , Democrat Governor Jerry Brown has signed a bill into
law that not only redefines marriage, but eliminates any reference to husband and wife,
replacing each with the Generic Term Spouse ! People this is beyond the pale. The rampant
proliferation of this kind of behavior is what we can expect if we continue to let the 2%
TAIL OF THE HOMOSEXUAL POPULATION continue to WAG THE ENTIRE DEMOCRAT PARTY. The REPUBLICAN
PARTY is our last hope in maintaining some kind of MORAL COMPASS AND TRADITIONAL FAMILY
VALUES that are the foundation of this Country . Voting in a another Democrat President and
Congress will give them the opportunity to appoint Liberal Supreme Court Justices giving the
Court a LIBERAL MAJORITY FOR GENERATIONS. Meaning we can expect more of this. The following
is the Genesis of a Lawsuit filed in 2006 against the reading of the HOMOSEXUAL BOOK."KING
AND KING" TO 7 YEAR OLDS IN A CLASSROOM. In 2006 Robb and Robin Wirthlin and David and Tonia
Parker filed a federal lawsuit against the school district of Eastbrook Elementary School,
which their second graders attended in Lexington, Massachusetts. The Wirthlins' son's teacher
had read King & King aloud to the class as part of an educational unit on weddings.
Parents countered that the school's job was to teach about the world and that Massachusetts
sanctioned same-sex marriage The plaintiffs claimed that using the book in school constituted
sex education without parental notification, which would be a violation of their civil rights
and state law. Robin Wirthlin appeared on CNN, saying " We felt like seven years old is not
appropriate to introduce homosexual themes. My problem is that this issue of romantic
attraction between two men is being presented to my seven-year-old as wonderful, and good and
the way things should be. Let us know and let us excuse our child from the discussion. "
HERE'S WHAT THE LIBERAL JUDGES RULED: IF THIS IS THE KIND OF RULINGS YOU WANT , ELECT ANOTHER
DEMOCRAT PRESIDENT The judge dismissed the lawsuit, saying "Diversity is a hallmark of our
nation. The Wirthlins and the Parkers appealed the decision; a three-judge panel of the First
Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously in favor of the school. Judge Sandra Lynch,
writing for the court, rejected the plaintiff's argument that their religious beliefs were
being singled out as well as their argument that their First Amendment right to free exercise
of religion was violated, writing, "There is no evidence of systemic indoctrination. There is
no allegation that [the second-grader] was asked to affirm gay marriage. Requiring a student
to read a particular book is generally not coercive of free exercise rights." The court also
ruled that the parents' substantive due process rights were not violated, as these rights did
not legally give them the degree of control they sought over the curriculum. Funny how you
can't read a moral lesson from the Bible ,but you can Promote HOMOsexual marriage to 2nd and
3rd graders ! TELL EVERYONE YOU KNOW ABOUT THIS ! Here's a small % of shows with Homosexual
Characters or Content without doing an in depth search ,let's see we have the one that
started it all Will and Grace, then Strange Angel, Kidding, The First , Star Trek Discovery,
Ozark , Ballers, The Killing, Aquarius , True Detective ,Bosch, Grace & Frankie , Zoo
,CSI- New Orleans ,Six Feet Under , Complications ,Entourage , Angels in America ,Community ,
Girls, The L Word, The Walking Dead ,The Last Man Standing, The Following, Empire , Backstrom
, Chicago Fire , The Royals ,The Big Bang Theory, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Bored to Death , The
Cleveland Show, King of the Hill, South park, The Simpsons, Glee, The 100,Black Sails, Madame
Secretary , Gotham , Kingdom, How to get Away With Murder, The Modern Family, Dominion,
Tyrant, The Night Shift, It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia, Penny Dreadful, Nurse Jackie
,Star Crossed, The Fall , Peaky Blinders , Wentworth , Defiance, Hemlock Grove, Hannibal ,
The Bridge , Under The Dome ,Ray Donavan , Orphan Black, Banshee, Betrayal , House of Cards ,
Alpha House , Masters of Sex , Nashville, Da Vinci's Demons , Arrow, Sons of Anarchy ,Orange
is the New Black, Sherlock ,Skins , Lip Service, How I met your Mother, Xena ,Prison Break ,
Homicide Life On The Streets , East Enders , Teen Wolf , Torchwood, Sex and the City , Bad
Girls ,True Blood , Spartacus ,Game of Thrones , The Vampire Dairies , Shameless , Queer As
Folk , The Wire ,The Office , Weeds ,Ripper Street , Schitt's Creek , Eye Candy ,Transparent,
The Flash ,Chasing Life ,Hit The Floor ,Dracula , Dates , The Originals ,A Place To Call Home
, The Fosters , The Carrie Dairies , Undateable , and American Horror Story just to mention a
few there are dozens more. The HOMOsexualS are 2-5% of the population ,but 90% of the TV
Shows have HOMOsexual content . Don't you think that's a bit disproportionate and does stuff
like the following need to be on TV. Scene From Ballers: Episode 2 Actor 1 : Would you mind
if I took you in my mouth Right now ! Actor 2: (formerly The Rock): The whole thing ? Actor
1: The whole shebang ! Actor 2: Make it quick ! Actor 1: Thank you for the blue balls
!
Did you see trump retweet a picture with obama,hillary and bill behind bars? With text
saying "trials for treason begin"???? THEY ARE ALL GOING TO PRISON or DEATH BY
HANGING
Dan, your last four minutes made me cry. Its why I had to stop with 911 truth. I had to
move on just hoping justice will be served...really great Dan!
Please be advised that the crime family Obama is a lot bigger than the story that Dan
tells. Everyone involved is married or some kind of relation or through political favors and
government taxpayer pay outs and there are hundreds of crooks that can all be traced back to
Obama or someone in his group of Liars & Thieves.
Cohen pleading guilty makes this all very problematic. The potential for Cohen doing
illegal stuff for Trump is massively high. It is as high as Hillary doing illegal stuff. The
massive problem with this whole story is that if it is true, Trump has had it for two years,
and done nothing. That makes no sense. I trust not a one of them. I KNOW Hillary is a
horrible piece of dirt that protects her sex abusing husband, but I also KNOW Trump has done
so many dirty deals, and slept with innumerable low life wealth and power groupies, so
neither is Snow White. Dirty Vs Filthy. I like Trump, and despise Hillary, but I am not
delusional enough to think he is not hiding shit he does not want the people to
know.
Could the case be made for collusion to commit sedition it's just what they done since
Trump was a candidate they probably done a lot worse before he even announced he was running
there Traders
This is the biggest "youtube" article i have seen out here.! I am amazed you are still
alive! Move into the white house with Donald Trump for two months.
The media has brainwashed you with lies that's why people don't have understanding anymore
they think the truth is a lie and the lies truth that's why blind people can understand Dan
bongino
Mueller is a traitor to this country. He brought shame and dishonor to the Marines. The
only way out for him is to go in to his bathroom and put a full metal jacket into his
worthless brain. Maybe even take his family with him.
" 3rd country corruption Government" - Abused the power and betrayed the American people.
Obama, Clinton, Mueller, Comey, Clipper and many others should be in jail now.
How did we ever let things get this bad how could we have let a few people have all this
power we the people can be blamed because we voted these idiots into office now we need to
vote them out and show them who is boss and it's not them! Stand with this President and
bring these corrupt people down and put them where there rightful place is in prison or
gallows!
After Democratic party was co-opted by neoliberals there is no way back. And since Obama the trend of Democratic Party is
toward strengthening the wing of CIA-democratic notthe wing of the party friendly to workers. Bought by Wall Street leadership is
uncable of intruting any change that undermine thier current neoliberal platform. that's why they criminally derailed Sanders.
Notable quotes:
"... When you think about the issue of how exactly a clean-energy jobs program would address the elephant in the room of private accumulation and how such a program, under capitalism, would be able to pay living wages to the people put to work under it, it exposes how non threatening these Green New Deals actually are to capitalism. ..."
"... To quote Trotsky, "These people are capable of and ready for anything!" ..."
"... "Any serious measures to stop global warming, let alone assure a job and livable wage to everyone, would require a massive redistribution of wealth and the reallocation of trillions currently spent on US imperialism's neo-colonial wars abroad." ..."
"... "It includes various left-sounding rhetoric, but is entirely directed to and dependent upon the Democratic Party." ..."
"... "And again and again, in the name of "practicality," the most unrealistic and impractical policy is promoted -- supporting a party that represents the class that is oppressing and exploiting you! The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth face today -- falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of world war." - New York Times tries to shame "disillusioned young voters" into supporting the Democrats ..."
"... It is an illusion that technical innovation within the capitalist system will magically fundamentally resolve the material problems produced by capitalism. But the inconvenient facts are entirely ignored by the corporate shills in the DSA and the whole lot of establishment politicians, who prefer to indulge their addiction to wealth and power with delusions of grandeur, technological utopianism, and other figments that serve the needs of their class. ..."
"... First it was Obama with his phoney "hope and change" that lured young voters to the Dumbicrats and now it's Ocacia Cortez promising a "green deal" in order to herd them back into the Democratic party--a total fraud of course--totally obvious! ..."
"... from Greenwald: The Democratic Party's deceitful game https://www.salon.com/2010/... ..."
they literally ripped this out of the 2016 Green Party platform. Jill Stein spoke repeatedly
about the same exact kind of Green New Deal, a full-employment, transition-to-100%-renewables
program that would supposedly solve all the world's problems.
When you think about the issue of how exactly a clean-energy jobs program would address
the elephant in the room of private accumulation and how such a program, under capitalism,
would be able to pay living wages to the people put to work under it, it exposes how non
threatening these Green New Deals actually are to capitalism.
In 2016, when the Greens made
this their central economic policy proposal, the Democrats responded by calling that platform
irresponsible and dangerous ("even if it's a good idea, you can't actually vote for a
non-two-party candidate!"). Why would they suddenly find a green new deal appealing now
except for its true purpose: left cover for the very system destroying the planet.
To quote
Trotsky, "These people are capable of and ready for anything!"
"Any serious measures to stop global warming, let alone assure a job and livable wage to
everyone, would require a massive redistribution of wealth and the reallocation of trillions
currently spent on US imperialism's neo-colonial wars abroad."
Their political position not only lacks seriousness, unserious is their political
position.
"It includes various left-sounding rhetoric, but is entirely directed to and dependent
upon the Democratic Party."
For subjective-idealists, what you want to believe, think and feel is just so much more
convincing than objective reality. Especially when it covers over single-minded class
interests at play.
"And again and again, in the name of "practicality," the most unrealistic and impractical
policy is promoted -- supporting a party that represents the class that is oppressing and
exploiting you! The result is precisely the disastrous situation working people and youth
face today -- falling wages, no job security, growing repression and the mounting threat of
world war." - New York Times tries to shame "disillusioned young voters" into supporting
the Democrats
It is an illusion that technical innovation within the capitalist system will magically
fundamentally resolve the material problems produced by capitalism. But the inconvenient
facts are entirely ignored by the corporate shills in the DSA and the whole lot of
establishment politicians, who prefer to indulge their addiction to wealth and power with
delusions of grandeur, technological utopianism, and other figments that serve the needs of
their class.
First it was Obama with his phoney "hope and change" that lured young voters to the
Dumbicrats and now it's Ocacia Cortez promising a "green deal" in order to herd them back
into the Democratic party--a total fraud of course--totally obvious!
Only an International Socialist program led by Workers can truly lead a "green revolution" by
expropriating the billionaire oil barons of their capital and redirecting that wealth into
the socialist reconstruction of the entire economy.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal" is a nice laugh. Really, it sure is funny hearing
these lies given any credence at all. This showmanship belongs in a fantasy book, not in real
life. The Democratic Party as a force for good social change Now that's a laugh!
Lies, empty promises, meaningless tautologies and morality plays, qualified and conditional
declarations to be backpedalled pending appropriate political expediencies, devoid any
practical content that is what AOC, card carrying member of DSA, and in fact young energetic
political apparatchik of calcified political body of Dems establishment, duty engulfs. And
working for socialist revolution is no one of them.
What kind of socialist would reject socialist revolution, class struggle and class
emancipation and choose, as a suppose socialist path, accommodation with oligarchic ruling
elite via political, not revolutionary process that would have necessarily overthrown ruling
elite.
What socialist would acquiesce to legalized exploitation of people for profit, legalized
greed and inequality and would negotiate away fundamental principle of egalitarianism and
working people self rule?
Only National Socialist would; and that is exactly what AOC campaign turned out to be all
about.
National Socialism with imperial flavor is her affiliation and what her praises for
Pelosi, wife of a billionaire and dead warmonger McCain proved.
Now she is peddling magical thinking about global change and plunge herself into falacy of
entrepreneurship, Market solution to the very problem that the market solutions were designed
to create and aggravate namely horrific inequality that is robbing people from their own
opportunities to mitigate devastating effects of global change.
The insidiousness of phony socialists expresses itself in the fact that they lie that any
social problem can be fixed by current of future technical means, namely via so called
technological revolution instead by socialist revolution they deem unnecessary or
detrimental.
The technical means for achieving socialism has existed since the late 19th century, with the
telegraph, the coal-powered factory, and modern fertilizer. The improvements since then have
only made socialism even more streamlined and efficient, if such technologies could only be
liberated from capital! The idea that "we need a new technological revolution just to achieve
socialism" reflects the indoctrination in capitalism by many "socialist" theorists because it
is only in capitalism where "technological growth" is essential simply to maintain the
system. It is only in capitalism (especially America, the most advanced capitalist nation,
and thus, the one where capitalism is actually closest towards total crisis) where the dogma
of a technological savior is most entrenched because America cannot offer any other kind of
palliative to the more literate and productive sections of its population. Religion will not
convince most and any attempt at a sociological or economic understanding would inevitably
prove the truth of socialism.
Hitchens died, Rose was effectively taken out by the liberals, and Hillary lost the 2016
election. And Bill has still evaded responsibility for his actions while others have fallen
for less.
Hitchen's won my respect with this interview. He was exactly right in his assessment of
Bill Clinton and was the only man who had the balls to say it out loud at the expense of his
own status and reputation. In defending the weak and vulnerable against the strong and
powerful, Hitchens really was living up to his namesake as a ''CHRIST BEARER.''
Charlie keeps asking Hitch if he is wrapped up in mania about Clinton. This guy never
thought to ask himself if he, Charlie, was wrapped up in the worship of the Clintons.
The irony of Charlie Rose sitting across from Hitchens as the Hitch lambastes (rightfully)
President Clinton for sexual misconduct is not lost on me. If Christopher were alive I think
he would laugh wryly over it.
"... Adam Schiff will shut down the probe that found FBI abuses. ..."
"... Credit for knowing anything at all goes to Intel Chairman Devin Nunes and more recently a joint investigation by Reps. Bob Goodlatte (Judiciary) and Trey Gowdy (Oversight). Over 18 months of reviewing tens of thousands of documents and interviewing every relevant witness, no Senate or House Committee has unearthed evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to win the presidential election. If Special Counsel Robert Mueller has found more, he hasn't made it public. ..."
"... But House investigators have uncovered details of a Democratic scheme to prod the FBI to investigate the Trump campaign. We now know that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee hired Fusion GPS, which hired an intelligence-gun-for-hire, Christopher Steele, to write a "dossier" on Donald Trump's supposed links to Russia. ..."
"... Mr. Steele fed that document to the FBI, even as he secretly alerted the media to the FBI probe that Team Clinton had helped to initiate. Fusion, the oppo-research firm, was also supplying its dossier info to senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, whose wife, Nellie, worked for Fusion. ..."
"... This abuse of the FBI's surveillance powers took place as part of a counterintelligence investigation into a presidential campaign -- which the FBI also hid from Congress. Such an investigation is unprecedented in post-J. Edgar Hoover American politics, and it included running informants into the Trump campaign, obtaining surveillance warrants, and using national security letters, which are secret subpoenas to obtain phone records and documents. ..."
Adam Schiff will shut down the probe that found FBI abuses.
Arguably the most important power at stake in Tuesday's election was Congressional
oversight, and the most important change may be Adam Schiff at the House Intelligence
Committee. The Democrat says his top priority is re-opening the Trump-Russia collusion probe,
but more important may be his intention to stop investigating how the FBI and Justice
Department abused their power in 2016. So let's walk through what we've learned to date.
Credit for knowing anything at all goes to Intel Chairman Devin Nunes and more recently a
joint investigation by Reps. Bob Goodlatte (Judiciary) and Trey Gowdy (Oversight). Over 18
months of reviewing tens of thousands of documents and interviewing every relevant witness, no
Senate or House Committee has unearthed evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia
to win the presidential election. If Special Counsel Robert Mueller has found more, he hasn't
made it public.
But House investigators have uncovered details of a Democratic scheme to prod the FBI to
investigate the Trump campaign. We now know that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the
Democratic National Committee hired Fusion GPS, which hired an intelligence-gun-for-hire,
Christopher Steele, to write a "dossier" on Donald Trump's supposed links to Russia.
Mr. Steele fed that document to the FBI, even as he secretly alerted the media to the FBI
probe that Team Clinton had helped to initiate. Fusion, the oppo-research firm, was also
supplying its dossier info to senior Justice Department official Bruce Ohr, whose wife, Nellie,
worked for Fusion.
House investigators have also documented the FBI's lack of judgment in using the dossier to
obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant against former Trump aide Carter
Page. The four FISA warrants against Mr. Page show that the FBI relied almost exclusively on
the unproven Clinton-financed accusations, as well as a news story that was also ginned up by
Mr. Steele.
The FBI told the FISA court that Mr. Steele was "credible," despite Mr. Steele having
admitted to Mr. Ohr that he passionately opposed a Trump Presidency. The FBI also failed to
tell the FISA court about the Clinton campaign's tie to the dossier.
This abuse of the FBI's surveillance powers took place as part of a counterintelligence
investigation into a presidential campaign -- which the FBI also hid from Congress. Such an
investigation is unprecedented in post-J. Edgar Hoover American politics, and it included
running informants into the Trump campaign, obtaining surveillance warrants, and using national
security letters, which are secret subpoenas to obtain phone records and documents.
Mr. Nunes and his colleagues also found that officials in Barack Obama's White House
"unmasked" Trump campaign officials to learn about their conversations with foreigners; that
FBI officials exhibited anti-Trump bias in text messages; and that the FBI team that
interviewed then Trump National Security Adviser Michael Flynn reported that they did not think
Mr. Flynn had lied about his Russian contacts. Mr. Mueller still squeezed Mr. Flynn to cop a
guilty plea.
All of this information had to be gathered despite relentless opposition from Democrats and
their media contacts. Liberal groups ginned up a phony ethics complaint against Mr. Nunes,
derailing his committee leadership for months. Much of the media became Mr. Schiff's scribes
rather than independent reporters. Meanwhile, the FBI and Justice continue to stonewall
Congress, defying subpoenas and hiding names and information behind heavy redactions.
There is still much more the public deserves to know. This includes how and when the FBI's
Trump investigation began, the extent of FBI surveillance, and the role of Obama officials and
foreigners such as Joseph Mifsud, a Maltese academic who in spring 2016 supposedly told Trump
campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that Russia held damaging Clinton emails. When he takes
over the committee, Mr. Schiff will stop asking these questions and bless the FBI-Justice
refusal to cooperate.
Senate Republicans could continue to dig next year, but Mr. Mueller seems uninterested.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions in March asked Utah U.S. Attorney John Huber to look into FBI
misconduct, but there has been little public reporting of what he is finding, if he is even
still looking. Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz is investigating, though that report
is likely to take many more months.
* * *
All of which puts an additional onus on Mr. Trump to declassify key FBI and Justice
documents sought by Mr. Nunes and other House investigators before Mr. Schiff buries the truth.
A few weeks ago Mr. Trump decided to release important documents, only to renege under pressure
from Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein and members of the intelligence community.
Mr. Sessions resigned this week and perhaps Mr. Rosenstein will as well. Meantime, Mr. Trump
should revisit his decision and help Mr. Nunes and House Republicans finish the job in the lame
duck session of revealing the truth about the misuse of U.S. intelligence and the FISA court in
a presidential election.
"... "a group called CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project" a group that has received funding from Soros, to Pueblo Sin Fronteras through a person named 'Alex Mensing' who works both for CARA and as "an on-the ground coordinator in Mexico for the Pueblo Sin Fronteras". ..."
"... ..A vital part of that expansion has involved money: major donations from some of the nation's wealthiest liberal foundations, including the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Open Society Foundations of the financier George Soros, and the Atlantic Philanthropies. Over the past decade those donors have invested more than $300 million in immigrant organizations, including many fighting for a pathway to citizenship for immigrants here illegally.... ..."
"... US based groups or cutouts are the organizers of the caravan. ..."
"... The list of Democratic Party-connected organizations that might have originated the idea of a caravan from Central America is small. I surmise Clinton Global Initiative because they would have the requisite connections and blaming Soros seems to easy and convenient. But Soros is also rumored to be behind support for European migrants so it's certainly possible. ..."
How did this group of thousands come together to walk to US were Trump has vowed to keep
illegals out. People like this would naturally come together if they were catching a ship, or
at some sort of aid post refugee camp ect.
After a search on caravan starting point, I found this at the Guardian.
"Who organized the caravan?
In interviews, Honduran members of the group said that they learned about the caravan from
Facebook posts, and a report on the local HCH television station, which erroneously suggested
that a former congressman and radio host would cover the costs of the journey.
After that, rumours spread quickly, including the mistaken promise that any member would be
given asylum in the US. Darwin Ramos, 30, said he was desperate to flee threats from a local
drug gang, and when news of the caravan reached his neighbourhood, he seized on it as his
best chance to escape."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/24/caravan-migrants-what-is-it-where-from-guatemala-honduras-immigrants-mexico
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pueblo_Sin_Fronteras
"Pueblo Sin Fronteras (en: People without Borders) is an immigration rights group known for
organizing several high profile migrant caravans in Mexico and Central America. The
organization's efforts to facilitate immigration and calls for open borders attracted
considerable amounts of coverage in the Mexican and American media."
Pueblo Sin Fronteras website. Zero information there other than the have bases or offices
in San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Tijuana in Mexico. https://www.pueblosinfronteras.org/commitees.html
No information on who they are or who funds them. Very much a political organization.
On two caravans like this have occurred, both organized by this shadowy group.
Slow moving lots of press coverage that can last for weeks so long as the peasant suckers
stay suckers and don't pull out. Very much an anti Trump political show put on by whoever
funds and controls this Pueblo Sin Fronteras organisation.
Centro Sin Fronteras is the parent group to Pueblo Sin Fronteras. https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/centro-sin-fronteras/
"Elvira Arellano, an illegal immigrant from Mexico, former fugitive from U.S. immigration
authorities, and activist for illegal immigrants in the U.S., formed the activist group La
Familia Latina Unida ("The United Latin Family") as an expansion of the Centro Sin Fronteras.
[7] La Familia Latina Unida runs Pueblo Sin Fronteras ("People Without Borders"), a group
that organizes "migrant caravans" from Mexico and Latin America to cross the U.S. border
illegally"
The majority of people in the caravan may be leaving their own countries due to violence
poverty ect, but the caravan itself is a manufactured political event. left to their own
devices, some may have moved towards the US in small groups, others would have been deterred
due to Trumps immigration policy, but they have joined this so called caravan on false
promises made by the organisers. Nothing better than kids, women and oldies doing it tough or
better yet dying for political media coverage.
As for the politically organized caravan, the peasants have officially been offered a home
in Mexico, but the organizers prefer them to go on to the US. As they have been offered a
place in mexico, they are now economic migrants wanting greener pastures in the US rather
than refugees.
The peasants themselves, I think are mostly genuine though organizers are mixed through
the group. The peasants are no more than consumables in a political action.
. ..A vital part of that expansion has involved money: major donations from some of
the nation's wealthiest liberal foundations, including the Ford Foundation, the Carnegie
Corporation of New York, the Open Society Foundations of the financier George Soros, and the
Atlantic Philanthropies. Over the past decade those donors have invested more than $300
million in immigrant organizations, including many fighting for a pathway to citizenship for
immigrants here illegally.... https://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/15/us/obama-immigration-policy-changes.html
How can people not see this caravan march as the obvious false flag it is to influence the
election. The actors are being paid and busses have been mobilized and paid for to move them
forward. The right says Soros money might be behind it and they may be right. Surprised the
left has not blamed Putin. Which proves my point that the left is actively conspiring with
the right the keep them in power. Why wouldnt they care?. As Caitlin Johnstone says, after I
said it, they get paid the same no matter what. As part of a 2 party monopoly,with 2 parties
the minimum to serve the illusion of a representative Democracy,the oiligarchs will continue
to throw money to the loser.
This has been scripted well in advance. Republicans need to maintain both houses for the
2nd stage of Trumps destruction of America (credibility and finance), especially its
government and middle class as the elite will be protected from the damage. Democrats are
standing on the sidelines rambling about Russia Gate or Khashoggi Gate or mobilizing their
forces to support gay marriages and transgender access to bathrooms. And to boot they bring
out Hillary and Obama at the last moment to bash Trump to galvanize the rights voters even
more. No other purpose for doing so.
To be sure, a Democratic win means nothing except perhaps as a poor proxy for a lack of
support for Trump. 40% of their candidates come from the military or intelligence services.
They are owned by the oligarchs as much as tbe Republicans. The only difference in the
parties is the costumes they wear and the rhetoric the speak
Or perhaps its as simple as not wanting to share responsibility for what is to come as
their best shot to win in 2020
Frankly the best outcome would be the decimation of the Democrat Party and its subsequent
dissolution. Lets end the farce of a Democracy. One party for all. Hail Trump or whomever he
appoints as his successor, or just let the elites vote and announce who they voted for every
4 years. Thats pretty much what the constitution meant for us to be doing anyways. The idea
of a Direct vote by all citizens for President and Senate would have horrified them. Seeing
the results of elections these past 40 years I have concluded they are right.
Invaders or Dupes? Have the caravan migrants been misled?
While it's true that anyone can request asylum, the caravan migrants appear to be under
the impression that they have a legitimate claim to asylum in USA because they are fleeing
gang violence in their home country. That is very likely to be untrue.
Such a claim MIGHT be valid in countries that have signed the Cartagena Declaration
and ratified it into law - but the US has not. The Declaration expands the definition of
refugees to include:
"persons who have fled their country because their lives, security or freedom have been
threatened by generalized violence, foreign aggression, internal conflicts, massive
violation of human rights or other circumstances which have seriously disturbed public
order".
FYI
The 1951 UN Convention as amended defines a refugee as someone with a "well-founded fear
of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular
social group or political opinion" . The caravan stories I have heard are unlikely to
qualify under this definition.
Some countries that have loads of asylum seekers have set up camps to hold them. Some,
like Australia, even have camps in foreign countries. Trump's talk of setting up tents
implies that USA will also establish such camps. Life in these camps is likely to be
uncomfortable and unproductive. Only those will genuine asylum claims would tough it out.
How telling it is that when we disagree on the nature of the Caravan, we fall into an
either-or choice between 2 absolutes. Either it is a complete hoax from the ground up, or
it's a completely authentic grass-roots happening.
But we have seen enough color revolutions to understand that there is always an authentic
component to each one. I have commented several times on how delicately the CIA and other
organizers of color revolutions symbiotically fuse with good and authentic people who have a
noble cause. How these bad people can merge with such good people is a wonder to me.
But this itself is the fact that must demolish the partisan thinking of "one side or the
other". It's clear that the people who run things and their henchmen who arrange things are
marvelously nuanced when it comes to good and evil. They'll be good when it suits them and
evil for the same reason, and treat people well and badly, all depending on the exigencies of
the mission.
In simple words, there undoubtedly is a core heart to the population of the caravan that
is good, hopeful, enterprising and industrious, and that hopes to receive just one little
break from the world, and a sliver of social justice. This radiating core of goodness and
humanity, which would break open the hearts of ordinary people like you and me, to the
organizers and their fixers is simply the perfect place to hide, concealed by superb
protective coloration.
Take a look at the Maidan in Ukraine, and see how many good people thought they were
fighting to create a wonderful new world, until the snipers fired on both sides and brought
off the color revolution with superb skill and complete amoral ruthlessness - all as a result
of long planning and preparation, not to mention the cash to hire mercenaries and provide the
best logistics.
So I personally will stand by my thought that we will see what this is when the shooters
begin to provoke the violence. And if that happens, then sadly, it will be the innocents who
again, as always, are massacred.
But if the US handles it well, and permits controlled entry under the supervision of the
border authorities, and there are no shooters and no provocations coming either from the
Caravan people - or from some other force off to the side that doesn't seem to belong to
anyone, but which seems to be the cause of death to both sides - then this will all fizzle
out as another political skirmish of short duration, and the Democrats and Republicans will
move on to their next diversions.
You wrote: "Either it is a complete hoax from the ground up, or it's a completely
authentic grass-roots happening."
I am inclined to believe that it is both, to wit an authentic grass-roots happening that
has been hijacked (like so many others) by interested parties for their own ends.
Grieved 97
That's the way I'm seeing it. "But we have seen enough color revolutions to understand that
there is always an authentic component to each one. I have commented several times on how
delicately the CIA and other organizers of color revolutions symbiotically fuse with good and
authentic people who have a noble cause. How these bad people can merge with such good people
is a wonder to me."
Well put, not only the above paragragh but the whole comment. Not much most of us can do
to help the naive perhaps desperate people sucked in to the US political caravan but we
should at least be exposing those who are exploiting and furthingf their misery for political
purposes.
Requirement for any President or political leader is to be a good actor. I believe they
simply follow a script prepared by the real rulers operating in the shadows. Maybe I am
wrong. Its like fake wrestling as Caitlin Johnstone pointed out. You have to be a good actor
and pretend to care while actually making sure you qlose if the script calls for it
Jackrabbit@100
Its true they have been duped but the point is that desparate and poor people rarely work
together spontaneously in an organized fashion and a caravan such as this must be organized
and paid for. Someone is feeding them. The timing is too good to be true. Obviously they have
been promised something, asylum, money or whatever and assured of their safety. To determine
who is behind it you simply need to look at who benefits.
When discussing this caravan "false flag", many people will dismiss "conspiracy theories"
that involve paid actors.
RJPJR @98 thought the caravan an an "authentic grass-roots happening that has been
hi-jacked" . But that theory is also unsatisfying. As you point out (Pft), it is strange
that ordinary people organize themselves to make a march like the caravan.
The best explanation is that people were organized to make the march by local groups
[connected to Clinton Global Initiative?] which got PAID to do so. These trusted local groups
then told the marchers that: 1) they would get support along the way, and 2) that they have a
good/great chance of actually getting asylum.
Organizers would not want a member of the caravan to tell a reporter that the march was
fake, or that they are paid. But it has been reported that "well wishers" have given the
marchers food and money. And the press has not questioned that support. And the marchers seem
to have a genuine belief that they qualify for asylum. Such a belief would be easy to instill
in poor, uneducated people who can be easily duped into believing that an international
treaty like the Cartegena Declaration applies to all countries.
Jackrabbit, in my post @67 I linked the Pueblo Sin Fronteras website. When I found out about
this group I looked for their website which I was able to access, and although information
was sparse on this shadowy group, they proudly advertised their work on this caravan.
Since posting a link here I am now censored from that website - security exceptions blah
blah.
Not local globalist groups but US based groups or cutouts are the organizers of the
caravan.
But my hunch is that the trail ends with a one or more local groups that are known to
people in the area. These poor people basically had to be sold a 'bill of goods'. That's
difficult unless you are known/trusted (have a "brand" like Coca-Cola).
There would be several intermediary groups. Maybe a large in-country charity with US
connections? And one or more groups outside the country (US, Mexico, even EU) that are
connected to / get funding and direction from a major US group.
Let's face it, whoever was behind this would not want the caravan to be connected to back
to group with US political connections. And it's probably unlikely that we will find any
'smoking gun' that does that.
The list of Democratic Party-connected organizations that might have originated the
idea of a caravan from Central America is small. I surmise Clinton Global Initiative because
they would have the requisite connections and blaming Soros seems to easy and convenient. But
Soros is also rumored to be behind support for European migrants so it's certainly
possible.
It really the same reasoning that led b to suspect that it was CIA/MI6 that foiled
assassination plot in Denmark, not Mossad.
"... The Democratic Party split into a four-headed monster comprised of Wall Street patrons seeking favors, war hawks and their corporate allies looking for new global rumbles, the permanent bureaucracy looking to always expand itself, and the various ethnic and sexual minorities whose needs and grievances are serviced by that bureaucracy. It's the last group that has become the party's most public face while the party's other activities – many of them sinister -- remain at least partially concealed. ..."
"... the Republicans are being forced to engage on some real issues, such as the need for a coherent and effective immigration policy and the need to redefine formal trade relations. (Other issues like the insane system of medical racketeering and the deadly racket of the college loan industry just skate along on thin ice. And then, of course, there's the national debt and all its grotesque outgrowths.) ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has become the party of bad ideas and bad faith, starting with the position that "diversity and inclusion" means shutting down free speech, an unforgivable transgression against common sense and common decency. It's a party that lies even more systematically than Mr. Trump, and does so knowingly (as when Google execs say they "Do no Evil"). Its dirty secret is that it relishes coercion, it likes pushing people around, telling them what to think and how to act. Its idea of "social justice" is a campus kangaroo court, where due process of law is suspended. And it is deeply corrupt, with good old-fashioned grift, new-fashioned gross political misconduct in federal law enforcement, and utter intellectual depravity in higher education. ..."
"... I hope that the party is shoved into an existential crisis and is forced to confront its astounding dishonesty. I hope that the process prompts them to purge their leadership across the board. ..."
Back in the last century, when this was a different country, the Democrats were the "smart"
party and the Republicans were the "stupid" party.
How did that work?
Well, back then the Democrats represented a broad middle class, with a base of factory
workers, many of them unionized, and the party had to be smart, especially in the courts, to
overcome the natural advantages of the owner class.
In contrast, the Republicans looked like a claque of country club drunks who staggered
home at night to sleep on their moneybags. Bad optics, as we say nowadays.
The Democrats also occupied the moral high ground as the champion of the little guy. If not
for the Dems, factory workers would be laboring twelve hours a day and children would still be
maimed in the machinery. Once the relationship between business and labor was settled in the
1950s, the party moved on to a new crusade on even loftier moral high ground: civil rights,
aiming to correct arrant and long-lived injustices against downtrodden black Americans. That
was a natural move, considering America's self-proclaimed post-war status as the world's Beacon
of Liberty. It had to be done and a political consensus that included Republicans got it done.
Consensus was still possible.
The Dems built their fortress on that high ground and fifty years later they find themselves
prisoners in it. The factory jobs all vamoosed overseas. The middle class has been pounded into
penury and addiction.
The Democratic Party split into a four-headed monster comprised of Wall Street patrons
seeking favors, war hawks and their corporate allies looking for new global rumbles, the
permanent bureaucracy looking to always expand itself, and the various ethnic and sexual
minorities whose needs and grievances are serviced by that bureaucracy. It's the last group
that has become the party's most public face while the party's other activities – many of
them sinister -- remain at least partially concealed.
The Republican Party has, at least, sobered up some after getting blindsided by Trump and
Trumpism. Like a drunk out of rehab, it's attempting to get a life. Two years in, the party
marvels at Mr. Trump's audacity, despite his obvious lack of savoir faire. And despite a
longstanding lack of political will to face the country's problems,the Republicans are being
forced to engage on some real issues, such as the need for a coherent and effective immigration
policy and the need to redefine formal trade relations. (Other issues like the insane system of
medical racketeering and the deadly racket of the college loan industry just skate along on
thin ice. And then, of course, there's the national debt and all its grotesque outgrowths.)
Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has become the party of bad ideas and bad faith, starting
with the position that "diversity and inclusion" means shutting down free speech, an
unforgivable transgression against common sense and common decency. It's a party that lies even
more systematically than Mr. Trump, and does so knowingly (as when Google execs say they "Do no
Evil"). Its dirty secret is that it relishes coercion, it likes pushing people around, telling
them what to think and how to act. Its idea of "social justice" is a campus kangaroo court,
where due process of law is suspended. And it is deeply corrupt, with good old-fashioned grift,
new-fashioned gross political misconduct in federal law enforcement, and utter intellectual
depravity in higher education.
I hope that Democrats lose as many congressional and senate seats as possible.I hope that
the party is shoved into an existential crisis and is forced to confront its astounding
dishonesty. I hope that the process prompts them to purge their leadership across the board. If
there is anything to salvage in this organization, I hope it discovers aims and principles that
are unrecognizable from its current agenda of perpetual hysteria. But if the party actually
blows up and disappears, as the Whigs did a hundred and fifty years ago, I will be content. Out
of the terrible turbulence, maybe something better will be born.
Or, there's the possibility that the dregs of a defeated Democratic Party will just go
batshit crazy and use the last of its mojo to incite actual sedition. Of course, there's also a
distinct possibility that the Dems will take over congress, in which case they'll ramp up an
even more horrific three-ring-circus of political hysteria and persecution that will make the
Spanish Inquisition look like a backyard barbeque. That will happen as the US enters the most
punishing financial train wreck in our history, an interesting recipe for epic political
upheaval.
Some people understood that this is a color revolution even in 2016
Notable quotes:
"... And even though the corporate elites have formally acknowledged Trump's victory, they are pressuring the current government to fight the next US President tooth and nail, until all resources are exhausted. ..."
"... Over the last eight years, the Obama administration has acquired a long list of tricks that were used against undesired governments in various parts of the world, while the most effective among them is the so-called "color revolutions," where essentially a coup d'etat is achieved by media manipulation and large mobs. US intelligence services are now prepared to unleash such a revolution on the home front, since they are fairly concerned about their future under Trump, as the Washington Post would report. ..."
"... It goes without saying that an attempt to launch a "color revolution" in the United States is being supported by a number of Europe states in addition to the US ..."
"... Martin Berger is a freelance journalist and geopolitical analyst, exclusively for the online magazine "New Eastern Outlook." ..."
The recent victory of now President-elect Donald Trump has taken a lot of Americans by
surprise. But it would be safe to say that the corporate ruling elites that went all in on
Hillary Clinton were literally shocked by her defeat. Without her at the head of the state they
fear they may not be able to carry on spreading the corruption, which is believed to be at the
foundation of the
Clinton clan, or carry on waging wars upon other states which includes arming terrorists
responsible for killing thousands of civilians around the world.
And even though the corporate elites have formally acknowledged Trump's victory, they
are pressuring the current government to fight the next US President tooth and nail, until all
resources are exhausted.
Over the last eight years, the Obama administration has acquired a long list of tricks
that were used against undesired governments in various parts of the world, while the most
effective among them is the so-called "color revolutions," where essentially a coup d'etat is
achieved by media manipulation and large mobs. US intelligence services are now prepared to
unleash such a revolution on the home front, since they are fairly concerned about their future
under Trump, as the Washington Post would report.
The fact that Obama still believes in Trump's inability to replace him in the White House
has already been announced by the White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest. At the same time,
he would point out, while commenting on the anti-Trump protests in the US, that the right for
freedom of expression must be exercised without violence, clearly alluding to the current
administration's arsenal of "peaceful" tools that would allow it to get rid of Trump.
That is why we already are witnessing a wave of "protests" being unleashed under the control
of the Obama administration. The corporate media and social networks are openly arrayed against
the incoming 45th US President. These very tactics have been used by US intelligence agencies
in Brazil, Nicaragua, Hong Kong, Thailand, as well as across the Middle East and Eastern Europe
to unleash a "color revolution". In some countries, such actions have brought foreign
government under the direct control of the White House, as we can see it in Ukraine, Brazil and
several other countries.
As a result, we are now being told about thousands
of protesters in US cities rallying against the Trump election victory. These claims were
followed by a petition published on Change.org that demands the US authorities change the
results of the recent election, demanding the electoral college be revised, and that the
election results be overturned on December 19. It is being reported that this petition has
already been signed by a total of two million people .
It goes without saying that an attempt to launch a "color revolution" in the United
States is being supported by a number of Europe states in addition to the US , including
France and Germany, since the political order there is concerned about the impunity they've
been enjoying coming to an end, with Trump failing to openly signal continued open US support
for them.. The British Independent
wants Trump to be impeached, citing law professor Christopher Peterson, who would claim
that there is a strong case for the beginning of legal proceedings that would stop Donald Trump
from being president. The impeachment process is usually initiated when a president of a state
has committed some sort of a serious offense, but Trump hasn't been able to do anything yet,
since he hasn't been inaugurated. Still the Independent
believes there must be some legal ground for his impeachment.
It's clear the train of "color revolution" is under full steam in the US today. What will
come up from this attempt to ignore the US Constitution, remains to be seen.
Martin Berger is a freelance journalist and geopolitical analyst, exclusively for the
online magazine "New Eastern
Outlook."
"... Department of Justice and FBI officials in the Obama administration in October of 2016 only presented to the court the evidence that made the government's case to get a warrant to spy on a Trump campaign associate ..."
"... The FBI referred to Papadopoulos in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant application - however what has been released to the public is so heavily redacted that it's unclear why he is mentioned. ..."
"... As The Hill 's John Solomon notes, based on Congressional testimony by former FBI General Counsel James Baker - the DOJ / FBI redactions aren't hiding national security issues - only embarrassment . ..."
"... President Trump issued an order to declassify the documents on September 17, but then walked it back - announcing that the DOJ would be allowed to review the documents first after two foreign allies asked him to keep them classified. ..."
"... "My opinion is that declassifying them would not expose any national security information, would not expose any sources and methods," said Ratcliffe. "It would expose certain folks at the Obama Justice Department and FBI and their actions taken to conceal material facts from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court." ..."
After hinting for months that the FBI was not forthcoming with federal surveillance court
judges when they made their case to spy on the Trump campaign, Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe (R)
said on Sunday that the agency is holding evidence which "directly refutes" its premise for
launching the probe, reports the Daily Caller 's Chuck Ross.
Texas Rep. John Ratcliffe provided Sunday the clearest picture to date of what the FBI
allegedly withheld from the surveillance court.
Ratcliffe suggested that the FBI failed to include evidence regarding former Trump
campaign adviser George Papadopoulos , in an interview with Fox News.
Ratcliffe noted that the FBI opened its investigation on July 31, 2016, after receiving
information from the Australian government about a conversation that Papadopoulos had on May
10, 2016, with Alexander Downer , the
top Australian diplomat to the U.K. - Daily Caller
While Australia's Alexander Downer claimed that Papadopoulos revealed Russia had "dirt" on
Hillary Clinton, Ratcliffe - who sits on the House Judiciary Committee - suggested on Sunday
that the FBI and DOJ possess information which directly contradicts that account.
"Hypothetically, if the Department of Justice and the FBI have another piece of evidence
that directly refutes that, that directly contradicts that, what you would expect is for the
Department of Justice to present both sides of the coin to the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court to evaluate the weight and sufficiency of that evidence," Ratcliffe said,
adding: "Instead, what happened here was Department of Justice and FBI officials in the Obama
administration in October of 2016 only presented to the court the evidence that made the
government's case to get a warrant to spy on a Trump campaign associate."
The FBI referred to Papadopoulos in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant
application - however what has been released to the public is so heavily redacted that it's
unclear why he is mentioned.
As The Hill 's John Solomon notes, based on Congressional testimony by former FBI General
Counsel James Baker - the DOJ / FBI redactions aren't hiding national security issues -
only embarrassment .
Other GOP lawmakers have suggested that evidence exists which would exonerate Papadopoulos -
who pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI about his contacts with Maltese professor (and
self-professed member of the Clinton Foundation), Joseph Mifsud.
Ratcliffe suggested that declassifying DOJ / FBI documents related to the matter "would
corroborate" his claims about Papadopoulos.
Republicans have pressed President Trump to declassify the documents, which include 21
pages from a June 2016 FISA application against Page. House Intelligence Committee Chairman
Devin Nunes has said
that the FBI failed to provide "exculpatory evidence" in the FISA applications. He has also
said that Americans will be "shocked" by the information behind the FISA redactions. -
Daily Caller
President Trump issued an order to declassify the documents on September 17, but then walked
it back - announcing that the DOJ would be allowed to review the documents first after two
foreign allies asked him to keep them classified.
"My opinion is that declassifying them would not expose any national security information,
would not expose any sources and methods," said Ratcliffe. "It would expose certain folks at
the Obama Justice Department and FBI and their actions taken to conceal material facts from the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court."
Treasury Official Arrested, Charged With Leaking Confidential Info On Ex-Trump Advisers;
BuzzFeed Implicated
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 10/17/2018 - 16:22 1.3K SHARES
In the latest indication of the Trump administration's efforts to root out alleged leakers,
a senior Treasury Department official working in the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
(FINCEN), Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards,
has been charged with leaking confidential financial reports to the media concerning former
Trump campaign advisers Paul Manafort and Richard Gates, according to
The Hill .
Prosecutors say that Natalie Mayflower Sours Edwards , a senior adviser to FinCEN,
photographed what are called suspicious activity reports, or SARs, and other sensitive
government files and sent them to an unnamed reporter, in violation of U.S. law. -
The Hill
Suspicious Activity Reports are filed by banks in order to confidentially notify law
enforcement of potentially illegal financial transactions. The documents leaked by the Treasury
official, which began last October, are reported to have been used as the basis for 12 news
articles published by an unnamed organization.
While the news organization was not named in the complaint, it lists the headlines and other
details of six BuzzFeed articles published between October 2017 to as recently as Monday which
they allege were based on the leaks.
BuzzFeed reporters Jason Leopold and Anthony Cormier are commonly listed on several of the
articles referenced in the government's complaint. (examples
here ,
here and
here ).
Edwards has been charged with one count of unauthorized disclosures of SAR reports and one
count of conspiracy to make unauthorized disclousres of SARs. She will be tried in the Southern
District of New York, and faces up to 10 years in prison if convicted on both charges.
When she was arrested, Edwards was in possession of a flash drive which was allegedly used
to save the unlawfully disclosed SARs, as well as a cell phone " containing numerous
communications over an encrypted application in which she transmitted SARs and other sensitive
government information to Reporter-1."
"We hope today's charges remind those in positions of trust within government agencies that
the unlawful sharing of sensitive documents will not be tolerated and will be met with swift
justice by this Office," said US Attorney Geoffrey Berman in a statement.
According to the criminal complaint, agents in the Treasury inspector general's office
detected "a pattern" of unauthorized media disclosures of the sensitive financial files
beginning in October 2017 and continuing for a year . The disclosures were related to matters
being investigated either by special counsel Robert Mueller , the U.S. Attorney's Office
for the Southern District of New York or the Justice Department's National Security
Division.
They included leaks about suspicious transactions made by Manafort, Trump's former
campaign chairman, and Gates, Manafort's longtime business partner who also served on the
Trump campaign and the transition team. Both individuals were charged in connection with
Mueller's Russia investigation last October with crimes stemming from their foreign lobbying
activity. Both have since decided to plead guilty and cooperate with Mueller's probe. -
The Hill
Could Manafort now make the case that unauthorized media leaks saturating national headlines
baised the jury against him?
Edwards is also accused of leaking sensitive financial information regarding Russian
national, Maria Butina, who was charged with acting as an unregistered agent of the Russian
government.
The alleged leak announced Wednesday would be the second major suspected breach at FinCEN
reported this year, after a federal law enforcement official told The New Yorker in May that
he leaked SARs on a shell company set up by Michael Cohen , Trump's former attorney,
after two similar bank records appeared to be missing from the FinCEN database. -
The Hill
Edwards is also accused of sending the reproter internal FinCEN emails, investigative memos
and intelligence assessments
"... Not sure about that, as at least 2 crucial allies, the UK and Australia, were pressured by the Obama and Hillary camps to set this whole narrative off...and therefore does he seriously damage those international and key security countries with info or does he compromise to keep the peace? ..."
"... I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.... That's that the UK's GCHQ initiated spying on Popadolous and Trump Tower at the request of Obummer and/or Rice and/or Brennan, BEFORE the FBI/Comey said UNDER OATH that they started in May, and were denied a FISA warrant in June 2016.... that's why they needed the 'golden shower dossier.' ..."
Some say that declassifying the documents would expose " sources and methods ".
Others say that the documents are being kept secret to prevent the DOJ and FBI from becoming
embarrassed . I say that both can be true.
If the documents expose the liars and fabrications that went into the entire Russia Gate
fraud, then declassifying the documents will indeed embarrass the DOJ and FBI by
showing that their " sources " are liars and that their " methods " are
fabrications.
Either Trump is constantly threatened, boxed into a corner, or it IS ALL FOR SHOW!
The best example is now, Trump "walking back the release" because of Aussie and UK
complicity. The threatened release of USA dirty laundry, of which there is plenty knowing how
our CIA works. Or we are being played once more.
Frankly, I'm beyond sick of these walk backs! IG report! Rosenstein resigns! FISA
Declas!!
I'm an independent voter. It's high time I WALK BACK my vote for all Republicans on
November 6th UNLESS WE THE People that they represent get a FULL UNREDACTED FISA AND IG
REPORT published .
Tell Trump and the Republican party . Protect NOT ONE Criminal. If UK or Aus threaten
exposing spies or military secrets then threaten back with annihilation should they endanger
Americans.
I'm fed up beyond return with Holder, Brennan et al.
Obama, Hillary and the DNC pressured the UK's M16 as the No.1 instigator via Steele, its
lapdog Australia's intelligence service, then told Alexander Downer to forward "salted" info
to US agencies...and 2.5 years later here we are
It's always something that causes The Never Ending Wait..
and it always makes decent sense in the short term (memory loss)..
and it always; and for years now, happens.
I can't buy that those involved are powerful, savvy, or more importantly, courageous
enough to finally stand the hell UP to the powers that be bullshitting the Citizenry. It's
clearly not the case.
And what does Sundance say of the MIA Sessions? Is he really wearing tights and cape under
those rumpled wee suits of his, and just snarling to leap out, indictments in hand, to read
off tens of thousands of the accused' names? "Stealth Jeff"; actor par excellence? Sessions
as Hero? Any day now to be proved The Truth's Hitman?
A GOP-won Midterms would benefit from the declassification of criminal intent that
supports the US President. -> Before the vote. Afterward, and if the vote gone badly, lol
it'll be as useful as John Brennan's soul. And a "Mueller surprise"; if the declassification
happened before the vote, would be tainted beyond its .. surprise.
So why the wait this time - again?
I'm sorry; I don't mean to come across rudely, but "hoping; forever" is exhausting,
damaging to fact based living, induces apathy and entirely suits those who have so much to
hide, and offers nothing to the targets involved; We, the People.
The factions in the FBI/DOJ who want to keep the Russian collusion hoax going are the same
ones who protected Hillary from the most outrageous violation of the espionage laws ever to
bubble to the surface. Office politics in that axis are a lot like any other large company,
with the exception of sending people to prison. So her supporters are still on the job.
The investigation never made first page news, living out here in the alternate press, and
now that The Donald seems to walk back obvious Donaldesque moves, it might never come to
light. Remember his campaign promise was to prosecute Sec. Clinton, and he settled for firing
Comey. So they may get away with most of this yet.
Any time the US government cooperates with the British, we get stuck. The Austrailians are
colonials and love it. So the paperwork for the Comey-McCabe-Rosenstien conspiracy might
never be published.
When the FBI wants a warrant, its presumed that they are not going to make an even-handed
case to the FISA Court. All they have to do is deny that they had sufficient infomation to
the contrary. Thats what makes this court an abomination to our freedom. This is why the US
Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act are a bunch of crap. We are now finding out that
intelligence services knew who concocted 911 (elements within the Saudi Govt along side the
wealthy dissident near-royals ie. the Khashoggis and the Bin-Ladens, and possibly the
Israelis knew too).
Everyone, none of this matters. Has everyone forgotten about 9/11 and the conspiracy
perpetrated on the American people. Frankly all is not what it seems and most of what we are
seeing is simply theatre for the masses.
Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture,
are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle,
so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above
their breath when they speak in condemnation of it."
~ Woodrow Wilson (1856 – 1924), 28th President of the United States
"The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people
inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret
proceedings...Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are
advancing around the globe...no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are
awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has
never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent...For we are opposed
around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert
means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on
subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by
night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material
resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines
military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations. Its
preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its
dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no
secret is revealed."
― President John F. Kennedy
Anyone else worried that the President keeps doing an about face or being unable or
unwilling to deliver on important issues? Orders papers to be published unredacted then they are not? Hillary walking free. No Wall,
no withdrawal from Afghanistan and now backtracking on punishing Saudi Arabia....
" and now backtracking on punishing Saudi Arabia.."
And you think the Russian's really poisoned the Skripals, or that Assad merrily gassed his
own people just before entering peace talks, or that the White Helmet people being invited
into Canada are not Al Nusra terrorists?
You had better be prepared to believe all that if you think the Saudis are stupid enough
to dismember a Washington Post journalist in a Saudi consulate, and to let it be recorded to
boot. How dumb can you get? But then, maybe I misjudge you. Maybe you do believe all that. Not me, pal.
PS For extra confirmation, just look at who has decided not to attend Davos in the Desert.
Top of the list are the New Yawk banksters.
You want to might ask yourself why the Post ran this story, employed the journalist and
published that John Brennan demand that we "punish" Saudi Arabia. You might ask yourself why the NYT pushed the narrative that RR should be fired before
mid-terms.
i watched a documentary about that. basically, binney was genius who created a genius
system to find terrorists while maintaining the integrity of the constitution (and for
relatively cheap cost!). The deep state was like "piss on that," spent 100x more money than
they had to, and wiped their *** with the constitution.
dont forget that the FBI fabricated evidence about Binney and three of his colleagues.The
criminal case against Binney and his colleagues was then thrown out of court once the
fabrication was revealed. This out of control corruption has been going on a long time...
I've stated for months that rank and file are in the tank w/leadership corruption OR they
have been threatened either with harm to themselves of family members if they didn't go
along. However at this point, no whistleblowers proves the former.
Strzok testifed several CDs of ALL 680K emails that included crimes against children,
classified info was handed over to Comey who merely placed them in his office. Comey has been
gone for over six months, why have those CDs not been reviewed and acted on?
There are a LOT of dots and THEY count on YOU not connecting them. I keep a journal.
Lets suppose its all true. Which we pretty much know if you have been paying attention
that the FBI has gone rogue. Then what? Arrests? Mueller? I don't think that's even close to
what is needed. We are talking major treason from multiple levels and people through out
government.
" the DOJ would be allowed to review the documents first after two foreign allies asked
him to keep them classified. "
refers to the British and Australian governments who would be embarassed because rogue
agents wishing to arrange for the impeachment of Trump would be exposed.
as such, this would represent a threat to the apolitical use of five eyes security pact
for intelligence purposes - a pact intended to detect and prevent EXTERNAL threats to the
five eyes nations - rather than instigate POLITICAL control of INTERNAL affairs of the
democratic functioning of five eyes countries.
treason and sedition has been exposed within the US - aided and abetted by drunks and
sycophants in britain and australia,
My impression is that FIVE EYES exists so that the individual members can ask one of the
other members to spy on their own people without violating constitutional limits on such
activity.
In my humble opinion, politicians and government bureaucrats should be strictly prohibited
from falsely accusing their ideological opponents of criminal activity and then manufacturing
fake evidence to support those claims.
No amount of sanctimonious political-correctness justifies Authoritarian rule squarely in
opposition to the US Constitution.
Exactly @NoDebt. Nearly every day or multiple times a day there's something huge that
radically alters the narrative... people are worn out. This is so huge!
Not sure about that, as at least 2 crucial allies, the UK and Australia, were pressured by
the Obama and Hillary camps to set this whole narrative off...and therefore does he seriously
damage those international and key security countries with info or does he compromise to keep
the peace? Too much is at play here for Trump expose the truth
I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.... That's that the UK's GCHQ initiated spying on
Popadolous and Trump Tower at the request of Obummer and/or Rice and/or Brennan, BEFORE the
FBI/Comey said UNDER OATH that they started in May, and were denied a FISA warrant in June
2016.... that's why they needed the 'golden shower dossier.' That's i-l-l-e-g-a-l.
Oh, and Brennan said he pushed the FBI to initiate an investigation but Nunes said there
was no intelligence (EC) which they could base it on. It was a set-up from day 1.
A question and discussion for all you Americans. It occurred to me some time ago and I am
struck with the fact that it doesn't seem to be raised by anyone.
When did it become unremarkable for American presidents to be come very very rich on
retirement?
FDR was pretty well-off but there's nothing to suggest he became richer in the White
House.
Truman retired and went home and lived on his pension.
Eisenhower ditto.
Johnson ditto.
Nixon ditto and wrote many real books (real as opposed to pseudo biographies)
Carter ditto.
... ... ...
But Clinton upon retirement made big bucks -- several 100 million. I used to wonder why
anyone would pay money to listen to Clinton give a speech on "what I would do if I became
POTUS" until I realized that the speaking fees were post-bribes (and, as the husband of the
next POTUS, pre-bribes.)
Jimmy Carter seems to be the one modern exception. He either accepts no fees for his
speeches or donates his fee (up to $50,000) to his foundation... for which he still
occasionally swings a hammer.
I came across a recent article on Jimmy Carter's life today. What a class act. His and
Rosslyn's attitude and example should light our way back to a much better America, if we
can drop the freakin' smartphones for a while.
https://www.washingtonpost....
Same in UK, Blair and to some extent John Major got a lot of money on leaving office
(Gordon Brown to his credit has not). Think this pattern of 'modern corruption' (no brown
envelopes, Swiss bank accounts etc) extends down through cabinet ministers, senior civil
servants, regulators and military officers to local Government on a much smaller scale.
No money changes hands, and the 'bribee' doesn't even do anything directly but they know
that if they look after the interests of particular industries and lobbies when in office
then they in turn will be looked after with such things as non-exec directorships,
consultancy contracts and speaking engagements on leaving office (there is also the old
trick of paying massive advances for biographies even their own mother would not read).
We need to pay our servants well with decent pensions but then strictly regulate their
retirement activities.
the clinton foundation and hillarys behaviour while sec state easily passed the smell
test for prosecution under the rico act.
she and her hubby were obscenely obvious selling private favors from within their
public office.
the fact that nothing has been done to prosecute them is more a testament to the
collapse in the rule of law within the united states than any cleverness on the clintons
part.
There was a lot of outrage about Reagan earning $2 million for a speech in Japan back in
1989. Of course he had no political ambitions after he left the presidency. Bush the
Younger earns $100 to $150 K per speech. Obama and his wife probably make more. And their
books are also raking it in. The Clinton Foundation is a whole different story. I have no
doubt most of the big contributors did so to curry favor with a probable future
president. It was bribery even if it's not specific enough to be a crime. Trump's doing
the same thing with his properties. There's big money in politics. Why do you think there
are no many millionaires in Congress?
Patrick Armstrong - I hope this is not too far off topic from the question you discuss
above.
TTG - as your comment implies, Carter must surely be the most attractive recent
President by far as regards his personal life. But did it make much odds?
"Brzezinski was openly eager to be appointed assistant to the president for national
security affairs and delighted when President-elect Carter offered him the position in
December 1976. He had not wanted to be secretary of state, confident that he would be
more effective in the White House, at the president's side. From the outset he was uneasy
about the president's idealism and the absence of other appointees likely to give Carter
the "realistic and hard-nosed" advice needed in world affairs."
Some sources assert that Carter presided over the initial destabilisation of
Afghanistan. I've been reading other sources recently that state that the US
Administration was reacting to events in Afghanistan rather than causing them.
Is it fair to say that either way Carter was caught up in American foreign policy
rather than directing it?
If so, is that the case today as well? I ask because it's directly related to the
foreign policy of the current President. Is Trump the boss, or is he in the main merely
implementing an already established policy that he can have little influence over?
In the Netherlands the same is happening, although the gains are not that much as in the
US.
Generally what's happening is that politicians who are supportive of the (Euro)Borg or
Globalists are rewarded when they leave office. They become partners in Consulting firms,
directors of NGO's, insurance companies or other semi-public organizations or public
companies such as Akzo-Nobel.
This also applies to left (social-democrat and even communist) politicians. A good
example is the former leader of the major Green party (who by the way is from a very
wealthy family and started as a Maoist and trade union leader). He is now the lobbyist
for blue chip companies.
The trade unions have also fallen for money. They invest in real estate and a trade
union-initiated bank (SNS Reaal) collapsed and had to be rescued with tax money. Former
prime-ministers with a trade union background are members of the board of large
banks.
This applies from national to local politicians. Local politicians are rewarded
with local management jobs.
Our current prime minister is under attack for abolishing dividend tax of
corporation which is financed by increasing the low VAT tariff with 50% to 9%. (Our
high VAT tariff will become 23%. Looking at the long-term trend in the past (big)
business and citizens paid about the same amount of total tax. Now citizens pay twice
the amount of corporations)
This is becoming hot again since Unilever (where our prime-minister worked before
becoming a professional politician!) decided not to move their HQ from London to
Rotterdam.
Much of Barack Obama's wealth came from book royalties. Since leaving the Presidency he
has made a lot of money from speeches, including speeches to Wall Street groups for $400K
a clip. Not a good look, as far as I'm concerned as a Democrat.
George W Bush is no different. He has been doing the same thing since retirement. The
OP is mistaken in that respect.
In regards to the basic point that Presidents now make more hay after retirement than
they once did, I think the basic sense of respect / sense of shame in society has
eroded.
Seems like a great way to create 'cleaned' wealth for someone without a paper trail to
the source. Book sales have been dropping and dropping for decades and keep dropping. Why
would somebody buy a biography from an unknown?
That raises a subtopic that I think about a lot: public libraries buy books by the
thousands. I've been informally researching pop culture NYTimes bestseller fiction; most
of it is boilerplate, much of it is pure propaganda -- it seems likely CIA subsidizes
authors like Brad Thor, Daniel Silva, etc. They sell in the tens of thousands each
iteration of their same old schtick, and public libraries buy them by the gross -- my
local library own 944 books by Thor, 955 by James Grippando, 1299 by Daniel Silva.
Thus, taxpayer dollars are used by US bureaucracies (State Dept, CIA) to subsidize
propaganda fiction that public libraries buy with taxpayer money. A few authors get
stinking rich (Thor moved from Illinois to Tennessee to minimize the income tax bite);
publishers rake in tremendous revenue. Rupert Murdoch owns one of the largest publishing
networks profiting from what I call prop-fiction.
My interest in this was piqued when C Span began focusing on writers of pop fiction --
Thor, Ignatius, Baldacci, Jodi Picoult, Brad Meltzer, etc. So the cable network owners
use the "public service network" to promote fiction published by their ideological
confreres, and the whole lot is tied into US government information dissemination
(disinformation) agencies.
Interesting observation. Not sure if its the government (I doubt that libraries refuse
gifts from others for their collection) but with these kind of numbers somebody is buying
them. It could be interesting to calculate the money involved with these sales.
You do have a point with collection management. I have a membership (in the
Netherlands) that includes university libraries and other collections, but a lot of books
cannot be found. This includes for example works of John Ralston Saul or Wolfgang
Streeck.
To solve this we as individuals can donate books to libraries. Especially when these
are qualitative good fiction or non-fiction books, there should not be a reason to
exclude these? Even when adding a small amount for binding.
I have long believed just from watching obama for 8 years and after that money played a
huge role in his decisions-maybe not immediate money but down the line money-same goes
for his wife and some of his camp followers.
The clintons? well that is a story in itself and it continues to amaze that they have
not done the perp walk.
There have been a number of famous people around DC in the last 15 years who have
participated in corrupt contracting and grants with the payout after they left office.
The vast seas of money that sloshed around in Afghanistan and Iraq were easy to loot. I
was offered 500K for my signature on one particular request for a grant. I declined but
the group got the grant. Do you think the granting authority was not rewarded eventually?
exSpec4Chuck here, also known as Ex-PFC Chuck. But I'm traveling and logging in from a
different computer and don't have the password for that Disqus identity with me. Ahem.
Eisenhower had more than his pension to live on. Not long before he became president
he had received a lucrative contract for publishing his memoirs, Crusade in Europe
. IIRC he also had seats on several Fortune 500 boards of directors before or/and after
his two terms in the White House.
As for Johnson, it is widely asserted he had substantial interests in Texas TV
stations that were in his wife's name, as well as early investments petroleum ventures.
Roger Stone (yes, it's that Roger Stone), in his recent book The Man Who Killed
Kennedy: The Case against LBJ) , asserts that the Robert Kennedy Justice Department
was within weeks of indicting him for influence peddling in relation to the acquisition
of much of that wealth. Stone provides extensive sourcing for these assertions although I
haven't checked any of them out for fair representation.
As for the Bushes, I'd guess that their family had considerably more wealth than did
the Roosevelts, even adjusted for inflation. The majority of which, according to Kitty
Kelly in The Family and Russ Baker in Family of Secrets , originated from
the Walker side of the lineage.
I have noted the same and agree with you. There is a more general problem with corruption
in American life. It can be seen in CEO pay, in Congressional pay and perks, and insider
trading. In the rewards to ex presidents. In the payment of benefits to the poor. If not
addressed it will slowly overwhelm the country and destroy its governance. It will become
a Soviet Union.
I would disagree with Johnson. He entered politics a broke man and left the Presidency
worth 40 million in some accounts I have read. It is well established he was beyond
corrupt while holding power. Everybody who was anybody in Washington, DC during that era
knew that to do business with Lyndon would at the least require substantial radio
buys(commercials) at his radio station.
THE CONSPIRACY.
Bit by bit, slowly (far too slowly) the story comes out . A DNC/FBI/CIA conspiracy to
discredit Trump. I just read Shattered
where it is stated that the Russia story was invented as the excuse for failure: but the book
establishes that defeat was the consequence of never being able to articulate a reason to vote
for her, a disorganized campaign and not observing the dissatisfaction that Sanders and Trump
(and Bill Clinton) perceived. The Russia stuff is 1) a distraction from failure, 2) a hook on
which to hang Trump and 3) propaganda for the "Mackinder war".
So Bill Clinton was [quietly] expelled from Oxford University on a rape incident?
So Bill Clinton at Oxford was buddies with Stepfan Halper ?
So Clinton and Halper left Oxford and toured Soviet Union for couple years?
So Halper was recruited by both CIA and MI6 [England's Military Intel Div. 6] ?
So Halper let CIA know of Clinton's hidden Oxford rape incident [as if CIA did not
know] ?
So Clinton was thus compromised [owned/pwned] by both CIA and MI6, jointly?
So Israel/Mossad thus would also know and share ownership of Clinton?
So Clinton's owners opened the political doors for Clinton to be Governor of
Arkansas?
So CIA drugs-for-weapons via Mena, Arkansas was thus enabled by the Governor?
So Clinton would just float-up thru all obstacles to be President of United
States?
So under Clinton, the Senior Executive Service, as CIA conduit, would enormously expand
its infiltration into all US Gov departments? [re brilliant expansion of (Prouty's) Secret
Team]
So any later investigation of Clintons was effectively blocked at
FBI/CIA/NSA/DIA/DOJ/DOState [and IRS re: Clinton family pseudo-charities] ?
So under Clinton, Banking and Wall Street operations were freed from the Glass-Steagall
anti-fraud reforms?
"... Yet last year, notably without success, the Clinton campaign devoted plenty of its messaging to the Trump-Russia theme. As the "Shattered" book notes, "Hillary would raise the issue herself repeatedly in debates" with Trump. For example, in one of those debates she said: "We have seventeen – seventeen ..."
"... In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summed up the post-election approach neatly in a Washington Post ..."
"... The inability of top Clinton operatives to identify with the non-wealthy is so tenacious that they still want to assume "the public will be with us" the more they talk about Russia Russia Russia. Imagine sitting at a kitchen table with average-income voters who are worried sick about their financial futures – and explaining to them that the biggest threat they face is from the Kremlin rather than from US government policies that benefit the rich and corporate America at their expense ..."
"... One of the most promising progressives to arrive in Congress this year, Rep. Jamie Raskin from the Maryland suburbs of D.C., promptly drank what might be called the "Klinton Kremlin Kool-Aid." His official website features an article about a town-hall meeting that quotes him describing Trump as a "hoax perpetrated by the Russians on the United States of America. ..."
"... Like hundreds of other Democrats on Capitol Hill, Raskin is on message with talking points from the party leadership. That came across in an email that he recently sent to supporters for a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraiser. It said: "We pull the curtain back further each day on the Russian Connection, forcing National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to resign, Attorney General Sessions to recuse, and America to reflect on who's calling the shots in Washington. ..."
A new book about Hillary Clinton's last campaign for president – Shattered
, by journalists Jonathan Allen and Amie Parnes – has gotten a lot of publicity since it appeared two weeks ago. But major
media have ignored a revealing passage near the end of the book.
Soon after Clinton's defeat, top strategists decided where to place the blame. "Within 24 hours of her concession speech," the
authors report, campaign manager Robby Mook and campaign chair John Podesta "assembled her communications team at the Brooklyn headquarters
to engineer the case that the election wasn't entirely on the up-and-up. For a couple of hours, with Shake Shack containers littering
the room, they went over the script they would pitch to the press and the public. Already, Russian hacking was the centerpiece of
the argument."
Six months later, that centerpiece of the argument is rampant – with claims often lurching from unsubstantiated overreach to outright
demagoguery.
A lavishly-funded example is the "Moscow Project," a mega-spin effort that surfaced in midwinter as a project of the Center for
American Progress Action Fund. It's led by Neera Tanden, a
self-described "loyal soldier" for Clinton
who also runs the Center for American Progress (where she succeeded Podesta as president). The Center's board includes several billionaires.
The "Moscow Project" is expressly inclined to go over the top, aiming to help normalize ultra-partisan conjectures as supposedly
factual. And so, the homepage of the "Moscow Project" prominently
declares: "Given Trump's obedience to Vladimir Putin and the deep ties between his advisers and the Kremlin, Russia's actions are
a significant and ongoing cause for concern."
Let's freeze-frame how that sentence begins: "Given Trump's obedience to Vladimir Putin." It's a jaw-dropping claim; a preposterous
smear.
Echoes of such tactics can be heard from many Democrats in Congress and from allied media. Along the way, no outlet has been more
in sync than MSNBC, and no one on the network has been more promotional of the Russia-runs-Trump meme than Rachel Maddow,
tirelessly promoting the line and sometimes connecting dots in
Glenn Beck fashion
to the point of journalistic malpractice.
Yet last year, notably without success, the Clinton campaign devoted plenty of its messaging to the Trump-Russia theme. As
the "Shattered" book notes, "Hillary would raise the issue herself repeatedly in debates" with Trump. For example, in one of those
debates she said: "We have seventeen – seventeen – intelligence agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded
that these espionage attacks, these cyber attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin and they are designed to influence
our election ."
After Trump's election triumph, the top tier of Clinton strategists quickly moved to seize as much of the narrative as they could,
surely mindful of what George Orwell observed: "Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the
past." After all, they hardly wanted the public discourse to dwell on Clinton's lack of voter appeal because of her deep ties to
Wall Street. Political recriminations would be much better focused on the Russian government.
In early spring, the former communications director of the 2016 Clinton presidential campaign, Jennifer Palmieri, summed up
the post-election approach neatly in a Washington Post opinion
article : "If we make plain that what Russia has done is nothing less than an attack on our republic, the public will be with
us. And the more we talk about it, the more they'll be with us."
The inability of top Clinton operatives to identify with the non-wealthy is so tenacious that they still want to assume "the public
will be with us" the more they talk about Russia Russia Russia. Imagine sitting at a kitchen table with average-income voters who
are worried sick about their financial futures – and explaining to them that the biggest threat they face is from the Kremlin rather
than from US government policies that benefit the rich and corporate America at their expense.
Tone deaf hardly describes the severe political impairment of those who insist that denouncing Russia will be key to the Democratic
Party's political fortunes in 2018 and 2020. But the top-down pressure for conformity among elected Democrats is enormous and effective.
One of the most promising progressives to arrive in Congress this year, Rep. Jamie Raskin from the Maryland suburbs of D.C.,
promptly drank what might be called the "Klinton Kremlin Kool-Aid." His official website features an
article about a town-hall meeting that quotes him describing Trump as a "hoax perpetrated by the Russians on the United States
of America. "
Like hundreds of other Democrats on Capitol Hill, Raskin is on message with talking points from the party leadership. That
came across in an email that he recently sent to supporters for a Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee fundraiser. It said:
"We pull the curtain back further each day on the Russian Connection, forcing National Security Adviser Michael Flynn to resign,
Attorney General Sessions to recuse, and America to reflect on who's calling the shots in Washington. "
You might think that Wall Street, big banks, hugely funded lobbyists, fat-check campaign contributors, the fossil fuel industry,
insurance companies, military contractors and the like are calling the shots in Washington. Maybe you didn't get the memo.
I also think that former AG Harris should lead off her questioning with "When
investigating President Clinton, did you ask Monica Lewinsky under oath if Mr. Clinton came
in her mouth?"
Then start questioning his sexual history. I'm curious if he ever had sex with two women.
Or a guy and a woman.
An interesting hypothesis. CIA definitly became a powerful political force in the USA -- a rogue political force which starting from JFK assasination tries to control who is elected to important offices. But in truth Cavanaugh is a pro-CIA candidate so to speak. So why CIA would try to derail him.
Notable quotes:
"... I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments. ..."
"... An outside door into a master bedroom with attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment ..."
"... So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could have escaped. ..."
"... Kacanaugh was nominated. CIA searched for sex problems in his working life. Found nothing Searched law school and college found nothing. In desperation searched high school found nothing. Searched CIA personnel records which go back to grade school and found one of their own employees was about Kavanaugh's age and attended a high school near his and the students socialized. ..."
"... She's 3rd generation CIA. grandfather assistant director. Father CIA contractor who managed CIA unofficial band accounts. And she runs a CIA recruitment office. ..."
I think I've figured out why they had to go to couples counseling about an outside door and why she came up with claim
that she needed an outside bedroom door because she'd been assaulted 37 years ago. The Palo Alto building codes for single family
homes were created to make sure single family homes remained single family and weren't chopped up into apartments.
Outside doors enter public areas kitchen sunroom living rooms not bedrooms. An outside door into a master bedroom with
attached bathroom is a red flag that it's intended for an illegal what's called in law apartment
There's a unit It's a stove 2 ft counter space and sink. The stoves electric and plugs into an ordinary household electricity.
It's backed against the bathroom wall. Break through the wall, connect the pipes running water for the sink. Add an outside door
and it's a small apartment.
Assume they didn't want to make it an apartment just a master bedroom. Usually the contractor pulls the permits routinely.
But an outside bedroom door is complicated. The permits will cost more. It might require an exemption and a hearing They night
need a lawyer. And they might not get the permit.
So she wants the door. Husband says waste of money and trouble. Contractor says call me when you're ready. So they go to
counseling Husband explains why the door's unreasonable. Therapist asks wife why she " really deep down" needs the door. Wife
makes up the story about attempted rape 35 years ago flashbacks If only there were 2 doors in that imaginary bedroom she could
have escaped.
Kacanaugh was nominated. CIA searched for sex problems in his working life. Found nothing Searched law school and college
found nothing. In desperation searched high school found nothing. Searched CIA personnel records which go back to grade school
and found one of their own employees was about Kavanaugh's age and attended a high school near his and the students socialized.
She's 3rd generation CIA. grandfather assistant director. Father CIA contractor who managed CIA unofficial band accounts.
And she runs a CIA recruitment office.
What Hillary Knew
Hillary Clinton once tweeted that "every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard,
believed, and supported." What about Juanita Broaddrick?
"... "Let us linger over the perversity," he writes in "Why Millions of Ordinary Americans Support Donald Trump," one of the seventeen component essays in Rendezvous with Oblivion : "Let us linger over the perversity. Left parties the world over were founded to advance the fortunes of working people. But our left party in America -- one of our two monopoly parties -- chose long ago to turn its back on these people's concerns, making itself instead into the tribune of the enlightened professional class, a 'creative class' that makes innovative things like derivative securities and smartphone apps ..."
"... And the real bad news is not that this Creative Class, this Expert Class, this Meritocratic Class, this Professional Class -- this Liberal Class, with all its techno-ecstasy and virtue-questing and unleashing of innovation -- is so deeply narcissistic and hypocritical, but rather that it is so self-interestedly parasitical and predatory. ..."
Thomas Frank's new collection of essays: Rendezvous with Oblivion: Reports from a
Sinking Society (Metropolitan Books 2018) and Listen, Liberal; or,Whatever
Happened to the Party of the People? (ibid. 2016)
To hang out with Thomas Frank for a couple of hours is to be reminded that, going back to
1607, say, or to 1620, for a period of about three hundred and fifty years, the most archetypal
of American characters was, arguably, the hard-working, earnest, self-controlled, dependable
white Protestant guy, last presented without irony a generation or two -- or three -- ago in
the television personas of men like Ward Cleaver and Mister Rogers.
Thomas Frank, who grew up in Kansas and earned his Ph.D. at the University of Chicago, who
at age 53 has the vibe of a happy eager college nerd, not only glows with authentic Midwestern
Nice (and sometimes his face turns red when he laughs, which is often), he actually lives in
suburbia, just outside of D.C., in Bethesda, where, he told me, he takes pleasure in mowing the
lawn and doing some auto repair and fixing dinner for his wife and two children. (Until I met
him, I had always assumed it was impossible for a serious intellectual to live in suburbia and
stay sane, but Thomas Frank has proven me quite wrong on this.)
Frank is sincerely worried about the possibility of offending friends and acquaintances by
the topics he chooses to write about. He told me that he was a B oy Scout back in Kansas, but
didn't make Eagle. He told me that he was perhaps a little too harsh on Hillary Clinton in his
brilliantly perspicacious "Liberal Gilt [ sic ]" chapter at the end of Listen,
Liberal . His piercing insight into and fascination with the moral rot and the hypocrisy
that lies in the American soul brings, well, Nathaniel Hawthorne to mind, yet he refuses to say
anything (and I tried so hard to bait him!) mean about anyone, no matter how culpable he or she
is in the ongoing dissolving and crumbling and sinking -- all his
metaphors -- of our society. And with such metaphors Frank describes the "one essential story"
he is telling in Rendezvous with Oblivion : "This is what a society looks like when the
glue that holds it together starts to dissolve. This is the way ordinary citizens react when
they learn that the structure beneath them is crumbling. And this is the thrill that pulses
through the veins of the well-to-do when they discover that there is no longer any limit on
their power to accumulate" ( Thomas Frank in NYC on book tour https://youtu.be/DBNthCKtc1Y ).
And I believe that Frank's self-restraint, his refusal to indulge in bitter satire even as
he parses our every national lie, makes him unique as social critic. "You will notice," he
writes in the introduction to Rendezvous with Oblivion, "that I describe [these
disasters] with a certain amount of levity. I do that because that's the only way to confront
the issues of our time without sinking into debilitating gloom" (p. 8). And so rather than
succumbing to an existential nausea, Frank descends into the abyss with a dependable flashlight
and a ca. 1956 sitcom-dad chuckle.
"Let us linger over the perversity," he writes in "Why Millions of Ordinary Americans
Support Donald Trump," one of the seventeen component essays in Rendezvous with Oblivion
: "Let us linger over the perversity. Left parties the world over were founded to advance the
fortunes of working people. But our left party in America -- one of our two monopoly parties --
chose long ago to turn its back on these people's concerns, making itself instead into the
tribune of the enlightened professional class, a 'creative class' that makes innovative things
like derivative securities and smartphone apps " (p. 178).
And it is his analysis of this "Creative Class" -- he usually refers to it as the "Liberal
Class" and sometimes as the "Meritocratic Class" in Listen, Liberal (while Barbara
Ehrenreich uses the term " Professional Managerial Class ,"and Matthew Stewart recently
published an article entitled "The 9.9 Percent Is the New American Aristocracy" in the
Atlantic ) -- that makes it clear that Frank's work is a continuation of the profound
sociological critique that goes back to Thorstein Veblen's Theory of the Leisure Class
(1899) and, more recently, to Christopher Lasch's The Revolt of the Elites (1994).
Unlike Veblen and Lasch, however, Frank is able to deliver the harshest news without any
hauteur or irascibility, but rather with a deftness and tranquillity of mind, for he is both in
and of the Creative Class; he abides among those afflicted by the epidemic which he diagnoses:
"Today we live in a world of predatory bankers, predatory educators, even predatory health care
providers, all of them out for themselves . Liberalism itself has changed to accommodate its
new constituents' technocratic views. Today, liberalism is the philosophy not of the sons of
toil but of the 'knowledge economy' and, specifically, of the knowledge economy's winners: the
Silicon Valley chieftains, the big university systems, and the Wall Street titans who gave so
much to Barack Obama's 2008 campaign . They are a 'learning class' that truly gets the power of
education. They are a 'creative class' that naturally rebels against fakeness and conformity.
They are an ' innovation class ' that just can't stop coming up with awesome new stuff" (
Listen, Liberal , pp. 27-29).
And the real bad news is not that this Creative Class, this Expert Class, this
Meritocratic Class, this Professional Class -- this Liberal Class, with all its
techno-ecstasy and virtue-questing and unleashing of innovation -- is so deeply narcissistic
and hypocritical, but rather that it is so self-interestedly parasitical and
predatory.
The class that now runs the so-called Party of the People is impoverishing the people; the
genius value-creators at Amazon and Google and Uber are Robber Barons, although, one must
grant, hipper, cooler, and oh so much more innovative than their historical predecessors. "In
reality," Frank writes in Listen, Liberal ,
.there is little new about this stuff except the software, the convenience, and the
spying. Each of the innovations I have mentioned merely updates or digitizes some business
strategy that Americans learned long ago to be wary of. Amazon updates the practices of
Wal-Mart, for example, while Google has dusted off corporate behavior from the days of the
Robber Barons. What Uber does has been compared to the every-man-for-himself hiring
procedures of the pre-union shipping docks . Together, as Robert Reich has written, all these
developments are 'the logical culmination of a process that began thirty years ago when
corporations began turning over full-time jobs to temporary workers, independent contractors,
free-lancers, and consultants.' This is atavism, not innovation . And if we keep going in
this direction, it will one day reduce all of us to day laborers, standing around like the
guys outside the local hardware store, hoping for work. (p. 215).
And who gets this message? The YouTube patriot/comedian Jimmy Dore, Chicago-born,
ex-Catholic, son of a cop, does for one. "If you read this b ook, " Dore said while
interviewing Frank back in January of 2017, "it'll make y ou a radical" (Frank Interview Part 4
https://youtu.be/JONbGkQaq8Q ).
But to what extent, on the other hand, is Frank being actively excluded from our elite media
outlets? He's certainly not on TV or radio or in print as much as he used to be. So is he a
prophet without honor in his own country? Frank, of course, is too self-restrained to speculate
about the motives of these Creative Class decision-makers and influencers. "But it is ironic
and worth mentioning," he told me, "that most of my writing for the last few years has been in
a British publication, The Guardian and (in translation) in Le Monde Diplomatique
. The way to put it, I think, is to describe me as an ex-pundit."
Frank was, nevertheless, happy to tell me in vivid detail about how his most fundamental
observation about America, viz. that the Party of the People has become hostile to the
people , was for years effectively discredited in the Creative Class media -- among the
bien-pensants , that is -- and about what he learned from their denialism.
JS: Going all the way back to your 2004 book What's the Matter with Kansas? -- I
just looked at Larry Bartels's attack on it, "What's the Matter with What's the Matter with
Kansas?" -- and I saw that his first objection to your book was, Well, Thomas Frank says the
working class is alienated from the Democrats, but I have the math to show that that's false.
How out of touch does that sound now?
TCF: [laughs merrily] I know.
JS: I remember at the time that was considered a serious objection to your
thesis.
TCF: Yeah. Well, he was a professor at Princeton. And he had numbers. So it looked
real. And I actually wrote a response to
that in which I pointed out that there were other statistical ways of looking at it, and he
had chosen the one that makes his point.
JS: Well, what did Mark Twain say?
TCF: Mark Twain?
JS: There are lies, damned lies --
TCF: [laughs merrily] -- and statistics! Yeah. Well, anyhow, Bartels's take became
the common sense of the highly educated -- there needs to be a term for these people by the
way, in France they're called the bien-pensants -- the "right-thinking," the people who
read The Atlantic, The New York Times op-ed page, The Washington Post op-ed page,
and who all agree with each other on everything -- there's this tight little circle of
unanimity. And they all agreed that Bartels was right about that, and that was a costly
mistake. For example, Paul Krugman, a guy whom I admire in a lot of ways, he referenced this
four or five times.
He agreed with it . No, the Democrats are not losing the white working class outside the
South -- they were not going over to the Republicans. The suggestion was that there is
nothing to worry about. Yes. And there were people saying this right up to the 2016
election. But it was a mistake.
JS: I remember being perplexed at the time. I had thought you had written this brilliant
book, and you weren't being taken seriously -- because somebody at Princeton had run some
software -- as if that had proven you wrong.
TCF: Yeah, that's correct . That was a very widespread take on it. And Bartels was
incorrect, and I am right, and [laughs merrily] that's that.
JS: So do you think Russiagate is a way of saying, Oh no no no no, Hillary didn't really
lose?
TCF: Well, she did win the popular vote -- but there's a whole set of pathologies out
there right now that all stem from Hillary Denialism. And I don't want to say that Russiagate
is one of them, because we don't know the answer to that yet.
JS: Um, ok.
TCF: Well, there are all kinds of questionable reactions to 2016 out there, and what
they all have in common is the faith that Democrats did nothing wrong. For example, this same
circle of the bien-pensants have decided that the only acceptable explanation for
Trump's victory is the racism of his supporters. Racism can be the only explanation for the
behavior of Trump voters. But that just seems odd to me because, while it's true of course that
there's lots of racism in this country, and while Trump is clearly a bigot and clearly won the
bigot vote, racism is just one of several factors that went into what happened in 2016. Those
who focus on this as the only possible answer are implying that all Trump voters are
irredeemable, lost forever.
And it comes back to the same point that was made by all those people who denied what was
happening with the white working class, which is: The Democratic Party needs to do nothing
differently . All the post-election arguments come back to this same point. So a couple
years ago they were saying about the white working class -- we don't have to worry about them
-- they're not leaving the Democratic Party, they're totally loyal, especially in the northern
states, or whatever the hell it was. And now they say, well, Those people are racists, and
therefore they're lost to us forever. What is the common theme of these two arguments? It's
always that there's nothing the Democratic Party needs to do differently. First, you haven't
lost them; now you have lost them and they're irretrievable: Either way -- you see what I'm
getting at? -- you don't have to do anything differently to win them.
JS: Yes, I do.
TCF: The argument in What's the Matter with Kansas? was that this is a
long-term process, the movement of the white working class away from the Democratic Party. This
has been going on for a long time. It begins in the '60s, and the response of the Democrats by
and large has been to mock those people, deride those people, and to move away from organized
labor, to move away from class issues -- working class issues -- and so their response has been
to make this situation worse, and it gets worse, and it gets worse, and it gets worse, and it
gets worse! And there's really no excuse for them not seeing it. But they say, believe,
rationalize, you know, come up with anything that gets then off the hook for this, that allows
them to ignore this change. Anything. They will say or believe whatever it takes.
JS: Yes.
TCF: By the way, these are the smartest people! These are tenured professors at Ivy
League institutions, these are people with Nobel Prizes, people with foundation grants, people
with, you know, chairs at prestigious universities, people who work at our most prestigious
media outlets -- that's who's wrong about all this stuff.
JS: [quoting the title of David Halberstam's 1972 book, an excerpt from which Frank uses
as an epigraph for Listen, Liberal ] The best and the brightest!
TCF: [laughing merrily] Exactly. Isn't it fascinating?
JS: But this gets to the irony of the thing. [locates highlighted passage in book] I'm
going to ask you one of the questions you ask in Rendezvous with Oblivion: "Why are
worshippers of competence so often incompetent?" (p. 165). That's a huge question.
TCF: That's one of the big mysteries. Look. Take a step back. I had met Barack Obama.
He was a professor at the University of Chicago, and I'd been a student there. And he was super
smart. Anyhow, I met him and was really impressed by him. All the liberals in Hyde Park --
that's the neighborhood we lived in -- loved him, and I was one of them, and I loved him too.
And I was so happy when he got elected.
Anyhow, I knew one thing he would do for sure, and that is he would end the reign of
cronyism and incompetence that marked the Bush administration and before them the Reagan
administration. These were administrations that actively promoted incompetent people. And I
knew Obama wouldn't do that, and I knew Obama would bring in the smartest people, and he'd get
the best economists. Remember, when he got elected we were in the pit of the crisis -- we were
at this terrible moment -- and here comes exactly the right man to solve the problem. He did
exactly what I just described: He brought in [pause] Larry Summers, the former president of
Harvard, considered the greatest economist of his generation -- and, you know, go down the
list: He had Nobel Prize winners, he had people who'd won genius grants, he had The Best and
the Brightest . And they didn't really deal with the problem. They let the Wall Street
perpetrators off the hook -- in a catastrophic way, I would argue. They come up with a health
care system that was half-baked. Anyhow, the question becomes -- after watching the great
disappointments of the Obama years -- the question becomes: Why did government-by-expert
fail?
JS: So how did this happen? Why?
TCF: The answer is understanding experts not as individual geniuses but as members
of a class . This is the great missing link in all of our talk about expertise. Experts
aren't just experts: They are members of a class. And they act like a class. They have loyalty
to one another; they have a disdain for others, people who aren't like them, who they perceive
as being lower than them, and there's this whole hierarchy of status that they are at the
pinnacle of.
And once you understand this, then everything falls into place! So why did they let the Wall
Street bankers off the hook? Because these people were them. These people are their peers. Why
did they refuse to do what obviously needed to be done with the health care system? Because
they didn't want to do that to their friends in Big Pharma. Why didn't Obama get tough with
Google and Facebook? They obviously have this kind of scary monopoly power that we haven't seen
in a long time. Instead, he brought them into the White House, he identified with them. Again,
it's the same thing. Once you understand this, you say: Wait a minute -- so the Democratic
Party is a vehicle of this particular social class! It all makes sense. And all of a sudden all
of these screw-ups make sense. And, you know, all of their rhetoric makes sense. And the way
they treat working class people makes sense. And they way they treat so many other demographic
groups makes sense -- all of the old-time elements of the Democratic Party: unions, minorities,
et cetera. They all get to ride in back. It's the professionals -- you know, the professional
class -- that sits up front and has its hands on the steering wheel.
* * *
It is, given Frank's persona, not surprising that he is able to conclude Listen,
Liberal with a certain hopefulness, and so let me end by quoting some of his final
words:
What I saw in Kansas eleven years ago is now everywhere . It is time to face the obvious:
that the direction the Democrats have chosen to follow for the last few decades has been a
failure for both the nation and for their own partisan health . The Democrats posture as the
'party of the people' even as they dedicate themselves ever more resolutely to serving and
glorifying the professional class. Worse: they combine self-righteousness and class privilege
in a way that Americans find stomach-turning . The Democrats have no interest in reforming
themselves in a more egalitarian way . What we can do is strip away the Democrats' precious
sense of their own moral probity -- to make liberals live without the comforting knowledge
that righteousness is always on their side . Once that smooth, seamless sense of liberal
virtue has been cracked, anything becomes possible. (pp. 256-257).
"... please recall Bill Clinton's rules of engagement as applied to the Serbs in 1999, wherein he decided that the political leaders, bureaucratic support structure, media infrastructure and intellectual underpinnings of his enemies' war effort were legitimate targets of war. ..."
After observing Skynet's coordinated attack on Alex Jone's Infowars yesterday, we can hardly
wait to implement Bill Clinton's Rules of Engagement on the already identified Enemies
of the People, and eagerly await the God-Emperor's word.
Second, please recall Bill Clinton's rules of engagement as applied to the Serbs in
1999, wherein he decided that the political leaders, bureaucratic support structure, media
infrastructure and intellectual underpinnings of his enemies' war effort were legitimate
targets of war.
No one else may have been paying attention to the unintended consequences of that, but
many folks on our side of the present divide were. Food for thought. A reminder about the shape of the battlefield (legal and otherwise) and Bill Clinton's
Rules of Engagement.
"... Sanders's support for the anti-Russia and anti-Wikileaks campaign is all the more telling because he was himself the victim of efforts by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party leadership to block his 2016 campaign. In June and July 2016, Wikileaks published internal Democratic emails in which officials ridiculed the Sanders campaign, forcing the DNC to issue a public apology: "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the inexcusable remarks made over email." ..."
"... In the aftermath of his election campaign, Sanders was elevated into a top-level position in the Democratic Party caucus in the US Senate. His first response to the inauguration of Trump was to declare his willingness to "work with" the president, closely tracking remarks of Obama that the election of Trump was part of an "intramural scrimmage" in which all sides were on the same team. As the campaign of the military-intelligence agencies intensifies, however, Sanders is toeing the line. ..."
"... The Sanders campaign did not push the Democrats to the left, but rather the state apparatus of the ruling class brought Sanders in to give a "left" veneer to a thoroughly right-wing party. ..."
"... There is no contradiction between the influx of military-intelligence candidates into the Democratic Party and the Democrats' making use of the services of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez to give the party a "left" cover. Both the CIA Democrats and their pseudo-left "comrades" agree on the most important questions: the defense of the global interests of American imperialism and a more aggressive intervention in the Syrian civil war and other areas where Washington and Moscow are in conflict. ..."
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders appeared on the CBS interview program "Face the Nation"
Sunday and fully embraced the anti-Russia campaign of the US military-intelligence apparatus,
backed by the Democratic Party and much of the media.
In response to a question from CBS host Margaret Brennan, Sanders unleashed a torrent of
denunciations of Trump's meeting and press conference in Helsinki with Russian President
Vladimir Putin. A preliminary transcript reads:
SANDERS: "I will tell you that I was absolutely outraged by his behavior in Helsinki, where
he really sold the American people out. And it makes me think that either Trump doesn't
understand what Russia has done, not only to our elections, but through cyber attacks against
all parts of our infrastructure, either he doesn't understand it, or perhaps he is being
blackmailed by Russia, because they may have compromising information about him.
"Or perhaps also you have a president who really does have strong authoritarian tendencies.
And maybe he admires the kind of government that Putin is running in Russia. And I think all of
that is a disgrace and a disservice to the American people. And we have got to make sure that
Russia does not interfere, not only in our elections, but in other aspects of our lives."
These comments, which echo remarks he gave at a rally in Kansas late last week, signal
Sanders' full embrace of the right-wing campaign launched by the Democrats and backed by
dominant sections of the military-intelligence apparatus. Their opposition to Trump is centered
on issues of foreign policy, based on the concern that Trump, due to his own "America First"
brand of imperialist strategy, has run afoul of geostrategic imperatives that are considered
inviolable -- in particular, the conflict with Russia.
Sanders did not use his time on a national television program to condemn Trump's persecution
of immigrants and the separation of children from their parents, or to denounce his naming of
ultra-right jurist Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, or to attack the White House
declaration last week that the "war on poverty" had ended victoriously -- in order to justify
the destruction of social programs for impoverished working people. Nor did he seek to advance
his supposedly left-wing program on domestic issues like health care, jobs and education.
Sanders' embrace of the anti-Russia campaign is not surprising, but it is instructive. This
is, after all, an individual who presented himself as "left-wing," even a "socialist." During
the 2016 election campaign, he won the support of millions of people attracted to his call for
a "political revolution" against the "billionaire class." For Sanders, who has a long history
of opportunist and pro-imperialist politics in the orbit of the Democratic Party, the aim of
the campaign was always to direct social discontent into establishment channels, culminating in
his endorsement of the campaign of Hillary Clinton.
Sanders's support for the anti-Russia and anti-Wikileaks campaign is all the more
telling because he was himself the victim of efforts by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic
Party leadership to block his 2016 campaign. In June and July 2016, Wikileaks published
internal Democratic emails in which officials ridiculed the Sanders campaign, forcing the DNC
to issue a public apology: "On behalf of everyone at the DNC, we want to offer a deep and
sincere apology to Senator Sanders, his supporters, and the entire Democratic Party for the
inexcusable remarks made over email."
In the aftermath of his election campaign, Sanders was elevated into a top-level
position in the Democratic Party caucus in the US Senate. His first response to the
inauguration of Trump was to declare his willingness to "work with" the president, closely
tracking remarks of Obama that the election of Trump was part of an "intramural scrimmage" in
which all sides were on the same team. As the campaign of the military-intelligence agencies
intensifies, however, Sanders is toeing the line.
The experience is instructive not only in relation to Sanders, but to an entire social
milieu and the political perspective with which it is associated. This is what it means to work
within the Democratic Party. The Sanders campaign did not push the Democrats to the left,
but rather the state apparatus of the ruling class brought Sanders in to give a "left" veneer
to a thoroughly right-wing party.
New political figures, many associated with the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) are
being brought in for the same purpose. As Sanders gave his anti-Russia rant, Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez sat next to him nodding her agreement. The 28-year-old member of the DSA last
month won the Democratic nomination in New York's 14th Congressional District, unseating the
Democratic incumbent, Joseph Crowley, the fourth-ranking member of the Democratic leadership in
the House of Representatives.
Since then, Ocasio-Cortez has been given massive and largely uncritical publicity by the
corporate media, summed up in an editorial puff piece by the New York Times that
described her as "a bright light in the Democratic Party who has brought desperately needed
energy back to New York politics "
Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders were jointly interviewed from Kansas, where the two appeared
Friday at a campaign rally for James Thompson, who is seeking the Democratic nomination for the
US House of Representatives from the Fourth Congressional District, based in Wichita, in an
August 7 primary election.
Thompson might appear to be an unusual ally for the "socialist" Sanders and the DSA member
Ocasio-Cortez. His campaign celebrates his role as an Army veteran, and his website opens under
the slogan "Join the Thompson Army," followed by pledges that the candidate will "Fight for
America." In an interview with the Associated Press, Thompson indicated that despite his
support for Sanders' call for "Medicare for all," and his own endorsement by the DSA, he was
wary of any association with socialism. "I don't like the term socialist, because people do
associate that with bad things in history," he said.
Such anticommunism fits right in with the anti-Russian campaign, which is the principal
theme of the Democratic Party in the 2018 elections. As the World Socialist Web
Site has pointed out for many months, the
real thrust of the Democratic Party campaign is demonstrated by its recruitment as
congressional candidates of dozens of former CIA and military intelligence agents, combat
commanders from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and war planners from the Pentagon, State
Department and White House.
There is no contradiction between the influx of military-intelligence candidates into
the Democratic Party and the Democrats' making use of the services of Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez
to give the party a "left" cover. Both the CIA Democrats and their pseudo-left "comrades" agree
on the most important questions: the defense of the global interests of American imperialism
and a more aggressive intervention in the Syrian civil war and other areas where Washington and
Moscow are in conflict.
"... The wing of the Democratic Party that looks for the dollars instead of the votes is called "The Third Way" and it presents itself as representing the supposedly vast political center, nothing "extremist" or "marginal." But didn't liberal Republicanism go out when Nelson Rockefeller did? Conservative Democrats are like liberal Republicans -- they attract flies and billionaires, but not many votes. And didn't the Rockefeller drug laws fill our prisons with millions of pathetic drug-users and small drug-dealers but not with the kingpins in either the narcotics business or the bankster rackets (such as had crashed the economy in 2008 -- and the Third Way Democrat who had been the exceptional politician and liar that was so slick he actually did attract many votes, President Barack Obama, told the banksters privately, on 27 March 2009, "I'm not out there to go after you. I'm protecting you." And, he did keep his promise to them, though not to his voters .) ..."
"... They want another Barack Obama. There aren't any more of those (unless, perhaps, Michelle Obama enters the contest). But, even if there were: How many Democrats would fall for that scam, yet again -- after the disaster of 2016? ..."
"... Maybe the Third Way is right, and there's a sucker born every minute. But if that's what the Democratic Party is going to rely upon, then America's stunningly low voter-participation rate is set to plunge even lower, because even more voters than before will either be leaving the Presidential line blank, or even perhaps voting for the Republican candidate (as some felt driven to do in 2016). ..."
"... Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They're Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010 , and of CHRIST'S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity . He is a frequent contributor to Global Research. ..."
The wing of the Democratic Party that looks for the dollars instead of the votes is
called "The Third Way" and it presents itself as representing the supposedly vast political
center, nothing "extremist" or "marginal." But didn't liberal Republicanism go out when Nelson
Rockefeller did? Conservative Democrats are like liberal Republicans -- they attract flies and
billionaires, but not many votes. And didn't the Rockefeller drug laws fill our prisons with
millions of pathetic drug-users and small drug-dealers but not with the kingpins in either the
narcotics business or the bankster rackets (such as had crashed the economy in 2008 -- and the
Third Way Democrat who had been the exceptional politician and liar that was so slick he
actually did attract many votes, President Barack Obama, told the banksters privately, on 27
March 2009, "I'm not out there to go after you.
I'm protecting you." And, he did
keep his promise to them, though not to his voters .)
They're at it, yet again. On July 22nd, NBC News's Alex Seitz-Wald headlined
"Sanders' wing of the party terrifies moderate Dems. Here's how they plan to stop it." And
he described what was publicly available from the 3-day private meeting in Columbus Ohio of The
Third Way, July 18-20, the planning conference between the Party's chiefs and its billionaires.
Evidently, they hate Bernie Sanders and are already scheming and spending in order to block
him, now a second time, from obtaining the Party's Presidential nomination. "Anxiety has
largely been kept to a whisper among the party's moderates and big donors, with some of the
major fundraisers pressing operatives on what can be done to stop the Vermonter if he runs for
the White House again." This passage in Seitz-Wald's article was especially striking to me:
The gathering here was an effort to offer an attractive alternative to the rising
Sanders-style populist left in the upcoming presidential race. Where progressives see a rare
opportunity to capitalize on an energized Democratic base, moderates see a better chance to
win over Republicans turned off by Trump.
The fact that a billionaire real estate developer, Winston Fisher, cohosted the event
and addressed attendees twice, underscored that this group is not interested in the class
warfare vilifying the "millionaires and billionaires" found in Sanders' stump speech.
"You're not going to make me hate somebody just because they're rich. I want to be
rich!" Rep. Tim Ryan, D-Ohio, a potential presidential candidate, said Friday to
laughs.
I would reply to congressman Ryan's remark: If you want to be rich, then get the hell out of
politics! Don't run for President! I don't want you there! And that's no joke!
Anyone who doesn't recognize that an inevitable trade-off exists between serving the public
and serving oneself, is a libertarian -- an Ayn Rander, in fact -- and there aren't many of
those in the Democratic Party, but plenty of them are in the Republican Party.
Just as a clergyman in some faiths is supposed to take a vow of chastity, and in some faiths
also to take a vow of poverty, in order to serve "the calling" instead of oneself, anyone who
enters 'public service' and who aspires to "be rich" is inevitably inviting corruption
-- not prepared to do war against it . That kind of politician is a Manchurian
candidate, like Obama perhaps, but certainly not what this or any country needs, in any case.
Voters like that can be won only by means of deceit, which is the way that politicians like
that do win.
No decent political leader enters or stays in politics in order to "be rich," because no
political leader can be decent who isn't in it as a calling, to public service, and as a
repudiation, of any self-service in politics.
Republican Party voters invite corrupt government, because their Party's ideology is
committed to it ("Freedom [for the rich]!"); but the only Democratic Party voters who at all
tolerate corrupt politicians (such as Governor Andrew Cuomo in New York State) are actually
Republican Democrats -- people who are confused enough so as not really to care much about what
they believe; whatever their garbage happens to be, they believe in it and don't want to know
differently than it.
The Third Way is hoping that there are
enough of such 'Democrats' so that they can, yet again, end up with a Third Way Democrat being
offered to that Party's voters in 2020, just like happened in 2016. They want another Barack
Obama. There aren't any more of those (unless, perhaps, Michelle Obama enters the contest).
But, even if there were: How many Democrats would fall for that scam, yet again -- after the
disaster of 2016?
Maybe the Third Way is right, and there's a sucker born every minute. But if that's what the
Democratic Party is going to rely upon, then America's stunningly low voter-participation rate
is set to plunge even lower, because even more voters than before will either be leaving the
Presidential line blank, or even perhaps voting for the Republican candidate (as some felt
driven to do in 2016).
The Third Way is the way to the death of democracy, if it's not already dead . It is no answer
to anything, except to the desires of billionaires -- both Republican and Democratic.
The center of American politics isn't the center of America's aristocracy. The goal
of groups such as The Third Way is to fool the American public to equate the two. The
result of such groups is the contempt that America's
public have for America's Government . But, pushed too far, mass disillusionment becomes
revolution. Is that what America's billionaires are willing to risk? They might get it.
If the claims in the 1990s tell-all bestsellers of Mossad defector Victor Ostrovsky can
be credited, Israel even considered the assassination of President George H.W. Bush in 1992
for his threats to cut off financial aid to Israel during a conflict over West Bank
settlement policies, and I have been informed that the Bush Administration took those
reports seriously at the time.
I did not know of Ostrovsky's claim but I was very aware of George H.W. Bush conflict with
Yitzhak Shamir which most likely costed him the second term. The conflict obviously was very
deemphasized by the MSM. Iirc Patrick Buchanan wrote about it. Bush decided to say NO to
Israel and put conditions on providing further funding for immigrants form Russia to Israel.
He did it having exceptionally high (90%) approval ratings in the wake of the Desert Storm.
So timing was good. But after Congress going against him and AIPAC busing supporters of
Israel to DC Bush caved in sometime in Sept. 1991. Buchanan believed that if Bush brought the
issue to 'American people' he could have won this conflict but Bush decided to keep Americans
in the dark which is a norm when it come to Israel issues. Bush only complained about being
all alone in the White House during some press conference but most American did not get the
idea what he was compliant about. The Lobby however did not forgive Bush and did not trust
him getting the second term in the office. It must have been decided he had to go. An anti
Bush campaign was continued by Safire and Friedman in weekly columns in the NYT and negative
mostly exaggerated and bogus articles about weak economy were published. The 'It's the
economy, stupid' was bogus made up meme. Clinton was parachuted from Arkansas and Ross Perot
was encouraged to run and then dis-encouraged when he suspended his campaign and then again
encouraged to re-enter the race. He played exactly the same role as Teddy Roosevelt in 1912
election that stopped the incumbent Taft from getting the 2nd term. This gave presidency to
Wilson who brought Federal Reserve and federal tax the the following year and the entrance
into the WWI few years later. Was assassination considered as the plan B in case Bush was
reelected? Do people from The Lobby talk about killing American presidents among themselves?
Yes, they do – even publicly:
ATLANTA JEWISH NEWSPAPER CALLS FOR OBAMA ASSASSINATION. (Jan 22, 2012)
Could Obama be trusted with the 2nd term? Netnayahu's Israel was as not very happy with
him and Obama in the very beginning was talking very tough about Israel (University of
Cairo). W/o his 2nd term there would be no treaty with Iran and there would be a veto of
anti-Israel UN resolution.
It seems like George H.W. Bush must have resigned himself to not being reelected. What
message was he sending by checking the watch during a debate? Was the message: Do not
worry I am just going through the motions. Do not need to kill me.
The question is how come the neocons decided to trust GW Bush? Richard Perle went to
Austin TX and announced that Bush ignorance of the world affairs was an advantage: an empty
vessel that they can fill. Did he also mean that it will be easy to control him like sending
him against Iraq to avenge his father?
GW Bush got coached and tutored by Prince Bandar in 1997:
He lands in Austin, and is surprised when Governor Bush boards the plane before Bandar
can disembark. Bush comes straight to the point: he is considering a run for the
presidency, and though he already knows what his domestic agenda will be, says, "I don't
have the foggiest idea about what I think about international, foreign policy."
Finally, Bush says, "There are people who are your enemies in this country who also
think my dad is your enemy." Bandar knows Bush is speaking of US supporters of Israel, and
wants to know how he should handle the Israeli-Jewish lobby as well as the neoconservatives
who loathe both the Saudis and the elder Bush. Bandar replies: "Can I give you one advice?
If you tell me that [you want to be president], I want to tell you one thing. To hell with
Saudi Arabia or who likes Saudi Arabia or who doesn't, who likes Bandar or who doesn't.
Anyone who you think hates your dad or your friend who can be important to make a
difference in winning, swallow your pride and make friends of them. And I can help you. I
can help you out and complain about you, make sure they understand that, and that will make
sure they help you." Bandar's message is clear: if Bush needs the neoconservatives to help
him win the presidency, then he should do what it takes to get them on his side. "Never
mind if you really want to be honest," Bandar continues. "This is not a confession booth.
In the big boys' game, it's cutthroat, it's bloody and it's not pleasant."
Yes it is strange that the elder George Bush, who had exorcised the 'ghost of Vietnam',
through his rout of Saddam's forces in Kuwait and earned a 90% approval rating, went on to
lose to Clinton supposedly on account of the economy. The idiot Ross Perot, a capitalist
weaned on the government teat had of course a role. But I thought that the elder Bush was a
shoo-in. Then came Clinton, selling off the Americans' industrial birthright for a song to
the Chinese and the kabuki theatre of the Israeli-Palestinian 'peace process'. In James
Baker, one had the least sympathetic of Secretary of States to Israel in a long time
I recall the image making by the press when GB became inconvenient, although a veteran
pilot in WW2, he was painted as a proverbial wimp.
I recall the image making by the press when GB became inconvenient, although a veteran
pilot in WW2, he was painted as a proverbial wimp.
Why the neocons called him a wimp?
In 1990 George H.W. Bush was very reluctant to go against Saddam Hussain. He seemed to
really believe in the so called "peace dividends", base closings and scaling military down.
And then Saddam Hussain with possible approval April Glaspie fucked it all up for him and us.
It was Margaret Thatcher that twisted his arms to go against Saddam Hussein. Then when in the
Dessert Storm he did not let escalate the plan and stopped the troops form going all the way
into Iraq. The neocons did not like him.
Why we can call him a wimp?
In 1991 he decided to confront Israel but then backed off instead of escalating and
letting the American people know that he needed their support against The Lobby and the sold
out Congress.
"... As one person who had talked to Clinton about the difference between Trump and Sanders crowds recounted, her feeling was that 'at least white supremacists shaved.'" ..."
"... Why does Trump get away with corruption? Because Bill and Hillary Clinton normalized it ..."
"Clinton to be honored at Harvard for 'transformative impact'" [
The Hill ]. Irony is not dead.
"From the Jaws of Victory" [ Jacobin ]. Some
highlights from Amy Chozick's Chasing Hillary , which really does sound like a fun
read:
"In the public's mind, Clinton's 'deplorables' quip is remembered as evidence of her
disdain for much of Trump's fan base. But there was one other group Clinton had a similar
dislike of: Bernie Sanders supporters.
As one person who had talked to Clinton about the difference between Trump and Sanders
crowds recounted, her feeling was that 'at least white supremacists shaved.'"
UPDATE "Why does Trump get away with corruption? Because Bill and Hillary Clinton normalized
it" [Josh Barro, Business
Insider ].
The dramatic rise fo the number of CIA-democrats as candidates from Democratic Party is not assedental. As regular clintonites
are discredited those guys can still appeal to patriotism to get elected.
Notable quotes:
"... Bernie continuously forcing Hillary to appear apologetic about her campaign funding from big financial interests. She tries hard to persuade the public that she will not serve specific interests. Her anxiety can be identified in many cases and it was very clear at the moment when she accused Bernie of attacking her, concerning this funding. Hillary was forced to respond with a deeply irrational argument: anyone who takes money from big interests doesn't mean that he/she will vote for policies in favor of these interests! ..."
"... Bernie drives the discussion towards fundamental ideological issues. He forced Hillary to defend her "progressiveness". She was forced to speak even about economic interests by names. A few years ago, this would be nearly a taboo in any debate between any primaries. ..."
"... After the disastrous defeat by Trump in 2016 election, the corporate Democrats realized that the progressive movement, supported mostly by the American youth, would not retreat and vanish. On the contrary, Bernie Sanders' popularity still goes up and there is a wave of progressive candidates who appear to be a real threat to the DNC establishment and the Clintonian empire. ..."
"... It seems that the empire has upgraded its dirty tactics beyond Hillary's false relocation to the Left. Seeing the big threat from the real progressives, the empire seeks to "plant" its own agents, masked as progressives, inside the electoral process, to disorientate voters and steal the popular vote. ..."
"... This is a Master's class in blatant historical revisionism and outright dishonesty. Beals was not a soldier unwillingly drafted into service, but an intelligence officer who voluntarily accepted an influential and critically important post for the Bush Administration in its ever-expanding crime against humanity in Iraq. ..."
During the 2016 Democratic party primaries we wrote that
what Bernie achieved, is to bring back the real political discussion in America, at least concerning the Democratic camp. Bernie
smartly "drags" his primary rival, Hillary Clinton, into the heart of the politics. Up until a few years ago, you could not observe
too much difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, who were just following the pro-establishment "politics as usual",
probably with a few, occasional exceptions. The "politics as usual" so far, was "you can't touch the Wall Street", for example.
Bernie continuously forcing Hillary to appear apologetic about her campaign funding from big financial interests. She tries hard
to persuade the public that she will not serve specific interests. Her anxiety can be identified in many cases and it was very clear
at the moment when she accused Bernie of attacking her, concerning this funding. Hillary was forced to respond with a deeply irrational
argument: anyone who takes money from big interests doesn't mean that he/she will vote for policies in favor of these interests!
Bernie drives the discussion towards fundamental ideological issues. He forced Hillary to defend her "progressiveness". She was
forced to speak even about economic interests by names. A few years ago, this would be nearly a taboo in any debate between any primaries.
After the disastrous defeat by Trump in 2016 election, the corporate Democrats realized that the progressive movement, supported
mostly by the American youth, would not retreat and vanish. On the contrary, Bernie Sanders' popularity still goes up and there is
a wave of progressive candidates who appear to be a real threat to the DNC establishment and the Clintonian empire.
It seems that the empire has upgraded its dirty tactics beyond Hillary's false relocation to the Left. Seeing the big threat from
the real progressives, the empire seeks to "plant" its own agents, masked as progressives, inside the electoral process, to disorientate
voters and steal the popular vote.
Eric Draitser gives us valuable information for such a type of candidate. Key points:
One candidate currently generating some buzz in the race is Jeff Beals, a self-identified "Bernie democrat" whose campaign website
homepage describes him as a " local teacher and former U.S. diplomat endorsed by the national organization of former Bernie Sanders
staffers, the Justice Democrats. " And indeed, Beals centers his progressive bona fides to brand himself as one of the inheritors
of the progressive torch lit by Sanders in 2016. A smart political move, to be sure. But is it true?
Beals describes himself as a "former U.S. diplomat," touting his expertise on international issues born of his experience overseas.
In an email interview with CounterPunch, Beals describes his campaign as a " movement for diplomacy and peace in foreign affairs
and an end to militarism my experience as a U.S. diplomat is what drives it and gives this movement such force. " OK, sounds
good, a very progressive sounding answer. But what did Beals actually do during his time overseas?
By his own admission, Beals' overseas career began as an intelligence officer with the CIA. His fluency in Arabic and knowledge
of the region made him an obvious choice to be an intelligence spook during the latter stages of the Clinton Administration.
Beals shrewdly attempts to portray himself as an opponent of neocon imperialism in Iraq. In his interview with CounterPunch, Beals
argued that " The State Department was sidelined as the Bush administration and a neoconservative cabal plunged America into the
tragic Iraq War. As a U.S. diplomat fluent in Arabic and posted in Jerusalem at the time, I was called over a year into the war to
help our country find a way out. "
This is a Master's class in blatant historical revisionism and outright dishonesty. Beals was not a soldier unwillingly drafted
into service, but an intelligence officer who voluntarily accepted an influential and critically important post for the Bush Administration
in its ever-expanding crime against humanity in Iraq.
Moreover, no one who knows anything about the Iraq War could possibly swallow the tripe that CIA/State Department officials in
Iraq were " looking to help our country find a way out " a year into the war. A year into the war, the bloodletting was only
just beginning, and Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil, and the other corporate vultures had yet to fully exploit the country and make billions
off it. So, unfortunately for Beals, the historical memory of the anti-war Left is not that short.
It is self-evident that Beals has a laundry list of things in his past that he must answer for. For those of us, especially Millennials,
who cut our activist teeth demonstrating and organizing against the Iraq War, Beals' distortions about his role in Iraq go down like
hemlock tea. But it is the associations Beals maintains today that really should give any progressive serious pause.
When asked by CounterPunch whether he has any connections to either Bernie Sanders and his surrogates or Hillary Clinton and hers,
Beals responded by stating: " I am endorsed by Justice Democrats, a group of former Bernie Sanders staffers who are pledged to
electing progressives nationwide. I am also endorsed for the Greene County chapter of the New York Progressive Action Network, formerly
the Bernie Sanders network. My first hire was a former Sanders field coordinator who worked here in NY-19. "
However, conveniently missing from that response is the fact that Beals' campaign has been, and continues to be, directly managed
in nearly every respect by Bennett Ratcliff, a longtime friend and ally of Hillary Clinton. Ratcliff is not mentioned in any publicly
available documents as a campaign manager, though the most recent FEC filings show that as of April 1, 2018, Ratcliff was still on
the payroll of the Beals campaign. And in the video of Beals' campaign kickoff rally, Ratcliff introduces Beals, while only being
described as a member of the Onteora School Board in Ulster County . This is sort of like referring to Donald Trump as an avid
golfer.
Beals has studiously, and rather intelligently, avoided mentioning Ratcliff, or the presence of Clinton's inner circle on his
campaign. However, according to internal campaign documents and emails obtained by CounterPunch, Ratcliff manages nearly every aspect
of the campaign, acting as a sort of éminence grise behind the artifice of a progressive campaign fronted by a highly educated and
photogenic political novice.
By his own admission, Ratcliff's role on the campaign is strategy, message, and management. Sounds like a rather textbook description
of a campaign manager. Indeed, Ratcliff has been intimately involved in "guiding" Beals on nearly every important campaign decision,
especially those involving fundraising .
And it is in the realm of fundraising that Ratcliff really shines, but not in the way one would traditionally think. Rather than
focusing on large donations and powerful interests, Ratcliff is using the Beals campaign as a laboratory for his strategy of winning
elections without raising millions of dollars.
In fact, leaked campaign documents show that Ratcliff has explicitly instructed Beals and his staffers not to spend money on
food, decorations, and other standard campaign expenses in hopes of presenting the illusion of a grassroots, people-powered campaign
with no connections to big time donors or financial elites .
It seems that Ratcliff is the wizard behind the curtain, leveraging his decades of contact building and close ties to the Democratic
Party establishment while at the same time manufacturing an astroturfed progressive campaign using a front man in Beals .
One of Ratcliff's most infamous, and indefensible, acts of fealty to the Clinton machine came in 2009 when he and longtime Clinton
attorney and lobbyist, Lanny Davis, stumped around Washington to garner support for the illegal right-wing coup in Honduras, which
ousted the democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya in favor of the right-wing oligarchs who control the country today. Although
the UN, and even U.S. diplomats on the ground in Honduras, openly stated that the coup was illegal, Clinton was adamant to actively
keep Zelaya out.
Essentially then, Ratcliff is a chief architect of the right-wing government in Honduras – the same government assassinating feminist
and indigenous activists like Berta Cáceres, Margarita Murillo, and others, and forcibly displacing and ethnically cleansing Afro-indigenous
communities to make way for Carribbean resorts and golf courses.
And this Washington insider lobbyist and apologist for war criminals and crimes against humanity is the guy who's on a crusade
to reform campaign finance and fix Washington? This is the guy masquerading as a progressive? This is the guy working to elect an
"anti-war progressive"?
In a twisted way it makes sense. Ratcliff has the blood of tens of thousands of Hondurans (among others) on his hands, while Beals
is a creature of Langley, a CIA boy whose exceptional work in the service of Bush and Clinton administration war criminals is touted
as some kind of merit badge on his resume.
What also becomes clear after establishing the Ratcliff-Beals connection is the fact that Ratcliff's purported concern with
campaign financing and "taking back the Republic" is really just a pretext for attempting to provide a "proof of concept," as it
were, that neoliberal Democrats shouldn't fear and subvert the progressive wing of the party, but rather that they should co-opt
it with a phony grassroots facade all while maintaining links to U.S. intelligence, Wall Street, and the power brokers of the Democratic
Party .
Key figures on anti-trump color revolution including Mueller, Rosenstein and Comey are closely connected with Clinton foundation
Notable quotes:
"... Guess who took over this investigation in 2002? Bet you can't guess. No other than James Comey. ..."
"... Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005? No other than the Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein. ..."
"... Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this time frame??? I know, it's a miracle, just a coincidence, just an anomaly in statistics and chances: Robert Mueller. ..."
"... Then of all surprises, in April 2016, James Comey drafts an exoneration letter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile the DOJ is handing out immunity deals like candy on Halloween. ..."
"... The DOJ didn't even convene a Grand Jury. Like a lightning bolt of statistical impossibility, like a miracle from God himself, like the true "Gangsta" Homey is, James steps out into the cameras of an awaiting press conference on July the 8th of 2016 and exonerates the Hillary from any wrongdoing. ..."
"... It goes on and on, Rosenstein becomes Asst. Attorney General, Comey gets fired based upon a letter by Rosenstein, Comey leaks government information to the press, Mueller is assigned to the Russian Investigation witch hunt by Rosenstein to provide cover for decades of malfeasance within the FBI and DOJ and the story continues. ..."
I'm on the other side of the planet but a friend in the Mid-West sent me this and I thought I'd ask if anyone else had seen
it?
Is there corruption in DC?
From 2001 to 2005 there was an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation. A Grand Jury had been empaneled. The investigation
was triggered by the pardon of Marc Rich ..
Governments from around the world had donated to the "Charity". Yet, from 2001 to 2003 none of those "Donations" to the Clinton
Foundation were declared.
Guess who took over this investigation in 2002? Bet you can't guess. No other than James Comey.
Guess who was transferred in to the Internal Revenue Service to run the Tax Exemption Branch of the IRS? Your friend and mine,
Lois "Be on The Look Out" (BOLO) Lerner.
It gets better, well not really, but this is all just a series of strange coincidences, right?
Guess who ran the Tax Division inside the Department of Injustice from 2001 to 2005? No other than the Assistant Attorney
General of the United States, Rod Rosenstein.
Guess who was the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation during this time frame??? I know, it's a miracle, just
a coincidence, just an anomaly in statistics and chances: Robert Mueller.
What do all four casting characters have in common? They all were briefed and were front line investigators into the Clinton
Foundation Investigation.
Now that's just a coincidence, right? Ok, lets chalk the last one up to mere chance.
Let's fast forward to 2009. James Comey leaves the Justice Department to go and cash-in at Lockheed Martin.
Hillary Clinton is running the State Department, on her own personal email server.
The Uranium One "issue" comes to the attention of the Hillary. Like all good public servants do, you know looking out for America's
best interest, she decides to support the decision and approve the sale of 20% of US Uranium to no other than, the Russians.
Now you would think that this is a fairly straight up deal, except it wasn't, I question what did the People get out of it??
Oddly enough, prior to the sales approval, Bill Clinton goes to Moscow, gets paid 500K for a one-hour speech then meets with Vladimir
Putin at his home for a few hours.
Ok, no big deal right? Well, not so fast, the FBI had a mole inside this scheme.
Guess who was the FBI Director during this time frame? Yep, Robert Mueller. He requested the State Department allow himself
to deliver a Uranium Sample to Moscow in 2009, under the guise of a "sting" operation -- (see leaked secret cable 09STATE38943)..
while it is never clear if Mueller did deliver the sample, the "implication" is there ..
Guess who was handling that case within the Justice Department out of the US Attorney's Office in Maryland ?? No other than,
Rod Rosenstein.
Remember the "informant" inside the FBI -- - Guess what happened to the informant? Department of Justice placed a GAG order
on him and threatened to lock him up if he spoke about the Uranium Deal. Personally, I have to question how does 20% of the most
strategic asset of the United States of America end up in Russian hands??? The FBI had an informant, a mole providing inside information
to the FBI on the criminal enterprise and NOTHING happens, except to the informant -- Strange !!
Guess what happened soon after the sale was approved? 145 million dollars in "donations" made their way into the Clinton Foundation
from entities directly connected to the Uranium One deal.
Guess who was still at the Internal Revenue Service working the Charitable Division?
No other than, Lois Lerner. Ok, that's all just another series of coincidences, nothing to see here, right? Let's fast forward
to 2015.
Due to a series of tragic events in Benghazi and after the nine "investigations" the House, Senate and at State Department,
Trey Gowdy who was running the 10th investigation as Chairman of the Select Committee on Benghazi, discovers that the Hillary
ran the State Department on an unclassified, unauthorized, outlaw personal email server.
He also discovered that none of those emails had been turned over when she departed her "Public Service" as Secretary of State
which was required by law.
He also discovered that there was Top Secret information contained within her personally archived email. Sparing you the State
Departments cover up, the nostrums they floated, the delay tactics that were employed and the outright lies that were spewed forth
from the necks of the Kerry State Department, they did everything humanly possible to cover for Hillary.
Guess who became FBI Director in 2013? Guess who secured 17 no bid contracts for his employer (Lockheed Martin) with the State
Department and was rewarded with a six million dollar thank you present when he departed his employer. No other than James Comey.
Folks if I did this when I worked for the government, I would have been locked up -- The State Department didn't even comply with
the EEO and small business requirements the government places on all Request For Proposals (RFP) on contracts -- It amazes me
how all those no-bids just went right through at State -- simply amazing and no Inspector General investigation !!
Next after leaving the private sector Comey is the FBI Director in charge of the "Clinton Email Investigation" after of course
his FBI Investigates the Lois Lerner "Matter" at the Internal Revenue Service and exonerates her. Nope couldn't find any crimes
there. Nothing here to report --
Then of all surprises, in April 2016, James Comey drafts an exoneration letter of Hillary Rodham Clinton, meanwhile the
DOJ is handing out immunity deals like candy on Halloween.
The DOJ didn't even convene a Grand Jury. Like a lightning bolt of statistical impossibility, like a miracle from God himself,
like the true "Gangsta" Homey is, James steps out into the cameras of an awaiting press conference on July the 8th of 2016 and
exonerates the Hillary from any wrongdoing. As I've said many times, July 8, 2016 is the date that will live in infamy of
the American Justice System ..
Can you see the pattern?
It goes on and on, Rosenstein becomes Asst. Attorney General, Comey gets fired based upon a letter by Rosenstein, Comey
leaks government information to the press, Mueller is assigned to the Russian Investigation witch hunt by Rosenstein to provide
cover for decades of malfeasance within the FBI and DOJ and the story continues.
FISA Abuse, political espionage .. pick a crime, any crime, chances are this group and a few others did it. All the same players.
All compromised and conflicted. All working fervently to NOT go to jail themselves. All connected in one way or another to the
Clinton's. They are like battery acid, they corrode and corrupt everything they touch. How many lives have the Clinton's destroyed?
As of this writing, the Clinton Foundation, in its 20+ years of operation of being the largest International Charity Fraud
in the history of mankind, has never been audited by the Internal Revenue Service.
Let us not forget that Comey's brother works for DLA Piper, the law firm that does the Clinton Foundation's taxes.
"... Yeah. Sociopath. Gives me the shivers. Bill is the same, but conceals it better. I mean, WTF, the guy had state troopers bringing him any pussy he spotted on his lunch break. ..."
Yeah. Sociopath. Gives me the shivers. Bill is the same, but conceals it better. I mean,
WTF, the guy had state troopers bringing him any pussy he spotted on his lunch break.
Jesus,
the rejects this country brings to the White House it's a wonder there's anything left of
this country at all.
"... Putting aside his partisan motivations, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-CA) was unusually blunt two months ago in warning of legal consequences for officials who misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to enable surveillance on Trump and his associates. Nunes's words are likely to have sent chills down the spine of those with lots to hide: "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said ."The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created." ..."
"... The media will be key to whether this Constitutional issue is resolved. Largely because of Trump's own well earned reputation for lying, most Americans are susceptible to slanted headlines like this recent one -- "Trump escalates attacks on FBI " -- from an article in The Washington Post , commiserating with the treatment accorded fired-before-retired prevaricator McCabe and the FBI he ( dis)served . ..."
"... What motivated the characters now criminally "referred" is clear enough from a wide variety of sources, including the text messages exchange between Strzok and Page. Many, however, have been unable to understand how these law enforcement officials thought they could get away with taking such major liberties with the law. ..."
"... None of the leaking, unmasking, surveillance, "opposition research," or other activities directed against the Trump campaign can be properly understood, if one does not bear in mind that it was considered a sure thing that Secretary Clinton would become President, at which point illegal and extralegal activities undertaken to help her win would garner praise, not prison. The activities were hardly considered high-risk, because candidate Clinton was sure to win. ..."
"... Comey admits, "It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making her an illegitimate president by concealing the re-started investigation bore greater weight than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in the polls." ..."
"... The key point is not Comey's tortured reasoning, but rather that Clinton was "sure to be the next president." This would, of course, confer automatic immunity on those now criminally referred to the Department of Justice. Ah, the best laid plans of mice and men -- even very tall men. One wag claimed that the "Higher" in "A Higher Loyalty" refers simply to the very tall body that houses an outsized ego. ..."
"... "Hope springs eternal" would be the cynical folk wisdom. FYI we haven't had a functioning constitution since the National Security Act of 1947 brought this nation under color of law, but the IC types wouldn't have you know that. Too tough to square the idea you'd never have had your CIA career in a world where the FISA court couldn't exist either. ..."
"... there is concrete evidence that the Democratic party/Clinton manipulated the primaries to destroy Clinton's challanger. That the DOJ, FBI & other alphabet agencies conspired with Clinton to equally, destroy Trump's campaign. ..."
"... We saw the same nonsense with Obama, the "peace president". Obama a man who never saw a Muslim he did not want to bomb or a Jew he did not want to bail out ..."
"... The best thing about this referral is that it also demands deputy AG Rod Rosenstein the weasel to recluse himself from this case. Rosenstein is the pinnacle of corruption by the deep state. ..."
"... Former CIA Director John Brennan is the prime mover behind the ongoing coup attempt against Trump. He gathered his deep state allies at DOJ and the FBI to join him in this endeavor. Brennan's allies -- McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, Yates, ect., may or may not be aware of Brennan's true motive behind creating all the noise and distraction since the 2016 election. It could be they're just partisan hacks; or they're on board with Brennan to keep secret what was revealed in the hack of the Podesta emails. ..."
"... I noticed Comey tried to pull a J Edgar-style subtle blackmail on Trump by the way he brought up the so-called "dossier" ..."
"... Bill Clinton got recruited into CIA by Cord Meyer, who bragged of it himself in his cups. ..."
"... Hillary cut her teeth on CIA's Watergate purge of Nixon. (If it's news to anyone that the Watergate cast of characters was straight out of CIA central casting, Russ Baker has conclusively tied the elaborate ratfeck to the intelligence community.) ..."
"... Obama was son of spooks, grandson of spooks, greased in to Harvard by Alwaleed bin-Talal's bagman. ..."
Wednesday's criminal referral by 11 House Republicans of former Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton as well as several former and serving top FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) officials
is a giant step toward a Constitutional crisis.
Named in the referral to the DOJ for possible violations of federal law are: Clinton, former
FBI Director James Comey; former Attorney General Loretta Lynch; former Acting FBI Director
Andrew McCabe; FBI Agent Peter Strzok; FBI Counsel Lisa Page; and those DOJ and FBI personnel
"connected to" work on the "Steele Dossier," including former Acting Attorney General Sally
Yates and former Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente.
With no attention from corporate media, the referral was sent to Attorney General Jeff
Sessions, FBI Director Christopher Wray, and U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah John Huber.
Sessions appointed Huber months ago to assist DOJ Inspector General (IG) Michael Horowitz. By
most accounts, Horowitz is doing a thoroughly professional job. As IG, however, Horowitz lacks
the authority to prosecute; he needs a U.S. Attorney for that. And this has to be disturbing to
the alleged perps.
This is no law-school case-study exercise, no arcane disputation over the fine points of
this or that law. Rather, as we say in the inner-city, "It has now hit the fan." Criminal
referrals can lead to serious jail time. Granted, the upper-crust luminaries criminally
"referred" enjoy very powerful support. And that will come especially from the mainstream
media, which will find it hard to retool and switch from Russia-gate to the much more delicate
and much less welcome "FBI-gate."
As of this writing, a full day has gone by since the letter/referral was reported, with
total silence so far from T he New York Times and The Washington Post and other
big media as they grapple with how to spin this major development. News of the criminal
referral also slipped by Amy Goodman's non-mainstream DemocracyNow!, as well as many
alternative websites.
The 11 House members chose to include the following egalitarian observation in the first
paragraph of the
letter conveying the criminal referral: "Because we believe that those in positions of high
authority should be treated the same as every other American, we want to be sure that the
potential violations of law outlined below are vetted appropriately." If this uncommon attitude
is allowed to prevail at DOJ, it would, in effect, revoke the de facto "David Petraeus
exemption" for the be-riboned, be-medaled, and well-heeled.
Stonewalling
Meanwhile, the patience of the chairmen of House committees investigating abuses at DOJ and
the FBI is wearing thin at the slow-rolling they are encountering in response to requests for
key documents from the FBI. This in-your-face intransigence is all the more odd, since several
committee members have already had access to the documents in question, and are hardly likely
to forget the content of those they know about. (Moreover, there seems to be a good chance that
a patriotic whistleblower or two will tip them off to key documents being withheld.)
The DOJ IG, whose purview includes the FBI, has been cooperative in responding to committee
requests for information, but those requests can hardly include documents of which the
committees are unaware.
Putting aside his partisan motivations, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes
(R-CA) was unusually blunt two months ago in warning of legal consequences for officials who
misled the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court in order to enable surveillance on Trump and
his associates. Nunes's words are likely to have sent chills down the spine of those with lots
to hide: "If they need to be put on trial, we will put them on trial," he said
."The reason Congress exists is to oversee these agencies that we created."
Whether the House will succeed in overcoming the resistance of those criminally referred and
their many accomplices and will prove able to exercise its Constitutional prerogative of
oversight is, of course, another matter -- a matter that matters.
And Nothing Matters More Than the Media
The media will be key to whether this Constitutional issue is resolved. Largely because of
Trump's own well earned reputation for lying, most Americans are susceptible to slanted
headlines like this recent one -- "Trump escalates attacks on FBI " -- from an
article in The Washington Post , commiserating with the treatment accorded
fired-before-retired prevaricator McCabe and the FBI he ( dis)served
.
Nor is the Post above issuing transparently clever warnings -- like this one in a
lead
article on March 17: "Some Trump allies say they worry he is playing with fire by taunting
the FBI. 'This is open, all-out war. And guess what? The FBI's going to win,' said one ally,
who spoke on the condition of anonymity to be candid. 'You can't fight the FBI. They're going
to torch him.'" [sic]
Mind-Boggling Criminal Activity
What motivated the characters now criminally "referred" is clear enough from a wide variety
of sources, including the text messages exchange between Strzok and Page. Many, however, have
been unable to understand how these law enforcement officials thought they could get away with
taking such major liberties with the law.
None of the leaking, unmasking, surveillance, "opposition research," or other activities
directed against the Trump campaign can be properly understood, if one does not bear in mind
that it was considered a sure thing that Secretary Clinton would become President, at which
point illegal and extralegal activities undertaken to help her win would garner praise, not
prison. The activities were hardly considered high-risk, because candidate Clinton was sure to
win.
But she lost.
Comey himself gives this away in the embarrassingly puerile book he has been hawking, "A
Higher Loyalty" -- which
amounts to a pre-emptive move motivated mostly by loyalty-to-self, in order to obtain a
Stay-Out-of-Jail card. Hat tip to Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone for a key observation, in his
recent article
, "James Comey, the Would-Be J. Edgar Hoover," about what Taibbi deems the book's most damning
passage, where Comey discusses his decision to make public the re-opening of the Hillary
Clinton email investigation.
Comey admits, "It is entirely possible that, because I was making decisions in an
environment where Hillary Clinton was sure to be the next president, my concern about making
her an illegitimate president by concealing the re-started investigation bore greater weight
than it would have if the election appeared closer or if Donald Trump were ahead in the
polls."
The key point is not Comey's tortured reasoning, but rather that Clinton was "sure to be the
next president." This would, of course, confer automatic immunity on those now criminally
referred to the Department of Justice. Ah, the best laid plans of mice and men -- even very
tall men. One wag claimed that the "Higher" in "A Higher Loyalty" refers simply to the very
tall body that houses an outsized ego.
I think it can be said that readers of Consortiumnews.com may be unusually well equipped to
understand the anatomy of FBI-gate as well as Russia-gate. Listed below chronologically are
several links that might be viewed as a kind of "whiteboard" to refresh memories. You may wish
to refer them to any friends who may still be confused.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of
the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He served as an Army Infantry/Intelligence officer and
then a CIA analyst for a total of 30 years. In retirement, he co-created Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
A weird country, the USA.
Reading the article I'm reminded of the 1946 Senate investigation into Pearl Harbour, where,
in my opinion, the truth was unearthed.
At the same time, this truth hardly ever reached the wider public, no articles, the book, ed.
Harry Elmer Barnes, never reviewed.
Will McCabe wind up in jail? Will Comey? Will Hillary face justice? Fingers crossed!
The short answer is NO. McCabe might, but not Comey and the Killer Queen, they've both served Satan, uh I mean the
Deep State too long and too well.Satan and the banksters–who really run the show–take care of their own and
apex predators like Hillary won't go to jail. But it does keep the rubes entertained while the banksters continue to loot, pillage and
plunder and Israel keeps getting Congress to fight their wars.
"Hope springs eternal" would be the cynical folk wisdom. FYI we haven't had a functioning
constitution since the National Security Act of 1947 brought this nation under color of law,
but the IC types wouldn't have you know that. Too tough to square the idea you'd never have
had your CIA career in a world where the FISA court couldn't exist either.
Consortium News many sops tossed to 'realpolitik' where false narrative is attacked with
alternative false narrative, example given, drunk Ukrainian soldiers supposedly downing MH 17
with a BUK as opposed to Kiev's Interior Ministry behind the Ukrainian combat jet that
actually brought down MH 17, poisons everything (trust issues) spewed from that news
service.
The realpolitik 'face saving' exit/offer implied in the Consortium News narrative where
Russia doesn't have to confront the West with Ukraine's (and by implication the western
intelligence agencies) premeditated murder of 300 innocents does truth no favors.
Time to grow up and face reality. Realpolitik is dead; the caliber of 'statesman' required
for these finessed geopolitical lies to function no longer exist on the Western side, and the
Russians (I believe) are beginning to understand there is no agreement can be made behind
closed doors that will hold up; as opposed to experiencing a backstabbing (like NATO not
moving east.)
Back on topic; the National Security Act of 1947 and the USA's constitution are mutually
exclusive concepts, where you have a Chief Justice appoints members of our FISA Court, er,
nix that, let's call a spade a spade, it's a Star Chamber. There is no constitution to
uphold, no matter well intended self deceits. There will be no constitutional crisis, only a
workaround to pretend a constitution still exists:
To comprehend the internal machinations s of US politics one needs a mind capable of high
level yoga or of squaring a circle.
On the one hand there is a multimillion, full throttle investigation into – at best
– nebulus, inconsequential links between trump/ his campaign & Russia.
On the other there is concrete evidence that the Democratic party/Clinton manipulated the
primaries to destroy Clinton's challanger. That the DOJ, FBI & other alphabet agencies
conspired with Clinton to equally, destroy Trump's campaign.
Naturally, its this 2nd conspiracy which is retarded.
Imagine, a mere agency of a dept, the FBI, is widely considered untouchable by The President
! Indeed, they will "torch" him. AND the "the third estate" ie: the msm will support them the
whole way!
As a script the "The Twilight Zone" would have rejected all this as too ludicrous, too
psychotic for even its broad minded viewers.
And that will come especially from the mainstream media
I quit reading right there. Use of that term indicates mental laziness at best. What's mainstream about it? Please
refer to corporate media in proper terms, such as PCR's "presstitute" media. Speaking of PCR, it's too bad he doesn't allow comments.
The MSM is controlled by Zionists as is the U.S. gov and the banks, so it is no surprise that
the MSM protects the ones destroying America, this is what they do. Nothing of consequence will be done to any of the ones involved, it will all be covered
up, as usual.
What utter nonsense. These people are ALL actors, no one will go to jail, because everything
they do is contrived, no consequence for doing as your Zionist owners command.
There is no there there. This is nothing but another distraction, something o feed the
dual narratives, that Clinton and her ilk are out to get Trump, and the "liberal media" will
cover it up. This narrative feeds very nicely into the primary goal of driving
Republicans/conservatives to support Trump, even as Trump does everything they elected him
NOT TO DO!
We saw the same nonsense with Obama, the "peace president". Obama a man who never saw a
Muslim he did not want to bomb or a Jew he did not want to bail out
Yet even while Obama did the work of the Zionist money machine, the media played up the
fake battle between those who thought he was not born in America, "birthers" and his blind
supporters.
Nothing came of any of it, just like Monica Lewinsky, nothing but theater, fill the air
waves, divide the people, while America is driven insane.
The best thing about this referral is that it also demands deputy AG Rod Rosenstein the
weasel to recluse himself from this case. Rosenstein is the pinnacle of corruption by the deep
state. It's seriously way pass time for Jeff Sessions to grow a pair, put on his big boy
pants, unrecuse himself from the Russian collusion bullshit case, fire Rosenstein and Mueller
and end the case once and for all. These two traitors are in danger of completely derailing
the Trump agenda and toppling the Republican majority in November, yet Jeff Sessions is still
busy arresting people for marijuana, talk about missing the forest for the trees.
As far as where this referral will go from here, my guess is, nowhere. Not as long as Jeff
Sessions the pussy is the AG. It's good to hear that Giuliani has now been recruited by Trump
to be on his legal team. What Trump really needs to do is replace Jeff Sessions with
Giuliani, or even Chris Christie, and let them do what a real AG should be doing, which is
clean house in the DOJ, and prosecute the Clintons for their pay-to-play scheme with their
foundation. Not only is the Clinton corruption case the biggest corruption case in US
history, but this might be the only way to save the GOP from losing their majority in
November.
But it does keep the rubes entertained while the banksters continue to loot, pillage and
plunder and Israel keeps getting Congress to fight their wars.
Sadly I think you're right. Things might be different if we had a real AG, but Jeff
Sessions is not the man I thought he was. He's been swallowed by the deep state just like
Trump. At least Trump is putting up a fight, Sessions just threw in the towel and recused
himself from Day 1. Truly pathetic. Some patriot he is.
" He's ferreted out more than a few and probably has a lot better idea who his friends are
he certainly knows the enemies by now."
He failed to ferret out Haley, Pompeo, or Sessions and he just recently appointed John
Bolton, so I don't agree with your assessment. If his friends include those three, that says
enough about Trump to make any of his earlier supporters drop him.
Anyway, not having a ready made team, or at least a solid short list of key appointees
shows that he was just too clueless to have even been a serious candidate. It looks more as
though Trump is doing now what he intended to do all along. That means he was bullshitting
everybody during his campaign.
So, maybe the neocons really have been his friends all along.
" America is a very crooked country, nothing suprises me".
Every country on this insane planet is "crooked" to a greater or lesser degree, when to a
lesser degree, this is simply because they, the PTB, have not yet figured out how to
accelerate, how to increase their corruption and thereby how to increase their unearned
monetary holdings.
Money is the most potent singular factor which causes humans to lose their minds, and all
of their ethics and decency.
And within the confines of a "socialist" system, "money" is replaced by rubber-stamps, which
then wield, exactly in the manner of "wealth", the power of life or death, over the unwashed
masses.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro jazz
musician.
BTW Jeff Sessions is a fraternal brother of Pence (a member of the same club, same
[recently deceased] guru) and is no friend of Trump.
That would explain why Sessions reclused himself from the start, and refused to appoint a
special council to investigate the Clintons. He's in on this with Pence.
Just as it looks like the Comey memos will further exonerate Trump, we now have this farce
extended by the DNC with this latest lawsuit on the "Trump campaign". The Democrats are now
the most pathetic sore losers in history, they are hell bent on dragging the whole country
down the pit of hell just because they can't handle a loss.
Wishful thinking that anything will come of this, just like when the Nunes memo was released.
Nothing will happen as long as Jeff Sessions is AG. Trump needs to fire either Sessions or
Rosenstein ASAP, before he gets dragged down by this whole Russian collusion bullshit case.
Former CIA Director John Brennan is the prime mover behind the ongoing coup attempt against
Trump. He gathered his deep state allies at DOJ and the FBI to join him in this endeavor.
Brennan's allies -- McCabe, Lynch, Strzok, Yates, ect., may or may not be aware of Brennan's
true motive behind creating all the noise and distraction since the 2016 election. It could
be they're just partisan hacks; or they're on board with Brennan to keep secret what was
revealed in the hack of the Podesta emails.
John Podesta, in addition to being a top Democrat/DC lobbyist and a criminal deviant, is
also a long-time CIA asset running a blackmail/influence operation that utilized his
deviancy: the sexual exploitation of children.
What kind of "physical proof" could Assange have? A thumb drive that was provably
American, or something? Rohrabacher only got Red Pilled on Russia because he had one very
determined (and well heeled) constituent. But he did cosponsor one of Tulsi Gabbard's "Stop
Funding Terrorists" bills, which he figured out on his own. Nevertheless, a bit of a loose
cannon and an eff'd up hawk on Iran He's probably an 'ISIS now, Assad later' on Syria.
I noticed Comey tried to pull a J Edgar-style subtle blackmail on Trump by the way he brought
up the so-called "dossier". Anyone could see it was absurd but he played his hand with it,
pretending it was being looked at. I would say Trump could see through this sleazy game Comey
was trying to play and sized him up. Comey is about as slimy as they get even as he parades
around trying to look noble. What a corrupt bunch.
"The culprit has swayed with the immediate need for a villain "
[What follows is excerpted from an article headlined Robert Mueller's Questionable Past
that appeared yesterday on the American Free Press website:]
During his tenure with the Justice Department under President George H W Bush, Mueller
supervised the prosecutions of Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega, the Lockerbie bombing (Pan
Am Flight 103) case, and Gambino crime boss John Gotti. In the Noriega case, Mueller ignored
the ties to the Bush family that Victor Thorn illustrated in Hillary (and Bill): The Drugs
Volume: Part Two of the Clinton Trilogy. Noriega had long been associated with CIA operations
that involved drug smuggling, money laundering, and arms running. Thorn significantly links
Noriega to Bush family involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal.
Regarding Pan Am Flight 103, the culprit has swayed with the immediate need for a villain.
Pro-Palestinian activists, Libyans, and Iranians have all officially been blamed when US
intelligence and the mainstream mass media needed to paint each as the antagonist to American
freedom. Mueller toed the line, publicly ignoring rumors that agents onboard were said to
have learned that a CIA drug-smuggling operation was afoot in conjunction with Pan Am
flights. According to the theory, the agents were going to take their questions to Congress
upon landing. The flight blew up over Lockerbie, Scotland.
There has been some former high flyers going to jail recently. Sarkozy is facing a hard
time at the moment. If it can happen to a former president of France it can happen to
Hillary.
Am I a Christian? Well, no. I had some exposure to Christianity but it never took hold. On
the other hand, I do believe there was a historical Jesus that was a remarkable man, but
there is a world (or universe) of difference between the man and the mythology. Here's some
of my thoughts on the matter:
Nothing uncanny about it. There's a frenetic Democratic cottage industry inferring magical
emotional charisma powers that explain the outsized influence of those three. The fact is
very simple. All three are CIA nomenklatura.
(1.) Bill Clinton got recruited into CIA by Cord Meyer, who bragged of it himself in his
cups.
(2.) Hillary cut her teeth on CIA's Watergate purge of Nixon. (If it's news to anyone that
the Watergate cast of characters was straight out of CIA central casting, Russ Baker has
conclusively tied the elaborate ratfeck to the intelligence community.)
(3.) Obama was son of spooks, grandson of spooks, greased in to Harvard by Alwaleed
bin-Talal's bagman. While he was vocationally wet behind the ears he not only got into
Pakistan, no mean feat at the time, but he went to a falconry outing with the future acting
president of Pakistan. And is there anyone alive who wasn't flabbergasted at the instant
universal acclaim for some empty suit who made a speech at the convention? Like Bill Clinton,
successor to DCI Bush, Obama was blatantly, derisively installed in the president slot of the
CIA org chart.
Excellent post and quite accurate information, however my point being that the irrational
fear harbored by the individuals who could actually begin to rope these scumbags in, is just
that : Irrational, as they seem to think or have been lead/brainwashed to believe that these
dissolute turds are somehow endowed with supernatural, otherworldy powers and options, and
that they are capable of unholy , merciless vengeance : VF, SR, etc.
And the truth is as soon as they finally start to go after them they, they will fall apart at
the seams, such as with all cowards, and this is the bottom line : They, the BC/HC/BO clique,
they are nothing more than consumate cowards, who can only operate in such perfidious manners
when left unchallenged.
Authenticjazzman "Mensa" qualified since 1973, airborne trained US Army vet, and pro Jazz
artist.
"... Bill Clinton attacked Yugoslavia, blithely violating Internal Law. George Bush Jr. did the same by attacking Iraq, and Barack Obama by attacking Libya and Syria. As for Donald Trump, he has never hidden his distrust of supra-national rules. ..."
"... " Globalisation ", in other words the " globalisation of Anglo-Saxon values ", has created a class society between states. ..."
"... " Communication ", a new name for " propaganda ", has become the imperative in international relations. From the US Secretary of State brandishing a phial of pseudo-anthrax to the British Minister for Foreign Affairs lying about the origin of Novitchok in the Salisbury affair, lies have become the substitute for respect, and cause general mistrust. ..."
"... Russia is wondering today about the possible desire of the Western powers to block the United Nations. If this is so, it would create an alternative institution, but there would no longer be a forum which would enable the two blocks to discuss matters. ..."
o the Western powers hope to put an end to the constraints of International Law? That is the
question asked by the Russian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sergueï Lavrov, at the Moscow
conference on International Security [ 1 ].
Over the last few years, Washington has been promoting the concept of " unilateralism ".
International Law and the United Nations are supposed to bow to the power of the United
States.
This concept of political life is born of the History of the United States - the colonists
who came to the Americas intended to live as they chose and make a fortune there. Each
community developed its own laws and refused the intervention of a central government in local
affairs. The President and the Federal Congress are charged with Defense and Foreign Affairs,
but like the citizens themselves, they refused to accept an authority above their own.
Bill Clinton attacked Yugoslavia, blithely violating Internal Law. George Bush Jr. did
the same by attacking Iraq, and Barack Obama by attacking Libya and Syria. As for Donald Trump,
he has never hidden his distrust of supra-national rules.
Making an allusion to the Cebrowski-Barnett doctrine [ 2 ], Sergueï Lavrov declared: " We
have the clear impression that the United States seek to maintain a state of controlled chaos
in this immense geopolitical area [the Near East], hoping to use it to justify the military
presence of the USA in the region, without any time limit, in order to promote their own agenda
".
The United Kingdom also seem to feel quite comfortable with breaking the Law. Last month, it
accused Moscow in the " Skripal affair ", without the slightest proof, and attempted to unite a
majority of the General Assembly of the UN to exclude Russia from the Security Council. It
would of course be easier for the Anglo-Saxons to unilaterally rewrite the Law without having
to take notice of the opinions of their opponents.
Moscow does not believe that London took this initiative. It considers that Washington is
calling the shots.
" Globalisation ", in other words the " globalisation of Anglo-Saxon values ", has
created a class society between states. But we should not confuse this new problem with
the existence of the right to a veto. Of course, the UNO, while it declares equality between
states whatever their size, distinguishes, within the Security Council, five permanent members
who have a veto. This Directorate, composed of the main victors of the Second World War, is a
necessity for them to accept the principle of supra-national Law. However, when this
Directorate fails to embody the Law, the General Assembly may take its place. At least in
theory, because the smaller states which vote against a greater state are obliged to suffer
retaliatory measures.
La " globalisation of Anglo-Saxon values " ignores honour and highlights profit, so that the
weight of the propositions by any state will be measured only by the economic development of
its country. However, over the years, three states have managed to gain an audience to the
foundations of their propositions, and not in function of their economy – they are the
Iran of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (today under house arrest in his own country), the Venezuela of
Hugo Chávez, and the Holy See.
The confusion engendered by Anglo-Saxon values has led to the financing of intergovernmental
organisations with private money. As one thing leads to another, the member states of the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU), for example, have progressively abandoned their
propositional power to the profit of private telecom operators, who are united in a "
consultative committee ".
" Communication ", a new name for " propaganda ", has become the imperative in
international relations. From the US Secretary of State brandishing a phial of pseudo-anthrax
to the British Minister for Foreign Affairs lying about the origin of Novitchok in the
Salisbury affair, lies have become the substitute for respect, and cause general
mistrust.
During the first years of its creation, the UNO attempted to forbid " war propaganda ", but
today, it is the permanent members of the Security Council who indulge in it.
The worst occurred in 2012, when Washington managed to obtain the nomination of one of its
worst war-hawks, Jeffrey Feltman, as the number 2 of the UNO [ 3 ]. From that date onward, wars have
been orchestrated in New York by the very institution that is supposed to prevent them.
Russia is wondering today about the possible desire of the Western powers to block the
United Nations. If this is so, it would create an alternative institution, but there would no
longer be a forum which would enable the two blocks to discuss matters.
Just as a society which falls into chaos, where men are wolves for men when deprived of the
Law, so the world will become a battle-field if it abandons International Law. Thierry Meyssan
This is probably the most vicious attack on Trump trangressions that i encountered so far...
Notable quotes:
"... The problem for Trump is that what his accusers are saying puts him in legal and political jeopardy. They are claiming, in effect, that he has committed a variety of unlawful and impeachable offenses – from obstruction of justice to violations of campaign finance laws. ..."
"... The Clinton-Lewinsky dalliance led to a series of events that prevented Clinton from doing even more harm to our feeble welfare state institutions than he would otherwise have done. ..."
There is no doubt about it: Stormy Daniels is a formidable woman. Karen McDougal is no slouch either, though she is hard to admire
after that riff, in her Anderson Cooper interview, about how religious and Republican she is; she even said that she used to love
the Donald. Stormy Daniels is better than that.
How wonderfully appropriate it would be if she were to become the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back.
Even in a world as topsy-turvy as ours has become, there has to be a final straw.
To be sure, evidence of Trump's vileness, incompetence, and mental instability is accumulating at breakneck speed, and there are
polls now that show support for him holding fast or even slightly rising. Trump's hardcore "base" seems more determined than ever
to stand by their man.
But even people as benighted as they are bound to realize eventually that they have been had. Many of them already do, but don't
care; they hate Clinton Democrats that much. This is understandable, but foolish; so foolish, in fact, that they can hardly keep
it up indefinitely.
To think otherwise is to despair for the human race.
What, if anything, can bring them to their senses in time for the 2018 election?
Stormy Daniels says she only wants to tell her story, not bring Trump down. But her political instincts seem decent, and she is
one shrewd lady. Therefore, I would not be the least surprised if that is not quite true. It hardly matters, though, what her intentions
are; I'd put my money on her.
A recession might also do the trick. A recession is long overdue, and Trump's tax cut for the rich and his tariffs are sure to
make its consequences worse when it happens.
To turn significant portions of Trump's base against him, a major military conflagration might also do -- not the kind Barack
Obama favored, fought far away and out of public view, but a real war, televised on CNN, and waged against an enemy state like North
Korea or Iran. It would have to go quickly and disastrously wrong, though, in ways that even willfully blind, terminally obtuse Trump
supporters could not fail to see.
Or the gods could smile upon us, causing Trump's exercise regimen (sitting in golf carts) and his fat-ridden, cholesterol rich
diet to catch up with him, as it would with most other sedentary septuagenarians. The only downside would be that a heart attack
or stroke might elicit sympathy for the poor bastard. No sane person could or should hope for a calamitous economic downturn or for
yet another devastating, pointless, and manifestly unjust war, especially one that could become a war to end all wars (along with
everything else), on the off-chance that some good might come of it. And if the best we can do is hope that cheeseburgers with fries
will save us, we are grasping at straws.
These are compelling reasons to hope that the accusations made by Daniels and McDougal and Summer Zervos – and other consensual
and non-consensual Trump victims and "playmates" – gain traction. If the several defamation lawsuits now in the works can get the
president deposed, this is not out of the question.
The problem for Trump is not that his accusers' revelations will cause his base to defect; no matter how salacious their stories
and no matter how believable they may be. Trump's moral turpitude is taken for granted in their circles; and they do not care about
the myriad ways his words and deeds offend the dignity of the office he holds or embarrass the country he purports to put "first."
If any of that mattered to them, they would have jumped ship long ago.
Except perhaps for unreconstructed racists and certifiable sociopaths, white evangelicals are Trump's strongest supporters. What
a despicable bunch of hypocrites they are! As long as Trump delivers on their agendas, his salacious escapades don't faze them at
all. Godly folk have evidently changed a good deal since the Cotton Mather days.
What has not changed is their seemingly limitless ability to believe nonsense.
And in case light somehow does manage to shine through, Trump has shown them how to restore the darkness they crave. When cognitive
dissonance threatens, all they need do is scream "fake news."
The problem for Trump is that what his accusers are saying puts him in legal and political jeopardy. They are claiming, in
effect, that he has committed a variety of unlawful and impeachable offenses – from obstruction of justice to violations of campaign
finance laws.
In this case as in so many others, it is the cover-up, not the underlying "crime," that could lead to his undoing – especially
if the stories Daniels and the others are telling shed light upon or otherwise connect with or meld into Robert Mueller's investigation
of (alleged) Russian "meddling" in the 2016 election.
Trump could and probably will survive their charges. His base is such a preternaturally obdurate lot that there may ultimately
be no last straw for them. We may have no choice, in the end, but to despair for a sizeable chunk of the human race.
Stormy Daniels would not be any less admirable on that account. She took Trump on and came out on top. For all the world (minus
the willfully blind) to see, she, the porn star, is a strong woman who has her life together, while he, the president, is a discombobulated
sleaze ball who is leading himself and his country to ruin.
***
It was different with Monica Lewinsky, another presidential paramour who, almost two decades ago, also held the world's attention.
There was nothing sleazy or venal about Lewinsky's involvement with Bill Clinton; and, for all I know, unless chastity counts,
she is as good and virtuous a person as can be. But personal qualities are not what made her affair with our forty-second president
as historically significant as it turned out to be.
It would be fair to say that of all the women who have ever had intimate knowledge of that old horn dog's private parts, there
is no one who did more good for her country. If only for that, if there were a heaven, there would be special place in it just for
her.
The Clinton-Lewinsky dalliance led to a series of events that prevented Clinton from doing even more harm to our feeble welfare
state institutions than he would otherwise have done.
Who knows how much progress he would have turned back had he and Monica never done the deed or at least not been found out. Building
on groundwork laid down by Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush, he and his wife had already terminated Aid to Families With Dependent
Children, one of the main government programs aimed at relieving poverty. This was to be just the first step in "ending welfare as
we know it."
With their "donors" pushing for more austerity, those two neoliberal pioneers were itching to begin privatizing other, more widely
supported social programs, including even Social Security, the so-called "third rail" of American politics.
The "Lewinsky matter" put the kybosh on that idea, leaving the American people forever in Monica's debt.
Back in the Kennedy days, Mel Brook's two-thousand year old man got it right when he said: presidents "gotta do it," to which
he added – " because if they don't do it to their wives and girlfriends, they do it to the nation."
Stormy Daniels made much the same point ten years ago, while flirting with the idea of running against Louisiana Senator David
Vitter. Vitter's political career had been almost ruined when his name turned up in the phone records of the infamous "DC Madam,"
Deborah Jeane Palfrey. Daniels told voters that, unlike Vitter, she would "screw (them) honestly."
What then are we to make of the fact that Trump screws both the nation and his wife (maybe) and his girlfriends (or whatever they
are)?
Blame it on arrested development, on the fact that despite his more than seventy-one years, Trump still has the mind of a teenage
boy, one with money and power enough to live out his fantasies.
The contrast with Bill Clinton is stark. Clinton is a philanderer with eclectic tastes, a charming rascal with a broad and mischievous
mind. Honkytonk women from Arkansas appeal to him as much as zaftig MOTs from the 90210 area code.
Trump, on the other hand, goes for super-models, Playboy centerfolds, and aspiring beauty queens -- standard teenage
fantasy fare.
He seems to have had little trouble living his dreams – not thanks to his magnetic face, form and figure, and certainly not to
his refinement, wit or charm, but to his inherited and otherwise ill-gotten wealth.
It is money and the power that follows from it that draws women to his net.
Henry Kissinger understood; recall his musings on the aphrodisiacal properties of power. Even in his prime, that still unindicted
war criminal (and later-day Hillary Clinton advisor) was even more repellent than Trump. But that never kept him from having to fight
the ladies off.
This fact of life puts a heavy responsibility on the women with whom presidents hook up.
Consider Melania. She made a Faustian bargain when she agreed to become Trump's trophy bride; in return for riches and a soft
life in a gilded tower, she sold her soul. She might have thought better of it had she taken the burdens she would incur as First
Lady into account, but why would she? The prospect was too improbable.
She has, it seems, a very practical, old world view of marriage, and is therefore tolerant of her husband's womanizing. At the
same time, as a mother and daughter, she is, like most immigrants, a strong proponent of old world "family values."
Too much of a proponent perhaps; insofar as her idea was to "chain migrate" her parents out of Slovenia and onto Easy Street,
or to raise a kid who would never want for anything, there were less onerous ways of going about it. After all, there are plenty
of rich Americans lusting after supermodels out there, and it is a good bet that many of them are less repellent than Trump.
She was irresponsible as well. She ought to have realized that the man she married had already spawned two idiot sons, along with
other fruit from the poisonous tree, and that four bad apples in one generation are enough.
And so now she finds herself a single mother – not in theory, of course, but very definitely in practice. Unlike most women in
that position, she is not wanting for resources. But it must be a hard slog, even so. To her credit, Melania seems to be handling
the burden well. More power to her!
She also deserves credit for her body language when the Donald is around; the contempt she shows for him is wonderful to behold.
Best of all is her sense of the absurd. The way she plagiarized from Michelle Obama had obvious comic validity, and making childhood
bullying her First Lady cause – all First Ladies have causes -- was a stroke of genius.
On balance, therefore, it is hard not to feel sorry for her. Of all the women in Trump's ambit, she deserves humiliation the least.
The rumor mill has it that with all the publicity about Daniels and the others , she has finally had enough. This may
be the case; the old world ethos requires discretion and a concern with appearances. That is not the Donald's way, however, and now
she is paying the price.
What a magnificent humiliation it would be if she and Trump were to split up on that account. This could happen soon. I would
expect, though, that through a combination of carrots and sticks, Trump and his fixers will find a way to minimize the political
effects. More likely still, they will channel Joe Kennedy and Jackie O, and figure out a way to head the problem off.
Then there is poor forgotten Tiffany. Her Wikipedia entry lists her as both a law student and a "socialite." I hope her studious
side wins out and that, despite the genes from her father's side, she is at least somewhat decent and smart.
I'd be more confident of that if she would do what Ronald Reagan's daughter, Patti, did: use her mother's, not her father's, name.
Unless she is a sleaze ball too, a Trump in the Eric and Don Junior mold, that would be a fine way to make a political point.
It would also pay back over the years. With the Trump administration on its current trajectory, who, in a few years' time, would
take a Tiffany Trump seriously? A Tiffany Maples would stand a better chance.
Her half-sister, the peerless Ivanka, the Great Blonde Hope, is, of course, her father's sweetie. Let's not go there, however.
Her marriage to Jared Kushner is already enough to process.
What a pair those two make; and what a glorious day it will be when the law finally catches up with Jared, as it did with his
Trump-like father, Charles. Perhaps he will take Ivanka down a notch or two with him. Despite an almost complete lack of qualifications,
Trump made his son-in-law his minister of almost everything; a pretty good gig for a feckless, airhead rich kid. Among other things,
Trump enabled him to become Benjamin Netanyahu's ace in the hole. Netanyahu is a Kushner family friend. Netanyahu has more than his
share of legal troubles too. Let them all go down together!
Ivanka and Jared are well matched – they share a "business model." It has them exploiting their daddies' connections and money.
Jared peddles real estate; his efforts have gotten his family into serious debt, while putting him in solid with Russian and Eastern
European oligarchs, Gulf state emirs, and Mohammad bin Salman – people in comparison with whom his father-in-law seems almost virtuous.
Ivanka sells trinkets and schmatas to people who think the Trump name is cool. There actually are such people; at two
hundred grand a pop, Mar-a-Lago is full of them. Ivanka's demographic is made up mostly of their younger set.
Two other presidential women bare mention: Hope Hicks and Nikki Haley. Surely, they both have tales to tell, but it looks, for
now, as if their stories would be of little or no prurient interest. Neither of them appear to have been propositioned or groped.
Even though Hicks is said to be like a daughter to the Donald – we know what that could mean! – it is a safe bet that there was
nothing of a romantic nature going on between them. For one thing, Hicks seems too close to Ivanka; for another, she is known to
have dallied with two Trump subordinates, Corey Lewandowski and Rob Porter. The don is hardly the type to let his underlings have
at his women.
Haley had to quash a spate of rumors that flared up thanks to some suggestive remarks Michael Wolff made while hawking Fire
and Fury . The rumor caught on because people who hadn't yet fully realized what a piece of work Trump is, imagined that something
had to be awry inasmuch as her main qualification for representing the United States at the United Nations was an undergraduate degree
in accounting. Abject servility to the Israel lobby also helped.
But the Trump administration is full of ambitious miscreants whose views on Israel and Palestine are as abject and servile as
hers, and compared to many others in Trump's cabinet she is, if anything, over qualified. Think of neurosurgeon Ben Carson heading
the Department of Housing and Urban Development. He is qualified because, as a child, he lived in public housing.
With the exception of Stormy Daniels, Karen McDougal, Summer Zervos and whoever else comes forward with a juicy and credible tale
to tell, the women currently in the president's ambit, though good for gossip and interesting in the ways that characters on reality
TV shows can be, are of little or no political consequence.
This could change if any of them decides to "go rogue," to use an expression from the Sarah Palin days. But, while neither Melania
nor Tiffany can yet be judged hopeless, it would be foolish to expect much of anything good to come from either of them.
Stormy, Karen, Summer, and whoever else steps forward are a better bet. They are the only ones with any chance of doing as much
for their country and the world as Monica Lewinsky did a generation ago.
Among the president's women, they are a breed apart. This is plainly the case with Stormy Daniels; it is already clear that she
deserves what all Trump's money can never buy – honor and esteem. To the extent that the others turn out to be similarly courageous,
they will too.
"... Running against what she (wrongly) perceived (along with most election prognosticators) as a doomed and feckless opponent and as the clear preferred candidate of Wall Street and the intimately related U.S foreign policy elite , including many leading Neoconservatives put off by Trump's isolationist and anti-interventionist rhetoric, the "lying neoliberal warmonger" Hillary Clinton arrogantly figured that she could garner enough votes to win without having to ruffle any ruling-class feathers. ..."
"... Smart Wall Street and K Street Democratic Party bankrollers have long understood that Democratic candidates have to cloak their dollar-drenched corporatism in the deceptive campaign discourse of progressive- and even populist-sounding policy promise to win elections. ..."
"... Trump trailed well behind Clinton in contributions from defense and aerospace – a lack of support extraordinary for a Republican presidential hopeful late in the race. ..."
"... one fateful consequence of trying to appeal to so many conservative business interests was strategic silence about most important matters of public policy. Given the candidate's steady lead in the polls, there seemed to be no point to rocking the boat with any more policy pronouncements than necessary ..."
"... Misgivings of major contributors who worried that the Clinton campaign message lacked real attractions for ordinary Americans were rebuffed. The campaign sought to capitalize on the angst within business by vigorously courting the doubtful and undecideds there, not in the electorate ..."
"... Of course, Bill and Hillary helped trail-blaze that plutocratic "New Democrat" turn in Arkansas during the late 1970s and 1980s. The rest, as they say, was history – an ugly corporate-neoliberal, imperial, and racist history that I and others have written about at great length. ..."
"... My Turn: Hillary Clinton Targets the Presidency ..."
"... Queen of Chaos: The Misadventures of Hillary Clinton ..."
"... The Condemnation of Little B: New Age Racism in America ..."
"... Still, Trump's success was no less tied to big money than was Hillary's failure. Candidate Trump ran strangely outside the longstanding neoliberal Washington Consensus, as an economic nationalist and isolationist. His raucous rallies were laced with dripping denunciations of Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, and globalization, mockery of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, rejection of the New Cold War with Russia, and pledges of allegiance to the "forgotten" American "working-class." He was no normal Republican One Percent candidate. ..."
"... Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy. But it has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache ..."
"... "In a frontal assault on the American establishment, the Republican standard bearer proclaimed 'America First.' Mocking the Bush administration's appeal to 'weapons of mass destruction' as a pretext for invading Iraq, he broke dramatically with two generations of GOP orthodoxy and spoke out in favor of more cooperation with Russia . He even criticized the 'carried interest' tax break beloved by high finance" (emphasis added). ..."
"... "What happened in the final weeks of the campaign was extraordinary. Firstly, a giant wave of dark money poured into Trump's own campaign – one that towered over anything in 2016 or even Mitt Romney's munificently financed 2012 effort – to say nothing of any Russian Facebook experiments [Then] another gigantic wave of money flowed in from alarmed business interests, including the Kochs and their allies Officially the money was for Senate races, but late-stage campaigning for down-ballot offices often spills over on to candidates for the party at large." ..."
"... "In a harbinger of things to come, additional money came from firms and industries that appear to have been attracted by Trump's talk of tariffs, including steel and companies making machinery of various types [a] vast wave of new money flowed into the campaign from some of America's biggest businesses and most famous investors. Sheldon Adelson and many others in the casino industry delivered in grand style for its old colleague. Adelson now delivered more than $11 million in his own name, while his wife and other employees of his Las Vegas Sands casino gave another $20 million. ..."
"... Peter Theil contributed more than a million dollars, while large sums also rolled in from other parts of Silicon Valley, including almost two million dollars from executives at Microsoft and just over two million from executives at Cisco Systems. ..."
"... Among those were Nelson Peltz and Carl Icahn (who had both contributed to Trump before, but now made much bigger new contributions). In the end, along with oil, chemicals, mining and a handful of other industries, large private equity firms would become one of the few segments of American business – and the only part of Wall Street – where support for Trump was truly heavy the sudden influx of money from private equity and hedge funds clearly began with the Convention but turned into a torrent " ..."
"... The critical late wave came after Trump moved to rescue his flagging campaign by handing its direction over to the clever, class-attuned, far-right white- and economic- nationalist "populist" and Breitbart executive Steve Bannon, who advocated what proved to be a winning, Koch brothers-approved "populist" strategy: appeal to economically and culturally frustrated working- and middle-class whites in key battleground states, where the bloodless neoliberal and professional class centrism and snooty metropolitan multiculturalism of the Obama presidency and Clinton campaign was certain to depress the Democratic "base" vote ..."
"... Neither turnout nor the partisan division of the vote at any level looks all that different from other recent elections 2016's alterations in voting behavior are so minute that the pattern is only barely differentiated from 2012." ..."
"... An interesting part of FJC's study (no quick or easy read) takes a close look at the pro-Trump and anti-Hillary Internet activism that the Democrats and their many corporate media allies are so insistently eager to blame on Russia and for Hillary's defeat. FJC find that Russian Internet interventions were of tiny significance compared to those of homegrown U.S. corporate and right-wing cyber forces: ..."
"... By 2016, the Republican right had developed internet outreach and political advertising into a fine art and on a massive scale quite on its own. ..."
"... Breitbart and other organizations were in fact going global, opening offices abroad and establishing contacts with like-minded groups elsewhere. Whatever the Russians were up to, they could hardly hope to add much value to the vast Made in America bombardment already underway. Nobody sows chaos like Breitbart or the Drudge Report ." ..."
"... no support from Big Business ..."
"... Sanders pushed Hillary the Goldman candidate to the wall, calling out the Democrats' capture by Wall Street, forcing her to rely on a rigged party, convention, and primary system to defeat him. The small-donor "socialist" Sanders challenge represented something Ferguson and his colleagues describe as "without precedent in American politics not just since the New Deal, but across virtually the whole of American history a major presidential candidate waging a strong, highly competitive campaign whose support from big business is essentially zero ." ..."
"... American Oligarchy ..."
"... teleSur English ..."
"... we had no great electoral democracy to subvert in 2016 ..."
"... Only candidates and positions that can be financed can be presented to voters. As a result, in countries like the US and, increasingly, Western Europe, political parties are first of all bank accounts . With certain qualifications, one must pay to play. Understanding any given election, therefore, requires a financial X-ray of the power blocs that dominate the major parties, with both inter- and intra- industrial analysis of their constituent elements." ..."
"... Elections alone are no guarantee of democracy, as U.S. policymakers and pundits know very well when they rip on rigged elections (often fixed with the assistance of U.S. government and private-sector agents and firms) in countries they don't like ..."
"... Majority opinion is regularly trumped by a deadly complex of forces in the U.S. ..."
"... Trump is a bit of an anomaly – a sign of an elections and party system in crisis and an empire in decline. He wasn't pre-approved or vetted by the usual U.S. " deep state " corporate, financial, and imperial gatekeepers. The ruling-class had been trying to figure out what the Hell to do with him ever since he shocked even himself (though not Steve Bannon) by pre-empting the coronation of the "Queen of Chaos." ..."
"... His lethally racist, sexist, nativist, nuclear-weapons-brandishing, and (last but not at all least) eco-cidal rise to the nominal CEO position atop the U.S.-imperial oligarchy is no less a reflection of the dominant role of big U.S. capitalist money and homegrown plutocracy in U.S. politics than a more classically establishment Hillary ascendancy would have been. It's got little to do with Russia, Russia, Russia – the great diversion that fills U.S. political airwaves and newsprint as the world careens ever closer to oligarchy-imposed geocide and to a thermonuclear conflagration that the RussiaGate gambit is recklessly encouraging. ..."
On the Friday after the Chicago Cubs won the World Series and prior to the Tuesday on which
the vicious racist and sexist Donald Trump was elected President of the United States, Bernie
Sanders spoke to a surprisingly small crowd in Iowa City on behalf of Hillary Clinton. As I
learned months later, Sanders told one of his Iowa City friends that day that Mrs. Clinton was
in trouble. The reason, Sanders reported, was that Hillary wasn't discussing issues or
advancing real solutions. "She doesn't have any policy positions," Sanders said.
The first time I heard this, I found it hard to believe. How, I wondered, could anyone run
seriously for the presidency without putting issues and policy front and center? Wouldn't any
serious campaign want a strong set of issue and policy positions to attract voters and fall
back on in case and times of adversity?
Sanders wasn't lying. As the esteemed political scientist and money-politics expert Thomas
Ferguson and his colleagues Paul Jorgensen and Jie Chen note in an important study released by
the Institute for New Economic Thinking two months ago, the Clinton campaign "emphasized
candidate and personal issues and avoided policy discussions to a degree without precedent in
any previous election for which measurements exist .it stressed candidate qualifications [and]
deliberately deemphasized issues in favor of concentrating on what the campaign regarded as
[Donald] Trump's obvious personal weaknesses as a candidate."
Strange as it might have seemed, the reality television star and presidential pre-apprentice
Donald Trump had a lot more to say about policy than the former First Lady, U.S. Senator, and
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a wonkish Yale Law graduate.
"Courting the Undecideds in Business, not in the Electorate"
What was that about? My first suspicion was that Hillary's policy silence was about the
money. It must have reflected her success in building a Wall Street-filled campaign funding
war-chest so daunting that she saw little reason to raise capitalist election investor concerns
by giving voice to the standard fake-progressive "hope" and "change" campaign and policy
rhetoric Democratic presidential contenders typically deploy against their One Percent
Republican opponents. Running against what she (wrongly) perceived (along with most election
prognosticators) as a doomed and feckless opponent and as the clear preferred candidate of
Wall
Street and the intimately related U.S foreign policy elite , including many leading
Neoconservatives put off by Trump's isolationist and anti-interventionist rhetoric, the
"lying
neoliberal warmonger" Hillary Clinton arrogantly figured that she could garner enough votes
to win without having to ruffle any ruling-class feathers. She would cruise into the White
House with no hurt plutocrat feelings simply by playing up the ill-prepared awfulness of her
Republican opponent.
If Ferguson, Jorgensen, and Chen (hereafter "JFC") are right, I was on to something but not
the whole money and politics story. Smart Wall Street and K Street Democratic Party bankrollers
have long understood that Democratic candidates have to cloak their dollar-drenched corporatism
in the deceptive campaign discourse of progressive- and even populist-sounding policy promise
to win elections. Sophisticated funders get it that the Democratic candidates' need to
manipulate the electorate with phony pledges of democratic transformation. The big
money backers know it's "just politics" on the part of candidates who can be trusted to
serve elite interests (like Bill
Clinton 1993-2001 and Barack
Obama 2009-2017 ) after they gain office.
What stopped Hillary from playing the usual game – the "manipulation of populism by
elitism" that Christopher
Hitchens once called "the essence of American politics" – in 2016, a year when the
electorate was in a particularly angry and populist mood? FJC's study is titled "
Industrial Structure and Party Competition in an Age of Hunger Games : Donald Trump and the
2016 Presidential Election." It performs heroic empirical work with difficult campaign finance
data to show that Hillary's campaign funding success went beyond her party's usual corporate
and financial backers to include normally Republican-affiliated capitalist sectors less
disposed than their more liberal counterparts to abide the standard progressive-sounding policy
rhetoric of Democratic Party candidates. FJC hypothesize that (along with the determination
that Trump was too weak to be taken all that seriously) Hillary's desire get and keep on board
normally Republican election investors led her to keep quiet on issues and policy concerns that
mattered to everyday people. As FJC note:
"Trump trailed well behind Clinton in contributions from defense and aerospace – a
lack of support extraordinary for a Republican presidential hopeful late in the race. For
Clinton's campaign the temptation was irresistible: Over time it slipped into a variant of
the strategy [Democrat] Lyndon Johnson pursued in 1964 in the face of another [Republican]
candidate [Barry Goldwater] who seemed too far out of the mainstream to win: Go for a grand
coalition with most of big business . one fateful consequence of trying to appeal to so
many conservative business interests was strategic silence about most important matters of
public policy. Given the candidate's steady lead in the polls, there seemed to be no point to
rocking the boat with any more policy pronouncements than necessary . Misgivings of
major contributors who worried that the Clinton campaign message lacked real attractions for
ordinary Americans were rebuffed. The campaign sought to capitalize on the angst within
business by vigorously courting the doubtful and undecideds there, not in the electorate
" (emphasis added). Hillary
Happened
FJC may well be right that a wish not to antagonize off right-wing campaign funders is what
led Hillary to muzzle herself on important policy matters, but who really knows? An alternative
theory I would not rule out is that Mrs. Clinton's own deep inner conservatism was sufficient
to spark her to gladly dispense with the usual progressive-sounding campaign boilerplate. Since
FJC bring up the Johnson-Goldwater election, it is perhaps worth mentioning that 18-year old
Hillary was a "Goldwater Girl" who worked for the arch-reactionary Republican presidential
candidate in 1964. Asked about that episode on National
Public Radio (NPR) in 1996 , then First Lady Hillary said "That's right. And I feel like my
political beliefs are rooted in the conservatism that I was raised with. I don't recognize this
new brand of Republicanism that is afoot now, which I consider to be very reactionary, not
conservative in many respects. I am very proud that I was a Goldwater girl."
It was a revealing reflection. The right-wing Democrat Hillary acknowledged that her
ideological world view was still rooted in the conservatism of her family of origin. Her
problem with the reactionary Republicanism afoot in the U.S. during the middle 1990s was that
it was "not conservative in many respects." Her problem with the far-right Republican
Congressional leaders Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay was that they were betraying true
conservatism – "the conservatism [Hillary] was raised with." This was worse even than the
language of the Democratic Leadership Conference (DLC) – the right-wing Eisenhower
Republican (at leftmost) tendency that worked to push the Democratic Party further to the Big
Business-friendly right and away from its working-class and progressive base.
What happened? Horrid corporate Hillary happened. And she's still happening. The "lying
neoliberal warmonger" recently went to India to double down on her
"progressive neoliberal" contempt for the "basket of deplorables" (more on that phrase
below) that considers poor stupid and backwards middle America to be by
saying this : "If you look at the map of the United States, there's all that red in the
middle where Trump won. I win the coasts. But what the map doesn't show you is that I won the
places that represent two-thirds of America's gross domestic product (GDP). So I won the places
that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward" (emphasis added).
That was Hillary Goldman Sachs-Council on Foreign Relations-Clinton saying "go to Hell" to
working- and middle-class people in Iowa, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri,
Indiana, and West Virginia. It was a raised middle and oligarchic finger from a super-wealthy
arch-global-corporatist to all the supposedly pessimistic, slow-witted, and retrograde losers
stuck between those glorious enclaves (led by Wall Street, Yale, and Harvard on the East coast
and Silicon Valley and Hollywood on the West coast) of human progress and variety (and GDP!) on
the imperial shorelines. Senate Minority Leader Dick
Durbin had to go on television to say that Hillary was "wrong" to write off most of the
nation as a festering cesspool of pathetic, ass-backwards, lottery-playing, and opioid-addicted
white-trash has-beens. It's hard for the Inauthentic Opposition Party (as the late Sheldon Wolin reasonably called
the Democrats ) to pose as an authentic opposition party when its' last big-money
presidential candidate goes off-fake-progressive script with an openly elitist rant like
that.
Historic Mistakes
Whatever the source of her strange policy silence in the 2016 campaign, that hush was "a
miscalculation of historic proportion" (FJC). It was a critical mistake given what Ferguson and
his colleagues call the "Hunger Games" misery and insecurity imposed on tens of millions of
ordinary working- and middle-class middle-Americans by decades of neoliberal capitalist
austerity , deeply exacerbated by the Wall Street-instigated Great Recession and the weak
Obama recovery. The electorate was in a populist, anti-establishment mood – hardly a
state of mind favorable to a wooden, richly globalist, Goldman-gilded candidate, a long-time
Washington-Wall Street establishment ("swamp") creature like Hillary Clinton.
In the end, FJC note, the billionaire Trump's ironic, fake-populist "outreach to blue collar
workers" would help him win "more than half of all voters with a high school education or less
(including 61% of white women with no college), almost two thirds of those who believed life
for the next generation of Americans would be worse than now, and seventy-seven percent of
voters who reported their personal financial situation had worsened since four years ago."
Trump's popularity with "heartland" rural and working-class whites even provoked Hillary
into a major campaign mistake: getting caught on video telling elite Manhattan election
investors that half of Trump's supporters were a "basket
of deplorables." There was a hauntingly strong parallel between Wall Street Hillary's
"deplorables" blooper and the super-rich Republican candidate Mitt Romney's
infamous 2012 gaffe : telling his own affluent backers saying that 47% of the population
were a bunch of lazy welfare cheats. This time, though, it was the Democrat – with a
campaign finance profile closer to Romney's than Obama's in 2012 – and not the Republican
making the ugly plutocratic and establishment faux pas .
"A Frontal Assault on the American Establishment"
Still, Trump's success was no less tied to big money than was Hillary's failure. Candidate
Trump ran strangely outside the longstanding neoliberal Washington Consensus, as an economic
nationalist and isolationist. His raucous rallies were laced with dripping denunciations of
Wall Street, Goldman Sachs, and globalization, mockery of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq,
rejection of the New Cold War with Russia, and pledges of allegiance to the "forgotten"
American "working-class." He was no normal Republican One Percent candidate. As FJC
explain:
"In 2016 the Republicans nominated yet another super-rich candidate – indeed,
someone on the Forbes 400 list of wealthiest Americans. Like legions of conservative
Republicans before him, he trash-talked Hispanics, immigrants, and women virtually non-stop,
though with a verve uniquely his own. He laced his campaign with barely coded racial appeals
and in the final days, ran an ad widely denounced as subtly anti-Semitic. But in striking
contrast to every other Republican presidential nominee since 1936, he attacked
globalization, free trade, international financiers, Wall Street, and even Goldman Sachs. '
Globalization has made the financial elite who donate to politicians very wealthy. But it
has left millions of our workers with nothing but poverty and heartache . When
subsidized foreign steel is dumped into our markets, threatening our factories, the
politicians do nothing. For years, they watched on the sidelines as our jobs vanished and our
communities were plunged into depression-level unemployment.'"
"In a frontal assault on the American establishment, the Republican standard bearer
proclaimed 'America First.' Mocking the Bush administration's appeal to 'weapons of mass
destruction' as a pretext for invading Iraq, he broke dramatically with two generations of GOP
orthodoxy and spoke out in favor of more cooperation with Russia . He even criticized
the 'carried interest' tax break beloved by high finance" (emphasis added).
Big Dark Money and Trump: His Own and Others'
This cost Trump much of the corporate and Wall Street financial support that Republican
presidential candidates usually get. The thing was, however, that much of Trump's "populist"
rhetoric was popular with a big part of the Republican electorate, thanks to the "Hunger Games"
insecurity of the transparently bipartisan New Gilded Age. And Trump's personal fortune
permitted him to tap that popular anger while leaping insultingly over the heads of his less
wealthy if corporate and Wall Street-backed competitors ("low energy" Jeb Bush and "little
Marco" Rubio most notably) in the crowded Republican primary race.
A Republican candidate
dependent on the usual elite bankrollers would never have been able to get away with Trump's
crowd-pleasing (and CNN and FOX News rating-boosting) antics. Thanks to his own wealth, the
faux-populist anti-establishment Trump was ironically inoculated against pre-emption in the
Republican primaries by the American campaign finance "wealth
primary," which renders electorally unviable candidates who lack vast financial resources
or access to them.
Things were different after Trump won the Republican nomination, however. He could no longer
go it alone after the primaries. During the Republican National Convention and "then again in
the late summer of 2016," FJC show, Trump's "solo campaign had to be rescued by major
industries plainly hoping for tariff relief, waves of other billionaires from the far, far
right of the already far right Republican Party, and the most disruption-exalting corners of
Wall Street." By FJC's account:
"What happened in the final weeks of the campaign was extraordinary. Firstly, a giant wave
of dark money poured into Trump's own campaign – one that towered over anything in 2016
or even Mitt Romney's munificently financed 2012 effort – to say nothing of any Russian
Facebook experiments [Then] another gigantic wave of money flowed in from alarmed business
interests, including the Kochs and their allies Officially the money was for Senate races,
but late-stage campaigning for down-ballot offices often spills over on to candidates for the
party at large."
"The run up to the Convention brought in substantial new money, including, for the first
time, significant contributions from big business. Mining, especially coal mining; Big Pharma
(which was certainly worried by tough talk from the Democrats, including Hillary Clinton,
about regulating drug prices); tobacco, chemical companies, and oil (including substantial
sums from executives at Chevron, Exxon, and many medium sized firms); and telecommunications
(notably AT&T, which had a major merge merger pending) all weighed in. Money from
executives at the big banks also began streaming in, including Bank of America, J. P. Morgan
Chase, Morgan Stanley, and Wells Fargo. Parts of Silicon Valley also started coming in from
the cold."
"In a harbinger of things to come, additional money came from firms and industries that
appear to have been attracted by Trump's talk of tariffs, including steel and companies
making machinery of various types [a] vast wave of new money flowed into the campaign from
some of America's biggest businesses and most famous investors. Sheldon Adelson and many
others in the casino industry delivered in grand style for its old colleague. Adelson now
delivered more than $11 million in his own name, while his wife and other employees of his
Las Vegas Sands casino gave another $20 million.
Peter Theil contributed more than a million
dollars, while large sums also rolled in from other parts of Silicon Valley, including almost
two million dollars from executives at Microsoft and just over two million from executives at
Cisco Systems. A wave of new money swept in from large private equity firms, the part of Wall
Street which had long championed hostile takeovers as a way of disciplining what they mocked
as bloated and inefficient 'big business.' Virtual pariahs to main-line firms in the Business
Roundtable and the rest of Wall Street, some of these figures had actually gotten their start
working with Drexel Burnham Lambert and that firm's dominant partner, Michael Milkin.
Among
those were Nelson Peltz and Carl Icahn (who had both contributed to Trump before, but now
made much bigger new contributions). In the end, along with oil, chemicals, mining and a
handful of other industries, large private equity firms would become one of the few segments
of American business – and the only part of Wall Street – where support for Trump
was truly heavy the sudden influx of money from private equity and hedge funds clearly began
with the Convention but turned into a torrent "
The critical late wave came after Trump moved to rescue his flagging campaign by handing its
direction over to the clever, class-attuned, far-right white- and economic- nationalist
"populist" and Breitbart executive Steve Bannon, who advocated what proved to be a winning,
Koch brothers-approved "populist" strategy: appeal to economically and culturally frustrated
working- and middle-class whites in key battleground states, where the bloodless neoliberal and
professional class centrism and snooty metropolitan multiculturalism of the Obama presidency
and Clinton campaign was certain to depress the
Democratic "base" vote. Along with the racist voter suppression carried out by Republican
state governments (JFC rightly chide Russia-obsessed political reporters and commentators for
absurdly ignoring this important factor) and (JFC intriguingly suggest) major anti-union
offensives conducted by employers in some battleground states, this major late-season influx of
big right-wing political money tilted the election Trump's way.
The Myth of Potent Russian Cyber-Subversion
As FJC show, there is little empirical evidence to support the Clinton and corporate
Democrats' self-interested and diversionary efforts to explain Mrs. Clinton's epic fail and
Trump's jaw-dropping upset victory as the result of (i) Russian interference, (ii), then FBI
Director James Comey's October Surprise revelation that his agency was not done investigating
Hillary's emails, and/or (iii) some imagined big wave of white working-class racism, nativism,
and sexism brought to the surface by the noxious Orange Hulk. The impacts of both (i) and (ii)
were infinitesimal in comparison to the role that big campaign money played both in silencing
Hillary and funding Trump.
The blame-the-deplorable-racist-white-working-class narrative is
belied by basic underlying continuities in white working class voting patterns. As FJC note: "
Neither turnout nor the partisan division of the vote at any level looks all that different
from other recent elections 2016's alterations in voting behavior are so minute that the
pattern is only barely differentiated from 2012." It was about the money – the big
establishment money that the Clinton campaign took (as FJC at least plausibly argue) to
recommend policy silence and the different, right-wing big money that approved Trump's
comparative right-populist policy boisterousness.
An interesting part of FJC's study (no quick or easy read) takes a close look at the
pro-Trump and anti-Hillary Internet activism that the Democrats and their many corporate media
allies are so insistently eager to blame on Russia and for Hillary's defeat. FJC find that
Russian Internet interventions were of tiny significance compared to those of homegrown U.S.
corporate and right-wing cyber forces:
"The real masters of these black arts are American or Anglo-American firms. These compete
directly with Silicon Valley and leading advertising firms for programmers and personnel.
They rely almost entirely on data purchased from Google, Facebook, or other suppliers,
not Russia . American regulators do next to nothing to protect the privacy of voters
and citizens, and, as we have shown in several studies, leading telecom firms are major
political actors and giant political contributors. As a result, data on the habits and
preferences of individual internet users are commercially available in astounding detail and
quantities for relatively modest prices – even details of individual credit card
purchases. The American giants for sure harbor abundant data on the constellation of bots,
I.P. addresses, and messages that streamed to the electorate "
" stories hyping 'the sophistication of an influence campaign slickly crafted to mimic and
infiltrate U.S. political discourse while also seeking to heighten tensions between groups
already wary of one another by the Russians miss the mark.' By 2016, the Republican right had
developed internet outreach and political advertising into a fine art and on a massive scale
quite on its own. Large numbers of conservative websites, including many that that tolerated
or actively encouraged white supremacy and contempt for immigrants, African-Americans,
Hispanics, Jews, or the aspirations of women had been hard at work for years stoking up
'tensions between groups already wary of one another.' Breitbart and other organizations were
in fact going global, opening offices abroad and establishing contacts with like-minded
groups elsewhere. Whatever the Russians were up to, they could hardly hope to add much value
to the vast Made in America bombardment already underway. Nobody sows chaos like Breitbart or
the Drudge Report ."
" the evidence revealed thus far does not support strong claims about the likely success
of Russian efforts, though of course the public outrage at outside meddling is easy to
understand. The speculative character of many accounts even in the mainstream media is
obvious. Several, such as widely circulated declaration by the Department of Homeland
Security that 21 state election systems had been hacked during the election, have collapsed
within days of being put forward when state electoral officials strongly disputed them,
though some mainstream press accounts continue to repeat them. Other tales about Macedonian
troll factories churning out stories at the instigation of the Kremlin, are clearly
exaggerated."
The Sanders Tease: "He Couldn't Have Done a Thing"
Perhaps the most remarkable finding in FJC's study is that Sanders came tantalizingly close
to winning the Democratic presidential nomination against the corporately super-funded Clinton
campaign with no support from Big Business . Running explicitly against the "Hunger
Games" economy and the corporate-financial plutocracy that created it, Sanders pushed Hillary
the Goldman candidate to the wall, calling out the Democrats' capture by Wall Street, forcing
her to rely on a rigged party, convention, and primary system to defeat him. The small-donor
"socialist" Sanders challenge represented something Ferguson and his colleagues describe as
"without precedent in American politics not just since the New Deal, but across virtually the
whole of American history a major presidential candidate waging a strong, highly
competitive campaign whose support from big business is essentially zero ."
Sanders pulled this off, FJC might have added, by running in (imagine) accord with
majority-progressive left-of-center U.S. public opinion. But for the Clintons' corrupt advance-
control of the Democratic National Committee and convention delegates, Ferguson et al might
further have noted, Sanders might well have been the Democratic presidential nominee, curiously
enough in the arch-state-capitalist and oligarchic United States
Could Sanders have defeated the billionaire and right-wing billionaire-backed Trump in the
general election? There's no way to know, of course. Sanders consistently out-performed Hillary
Clinton in one-on-one match -up polls vis a vis Donald Trump during the primary season, but
much of the big money (and, perhaps much of the corporate media) that backed Hillary would have
gone over to Trump had the supposedly
"radical" Sanders been the Democratic nominee.
Even if Sanders has been elected president, moreover, Noam Chomsky is certainly correct in
his recent judgement that Sanders would have been able to achieve very little in the White
House. As Chomsky told Lynn Parramore two weeks ago, in
an interview conducted for the Institute for New Economic Thinking, the same think-tank
that published FJC's remarkable study:
"His campaign [was] a break with over a century of American political history. No
corporate support, no financial wealth, he was unknown, no media support. The media simply
either ignored or denigrated him. And he came pretty close -- he probably could have won the
nomination, maybe the election. But suppose he'd been elected? He couldn't have done a thing.
Nobody in Congress, no governors, no legislatures, none of the big economic powers, which
have an enormous effect on policy. All opposed to him. In order for him to do anything, he
would have to have a substantial, functioning party apparatus, which would have to grow from
the grass roots. It would have to be locally organized, it would have to operate at local
levels, state levels, Congress, the bureaucracy -- you have to build the whole system from
the bottom."
As Chomsky might have added, Sanders oligarchy-imposed "failures" would have been great
fodder for the disparagement and smearing of "socialism" and progressive, majority-backed
policy change. "See? We tried all that and it was a disaster!"
I would note further that the Sanders phenomenon's policy promise was plagued by its
standard bearer's persistent loyalty to the giant and absurdly expensive U.S.-imperial Pentagon
System, which each year eats up hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars required to implement
the progressive, majority-supported policy agenda that Bernie F-35 Sanders ran
on.
"A Very Destructive Ideology"
The Sanders challenge was equally afflicted by its candidate-centered electoralism. This
diverted energy away from the real and more urgent politics of building people's movements
– grassroots power to shake the society to its foundations and change policy from the
bottom up (Dr. Martin Luther King's preferred strategy at the end of his life just barely short
of 50 years ago, on April 4 th , 1968) – and into the narrow, rigidly
time-staggered grooves of a party and spectacle-elections crafted by and for the wealthy Few
and the American
Oligarchy 's "permanent political class" (historian Ron Formisano). As Chomsky explained on the eve of the 2004
elections:
"Americans may be encouraged to vote, but not to participate more meaningfully in the
political arena. Essentially the election is a method of marginalizing the population. A huge
propaganda campaign is mounted to get people to focus on these personalized quadrennial
extravaganzas and to think, 'That's politics.' But it isn't. It's only a small part of
politics The urgency is for popular progressive groups to grow and become strong enough so
that centers of power can't ignore them. Forces for change that have come up from the grass
roots and shaken the society to its core include the labor movement, the civil rights
movement, the peace movement, the women's movement and others, cultivated by steady,
dedicated work at all levels, every day, not just once every four years sensible [electoral]
choices have to be made. But they are secondary to serious political action."
"The only thing that's going to ever bring about any meaningful change," Chomsky told Abby Martin on teleSur
English in the fall of 2015, "is ongoing, dedicated, popular movements that don't pay
attention to the election cycle." Under the American religion of voting,
Chomsky told Dan Falcone and Saul Isaacson in the spring of 2016, "Citizenship means every
four years you put a mark somewhere and you go home and let other guys run the world. It's a
very destructive ideology basically, a way of making people passive, submissive objects [we]
ought to teach kids that elections take place but that's not politics."
For all his talk of standing atop a great "movement" for "revolution," Sanders was and
remains all about this stunted and crippling definition of citizenship and politics as making
some marks on ballots and then returning to our domiciles while rich people and their
agents (not just any "other guys") "run [ruin?-P.S.] the world [into the ground-P.S.]."
It will take much more in the way of Dr. King's politics of "who' sitting in the streets,"
not "who's sitting in the White House" (to use Howard Zinn's
excellent dichotomy ), to get us an elections and party system worthy of passionate citizen
engagement. We don't have such a system in the U.S. today, which is why the number of eligible
voters who passively boycotted the 2016 presidential election is larger than both the number
who voted for big money Hillary and the number who voted for big money Trump.
(If U.S. progressives really want to consider undertaking the epic lift involved in passing
a U.S. Constitutional Amendment, they might want to focus on this instead of calling for a
repeal of the Second Amendment. I'd recommend starting with a positive Democracy Amendment that
fundamentally overhauls the nation's political and elections set-up in accord with elementary
principles and practices of popular sovereignty. Clauses would include but not be limited to
full public financing of elections and the introduction of proportional representation for
legislative races – not to mention the abolition of the Electoral College, Senate
apportionment on the basis of total state population, and the outlawing of gerrymandering.)
Ecocide Trumped by Russia
Meanwhile, back in real history, we have the remarkable continuation of a bizarre
right-wing, pre-fascist presidency not in normal ruling-class hands, subject to the weird whims
and tweets of a malignant narcissist who doesn't read memorandums or intelligence briefings.
Wild policy zig-zags and record-setting White House personnel turnover are par for the course
under the dodgy reign of the orange-tinted beast's latest brain spasms. Orange Caligula spends
his mornings getting his information from FOX News and his evenings complaining to and seeking
advice from a small club of right-wing American oligarchs.
Trump poses grave environmental and nuclear risks to human survival. A consistent Trump
belief is that climate change is not a problem and that it's perfectly fine – "great" and
"amazing," in fact – for the White House to do everything it can to escalate the
Greenhouse Gassing-to-Death of Life on Earth. The nuclear threat is rising now that he has
appointed a frothing right-wing uber-warmonger – a longtime advocate of bombing Iran and
North Korea who led the charge for the arch-criminal U.S. invasion of Iraq – as his top
"National Security" adviser and as he been convinced to expel dozens of Russian diplomats.
Thanks, liberal and other Democratic Party RussiaGaters!
The Clinton-Obama neoliberal Democrats have spent more than a year running with the
preposterous narrative that Trump is a Kremlin puppet who owes his presence in the White House
to Russia's subversion of our democratic elections. The climate crisis holds little
for the Trump and Russia-obsessed corporate media. The fact that the world stands at the eve of
the ecological self-destruction, with the Trump White House in the lead, elicits barely a
whisper in the reigning commercial news media. Unlike Stormy Daniels, for example, that little
story – the biggest issue of our or any time – is not good for television ratings
and newspaper sales.
Sanders, by the way, is curiously invisible in the dominant commercial media, despite his
quiet survey status as the nation's "most popular politician." That is precisely what you would
expect in a corporate and financial oligarchy buttressed by a powerful corporate, so-called
"mainstream" media oligopoly.
Political Parties as "Bank Accounts"
One of the many problems with the obsessive Blame-Russia narrative that a fair portion of
the dominant U.S. media is running with is that we had no great electoral democracy to
subvert in 2016 . Saying that Russia has "undermined [U.S.-] American democracy" is like
me – middle-aged, five-foot nine, and unblessed with jumping ability – saying that
the Brooklyn Nets' Russian-born center Timofy Mozgof subverted my career as a starting player
in the National Basketball Association. In state-capitalist societies marked by the toxic and
interrelated combination of weak popular organization, expensive politics, and highly
concentrated wealth – all highly evident in the New Gilded Age United States –
electoral contests and outcomes boil down above all and in the end to big investor class cash.
As Thomas Ferguson and his colleagues explain:
"Where investment and organization by average citizens is weak, however, power passes by
default to major investor groups, which can far more easily bear the costs of contending for
control of the state. In most modern market-dominated societies (those celebrated recently as
enjoying the 'end of History'), levels of effective popular organization are generally low,
while the costs of political action, in terms of both information and transactional
obstacles, are high. The result is that conflicts within the business community normally
dominate contests within and between political parties – the exact opposite of what
many earlier social theorists expected, who imagined 'business' and 'labor' confronting each
other in separate parties Only candidates and positions that can be financed can be presented
to voters. As a result, in countries like the US and, increasingly, Western Europe, political parties are first of all bank accounts . With certain qualifications, one
must pay to play. Understanding any given election, therefore, requires a financial X-ray of
the power blocs that dominate the major parties, with both inter- and intra- industrial
analysis of their constituent elements."
Here Ferguson might have said "corporate-dominated" instead of "market-dominated" for the
modern managerial corporations emerged as the "visible hand" master of the "free market" more
than a century ago.
We get to vote? Big deal.
People get to vote in Rwanda, Russia, the Congo and countless
other autocratic states as well. Elections alone are no guarantee of democracy, as U.S.
policymakers and pundits know very well when they rip on rigged elections (often fixed with the
assistance of U.S. government and private-sector agents and firms) in countries they don't
like, which includes any country that dares to "question the basic principle that the United
States effectively owns the world by right and is by definition a force for good" ( Chomsky,
2016 ).
Majority opinion is regularly trumped by a deadly complex of forces in the U.S. The
list of interrelated and mutually reinforcing culprits behind this oligarchic defeat of popular
sentiment in the U.S. is extensive. It includes but is not limited to: the campaign finance,
candidate-selection, lobbying, and policy agenda-setting power of wealthy individuals,
corporations, and interest groups; the special primary election influence of full-time party
activists; the disproportionately affluent, white, and older composition of the active (voting)
electorate; the manipulation of voter turnout; the widespread dissemination of false,
confusing, distracting, and misleading information; absurdly and explicitly unrepresentative
political institutions like the Electoral College, the unelected Supreme Court, the
over-representation of the predominantly white rural population in the U.S. Senate; one-party
rule in the House of "Representatives"; the fragmentation of authority in government; and
corporate ownership of the reigning media, which frames current events in accord with the
wishes and world view of the nation's real owners.
Yes, we get to vote. Super. Big deal. Mammon reigns nonetheless in the United States, where,
as the leading liberal
political scientists Benjamin Page and Martin Gilens find , "government policy reflects the
wishes of those with money, not the wishes of the millions of ordinary citizens who turn out
every two years to choose among the preapproved, money-vetted candidates for federal office."
Trump is a bit of an anomaly – a sign of an elections and party system in crisis and an
empire in decline. He wasn't pre-approved or vetted by the usual U.S. "
deep state " corporate, financial, and imperial gatekeepers. The ruling-class had been
trying to figure out what the Hell to do with him ever since he shocked even himself
(though not Steve Bannon) by pre-empting the coronation of the "Queen of Chaos."
He is a
homegrown capitalist oligarch nonetheless, a real estate mogul of vast and parasitic wealth who
is no more likely to fulfill his populist-sounding campaign pledges than any previous POTUS of
the neoliberal era.
His lethally racist, sexist, nativist, nuclear-weapons-brandishing, and
(last but not at all least) eco-cidal rise to the nominal CEO position atop the U.S.-imperial
oligarchy is no less a reflection of the dominant role of big U.S. capitalist money and
homegrown plutocracy in U.S. politics than a more classically establishment Hillary ascendancy
would have been. It's got little to do with Russia, Russia, Russia – the great diversion
that fills U.S. political airwaves and newsprint as the world careens ever closer to
oligarchy-imposed geocide and to a thermonuclear conflagration that the RussiaGate gambit is
recklessly encouraging.
"... If Mueller's probe drags on and fails to produce a "smoking gun," the whole affair may end up seeming so complex, muddy, and partisan that most of the public would prefer to move on, eager to talk about something else . ..."
"... In 1996, Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole decided to take a hard line on China -- portraying the nation as a growing economic and geopolitical threat to the United States and a violator of international rules and norms. In response, China tried to leverage its extensive diplomatic , intelligence , and financial networks in the United States in order to sway the election in favor of Dole's rival, Democrat Bill Clinton. ..."
"... This is not a theory, it is historical fact: there was a major Congressional investigation . In the end, several prominent Democratic fundraisers, including close Clinton associates, were found to be complicit in the Chinese meddling efforts and pled guilty to various charges of violating campaign finance and disclosure laws (most notably James T. Riady , Johnny Chung , John Huang , and Charlie Trie ). Several others fled the country to escape U.S. jurisdiction as the probe got underway. The Democratic National Committee was forced to return millions of dollars in ill-gotten funds (although by that point, of course, their candidate had already won). ..."
"... Clinton authorized a series of controversial defense contracts with China as well -- despite Department of Justice objections . Federal investigators were concerned that the contractors seemed to be passing highly sensitive and classified information to the Chinese. And indeed, the companies in question were eventually found to have violated the law by giving cutting-edge missile technology to China, and paid unprecedented fines related to the Arms Export Control Act during the administration of George W. Bush. But they were inexplicably approved in the Bill Clinton years. ..."
A president can be reelected despite corruption, foreign meddling, and sex
scandals Bill Clinton was reelected with help from China. / The Baffler Imagine for a
moment that special counsel Robert Mueller is unable to establish direct and intentional
collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign. Or, suppose he proves collusion by a few
former campaign aides but finds nothing directly implicating the president himself. In either
event -- or in just about any other imaginable scenario -- it seems improbable that Congress
will have the votes to impeach Trump or otherwise hold him accountable prior to 2020.
In other words, Russiagate could well continue to distract and infuriate Trump without
breaking his hold on power.
Is it shocking to think evidence of Russian chicanery could be shrugged off? Don't be
shocked. After all, the last major case of foreign meddling and collusion in a U.S.
presidential race didn't exactly end up rocking the republic.
In 1996, Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole decided to
take a hard line on China -- portraying the nation as a growing economic and geopolitical
threat to the United States and a violator of international rules and norms. In response, China
tried to leverage its extensive diplomatic
, intelligence
, and financial
networks in the United States in order to sway the election in favor of Dole's rival, Democrat
Bill Clinton.
This is not a theory, it is historical fact: there was a major
Congressional investigation . In the end, several prominent Democratic fundraisers,
including close Clinton associates, were found to be complicit in the Chinese meddling efforts
and pled guilty to various charges of violating campaign finance and disclosure laws (most
notably James
T. Riady , Johnny Chung , John Huang , and
Charlie Trie ). Several others fled
the country to escape U.S. jurisdiction as the probe got underway. The Democratic National
Committee was forced to return millions of dollars
in ill-gotten funds (although by that point, of course, their candidate had already won).
It was a scandal that persisted after the election in no small part because many of
Clinton's own policies in his second term seemed to lend credence to insinuations of
collusion.
Several prominent Democratic fundraisers, including close Clinton associates, were found
to be complicit in Chinese meddling efforts and pled guilty to campaign finance
violations.
Rather than attempting to punish the meddling country for undermining the bedrock of our
democracy, Bill Clinton worked to ease sanctions and
normalize relations with Beijing -- even as the U.S. ratcheted up sanctions against Cuba,
Iran, and Iraq. By the end of his term, he signed a series of sweeping trade deals that
radically expanded China's economic and geopolitical clout -- even though some in
his administration
forecast that this would come at the expense of key American industries and U.S.
manufacturing workers.
Clinton authorized a series of controversial defense contracts with China as well --
despite Department of Justice objections . Federal investigators were concerned that the
contractors seemed to be passing highly sensitive and classified information to the Chinese.
And indeed, the companies in question were eventually
found to have violated the law by giving cutting-edge missile technology to China, and paid
unprecedented fines related to the Arms Export Control Act during the administration of George
W. Bush. But they were inexplicably approved in the Bill Clinton years.
For a while, polls showed that the public found the president's posture on China to be so
disconcerting that most supported appointing an independent
counsel (a la Mueller) to investigate whether the Clinton Administration had essentially been "
bought ."
Law enforcement officials shared these concerns: FBI director Louis Freeh (whom Clinton
could not get rid of, having just
fired his predecessor ) publically called
for the appointment of an independent counsel. So did the chief prosecutor charged with
investigating Chinese meddling, Charles La
Bella . However, they were blocked at every turn by Clinton's Attorney General, Janet Reno
-- eventually leading La Bella to resign in protest of the AG's
apparent obstruction.
The 1996 Chinese collusion story, much like the 2016 Russian collusion story, dragged on for
nearly two years -- hounding Clinton at every turn. That is, until it was discovered that the
president had been having an affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky.
The 1996 Chinese collusion story dragged on for nearly two years -- hounding Clinton at
every turn. That is, until the Monica Lewinsky scandal came along.
This was Bill Clinton's second known extra-marital
affair with a subordinate : in the lead-up to his 1992 election it was also discovered that
Clinton had been involved in a long-running affair with Gennifer Flowers -- an employee of the
State of Arkansas during Bill's governorship there,
appointed as a result of Clinton's intercession on her behalf.
The drama of the inquiry into Bill Clinton's myriad alleged sexual improprieties, the
President's invocation of executive
privilege to prevent his aides from having to testify against him, Clinton's perjury ,
subsequent
impeachment by the House,
acquittal in the Senate, and eventual
plea-bargain deal -- these sucked the oxygen away from virtually all other stories related
to the president.
Indeed, few today seem to remember that the Chinese meddling occurred at all. This despite
continuing China-related financial improprieties involving both
the Clintons and the DNC Chairman who presided over the 1996 debacle,
Terry McAuliffe -- and despite the fact that the intended target of the current
foreign meddling attempt just so happens to be married to the intended beneficiary of
the last.
And the irony in this, of course, is that not only do we find ourselves reliving an
apparently ill-fated collusion investigation, but the foreign meddling story is once again
competing with a presidential sex scandal -- this time involving actual porn stars. (Gennifer
Flowers and Paula Jones both
posed for Penthouseafter their involvement with Clinton surfaced.
Stormy Daniels and Karen
McDougal are well-established in the industry.)
Much like Bill Clinton, our current president has a long pattern of accusations of
infidelity, sexual harassment and even assault. However all of Trump's alleged sexual
misconduct incidents occurred before he'd assumed any public office. Therefore,
although some Democrats hope to provide Trump's accusers an opportunity to
testify before Congress if their party manages to retake the House in 2018, the
legal impact of these accounts is likely to be nil. The political significance of such
theater is likely being overestimated as well.
The danger for Democrats in all this is that they could get lulled into the notion that
Trump's liabilities -- the Mueller probe, the alleged affairs, and whatever new scandals and
outrages Trump generates in the next two years -- will be sufficient to energize and mobilize
their base in 2020. Democratic insiders and fatcats are likely to think they can put forward
the same sort of unpalatable candidate and platform they did last cycle -- only this time,
they'll win! A strong showing in 2018 could even reinforce this sense of complacency -- leading
to another debacle in the race for the White House in 2020.
Democrats consistently snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by believing they've got some
kind of lock. Remember the " Emerging Democratic Majority
" thesis? Remember Hillary Clinton's alleged 2016 " Electoral Firewall ?"
What have the Democrats learned from 2016? The answer is, very little if they believe the
essential problem was just James Comey and the Russians.
Here's one lesson Democrats would do well to internalize:
The party has won by running charismatic people against Republican cornflake candidates (see
Clinton v. Bush I or Dole, or Obama v. McCain or Romney). Yet whenever Democrats find
themselves squaring off against a faux-populist who plays to voters' base instincts, the party
always make the same move: running a wonky technocrat with an impressive resume, detailed
policy proposals, and little else.
Does it succeed in drawing a sharp contrast? Pretty much always. Does it succeed at winning
the White House? Pretty much never: Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, and now Clinton.
Democrats could be headed for trouble if they are counting on the Mueller investigation to
bring Trump down.
Democrats rely heavily on irregular voters to win elections; negative partisanship races
tend to depress turnout for these constituents. More broadly, if left with a choice between a
"lesser of two evils" the public
tends to stick with the "devil they know." In short: precisely what Democrats
don't need in 2020 is a negative partisanship race.
A referendum on Trump might not play out the way Democrats expect. Against all odds, it
looks like the president will even have
an actual record to run on . He should not be underestimated.
Clinton-style triangulation is also likely to backfire. Contemporary research suggests there
just aren't a lot of " floating voters " up for grabs
these days. Rather than winning over disaffected Republicans, this approach would likely just
alienate the Democratic base.
The party's best bet is to instead focus on
mobilizing the left by articulating a compelling positive message for why Americans should
vote for them (rather than just against Trump). They will need to respond to Trump
with
a populist of their own -- someone who can credibly appeal to people in former Obama
districts that
Hillary Clinton lost . And they need to activate those who
sat the last election out -- for instance by delivering for elements of their base that the
party has largely taken for granted in recent cycles.
If the Democratic National Committee wants to spend its time talking about Russia and sex
scandals instead of tending to these priorities, then we should all brace for another humiliating
"black swan" defeat for the party in 2020.
But, you say, isn't Trump the
least popular president ever after one year in office? Guess whose year-one
(un)popularity is closest to Trump's? Ronald Reagan. He was under 50 percent in approval
ratings at the end of his first year; but he went on to win reelection in an historic
landslide. Barack Obama was barely breaking
even after year one but won reelection comfortably. Bill Clinton was only slightly above 50
percent after his first year.
You know who else had the lowest approval rating in a quarter-century after Trump's first
year in office? The
Democratic Party.
Musa al-Gharbi is a Paul F. Lazarsfeld Fellow in Sociology at
Columbia University. Readers can connect to his research and social media via his website .
"Institutionally, the Democratic Party Is Not Democratic"
Very apt characterization "the Democratic Party is nothing more
than a layer of indirection between the donor class and the Democratic consultants and the
campaigns they run;" ... " after all, the Democratic Party -- in its current incarnation -- has important roles to play
in not expanding its "own" electorate through voter registration, in the care and feeding of the intelligence community, in
warmongering, in the continual buffing and polishing of neoliberal ideology, and in general keeping the Overton Window firmly
nailed in place against policies that would convey universal concrete material benefits, especially to the working class"
Notable quotes:
"... That said, the revivification of the DNC lawsuit serves as a story hook for me to try to advance the story on the nature of political parties as such, the Democratic Party as an institution, and the function that the Democratic Party serves. I will meander through those three topics, then, and conclude. ..."
"... What sort of legal entity is ..."
"... Political parties were purely private organizations from the 1790s until the Civil War. Thus, "it was no more illegal to commit fraud in the party caucus or primary than it would be to do so in the election of officers of a drinking club." However, due to the efforts of Robert La Follette and the Progressives, states began to treat political parties as "public agencies" during the early 1890s and 1900s; by the 1920s "most states had adopted a succession of mandatory statutes regulating every major aspect of the parties' structures and operations. ..."
"... While 1787 delegates disagreed on when corruption might occur, they brought a general shared understanding of what political corruption meant. To the delegates, political corruption referred to self-serving use of public power for private ends, including, without limitation, bribery, public decisions to serve private wealth made because of dependent relationships, public decisions to serve executive power made because of dependent relationships, and use by public officials of their positions of power to become wealthy. ..."
"... Two features of the definitional framework of corruption at the time deserve special attention, because they are not frequently articulated by all modern academics or judges. The first feature is that corruption was defined in terms of an attitude toward public service, not in relation to a set of criminal laws. The second feature is that citizenship was understood to be a public office. The delegates believed that non-elected citizens wielding or attempting to influence public power can be corrupt and that elite corruption is a serious threat to a polity. ..."
"... You can see how a political party -- a strange, amphibious creature, public one moment, private the next -- is virtually optimized to create a phishing equilibrium for corruption. However, I didn't really answer my question, did I? I still don't know what sort of legal entity the Democratic Party is. However, I can say what the Democratic Party is not ..."
"... So the purpose of superdelegates is to veto a popular choice, if they decide the popular choice "can't govern." But this is circular. Do you think for a moment that the Clintonites would have tried to make sure President Sanders couldn't have governed? You bet they would have, and from Day One. ..."
"... More importantly, you can bet that the number of superdelegates retained is enough for the superdelegates, as a class, to maintain their death grip on the party. ..."
"... could have voluntarily decided that, Look, we're gonna go into back rooms like they used to and smoke cigars and pick the candidate that way. ..."
"... That's exactly ..."
"... Functionally, the Democratic Party Is a Money Trough for Self-Dealing Consultants. Here once again is Nomiki Konst's amazing video, before the DNC: https://www.youtube.com/embed/EAvblBnXV-w Those millions! That's real money! ..."
"... Today, it is openly acknowledged by many members that the DNC and the Clinton campaign were running an operation together. In fact, it doesn't take much research beyond FEC filings to see that six of the top major consulting firms had simultaneous contracts with the DNC and HRC -- collectively earning over $335 million since 2015 [this figure balloons in Konst's video because she got a look at the actual budget]. (This does not include SuperPACs.) ..."
"... One firm, GMMB earned $236.3 million from HFA and $5.3 from the DNC in 2016. Joel Benenson, a pollster and strategist who frequents cable news, collected $4.1m from HFA while simultaneously earning $3.3 million from the DNC. Perkins Coie law firm collected $3.8 million from the DNC, $481,979 from the Convention fund and $1.8 million from HFA in 2016. ..."
"... It gets worse. Not only do the DNC's favored consultants pick sides in the primaries, they serve on the DNC boards so they can give themselves donor money. ..."
"... These campaign consultants make a lot more money off of TV and mail than they do off of field efforts. Field efforts are long-term, labor-intensive, high overhead expenditures that do not have big margins from which the consultants can draw their payouts. They also don't allow the consultants to make money off of multiple campaigns all in the same cycle, while media and mail campaigns can be done from their DC office for dozens of clients all at the same time. They get paid whether campaigns win or lose, so effectiveness is irrelevant to them. ..."
"... the Democratic Party is nothing more than a layer of indirection between the donor class and the Democratic consultants and the campaigns they run; ..."
"... the Democratic Party -- in its current incarnation -- has important roles to play in not expanding its "own" electorate through voter registration, in the care and feeding of the intelligence community, in warmongering, in the continual buffing and polishing of neoliberal ideology, and in general keeping the Overton Window firmly nailed in place against policies that would convey universal concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. ..."
"... the bottom line is that if Democratic Party controls ballot access for the forseeable future, they have to be gone through ..."
"... In retrospect, despite Sanders evident appeal and the power of his list, I think it would have been best if their faction's pushback had been much stronger ..."
An alert reader who is a representative of the class that's suing the DNC Services
Corporation for fraud in the 2016 Democratic primary -- WILDING et al. v. DNC SERVICES
CORPORATION et al., a.k.a. the "DNC lawsuit" -- threw some interesting mail over the transom;
it's from Elizabeth Beck of Beck & Lee, the firm that brought the case on behalf of the
(putatively) defrauded class (and hence their lawyer). Beck's letter reads in relevant
part:
The Justice Department has launched a new inquiry into whether the Clinton Foundation
engaged in any pay-to-play politics or other illegal activities while Hillary Clinton served as
Secretary of State, law enforcement officials and a witness tells The Hill.
FBI agents from Little Rock, Ark., where the Foundation was started, have taken the lead in
the investigation and have interviewed at least one witness in the last month, and law
enforcement officials said additional activities are expected in coming weeks.
The officials, who spoke only on condition of anonymity, said the probe is examining whether
the Clintons promised or performed any policy favors in return for largesse to their charitable
efforts or whether donors made commitments of donations in hopes of securing government
outcomes.
The probe may also examine whether any tax-exempt assets were converted for personal or
political use and whether the Foundation complied with applicable tax laws, the officials
said.
... ... ...
One challenge for any Clinton-era investigation is that the statute of limitations on most
federal felonies is five years and Clinton left office in early 2013.
"... I got to thinking today about how neocon and neoliberal are becoming interchangeable terms. ..."
"... As neoconservatism developed, that is with Iraq and Afghanistan, the neocons even came to embrace nation building which had always been anathema to traditional conservatism. Neocons sold this primarily by casting nation building in military terms, the creation and training of police and security forces in the target country. ..."
"... 9/11 too was critical. It vastly increased the scope of the neocon project in spawning the Global War on Terror. It increased the stage of neocon operations to the entire planet. ..."
"... Politically, neoconservatism has become the bipartisan foreign policy consensus. Democrats are every bit as neocon in their views as Republicans. Only a few libertarians on the right and progressives on the left reject it. ..."
"... The roots of neoliberalism are the roots of kleptocracy. Both begin under Carter. Neoliberalism also known at various times and places as the Washington Consensus (under Clinton) and the Chicago School is the political expression for public consumption of the kleptocratic economic philosophy, just as libertarian and neoclassical economics (both fresh and salt water varieties) are its academic and governmental face. The central tenets of neoliberalism are deregulation, free markets, and free trade. If neoliberalism had a prophet or a patron saint, it was Milton Friedman. ..."
"... Again just as neoconservatism and kleptocracy or bipartisan so too is neoliberalism. There really is no daylight between Reaganism/supply side economics/trickledown on the Republican side and Clinton's Washington Consensus or Team Obama on the other. ..."
"... The distinctions between neoconservatism and neoliberalism are being increasingly lost, perhaps because most of our political classes are practitioners of both. ..."
"... At the same time, neoliberalism went from domestic to global, and here I am not just thinking about neoliberal experiments, like Pinochet's Chile or post-Soviet Russia, but the financialization of the world economy and the adoption of kleptocracy as the world economic model. ..."
"... I'm now under the opinion that you can't talk about any of the "neo-isms" without talking about the corporate state. ..."
"... With neocons, it manifests itself through the military-industrial complex (Boeing, Raytheon, etc.), and with neolibs it manifests itself through finance and industrial policy. ..."
"... But each leg has two components, a statist component and a corporate component. ..."
"... It also explains why economic/financial interests (neolib) are now considered national security interests (neocon). The viability of the state is now tied to the viability of the corporation. ..."
"... Corporate/statist (not sure "corporate" captures the looting/rentier aspect though). We see it everywhere, for example in the revolving door. ..."
"... I think you could also make the argument that Obama is perhaps the most ideal combination of neolib & neocon. ..."
"... A reading of the classical liberal economists puts some breaks on the markets, corporations, etc. Neoliberalism goes to the illogical extremes of market theory and iirc, has some influence from the Austrian school ... which gives up on any pretense of scientific exposition of economics or rationality at the micro level, assuming that irrationality will magically become rational behavior in aggregate. ..."
"... Therefore, US conservatives post Eisenhower but especially post Reagan are almost certainly economic neoliberals. Since Clinton, liberals/Democrats have been too (at least the elected ones). You nailed neoconservative and both parties are in foreign policy since at least Clinton ... though here lets not forget to go back as far as JFK and his extreme anti-Communism that led to all sorts of covert operations, The Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Remember, the Soviets put the missiles in Cuba because we put missiles in Turkey and they backed down from Cuba because we agreed to remove the missiles from Turkey; Nikita was nice enough not to talk about that so that Kennedy didn't lose face. ..."
"... Perhaps it should be pointed out that the Clintons became fabulously wealthy just after Bill left office, mostly on the strength of his speaking engagements for the financial sector that he'd just deregulated. ..."
"... The unfortunate fact of the matter is that at that level of politics, the levers of money and power work equally well on both party's nomenklatura. They flock to it like moths to porch light. ..."
"... "Don't believe them, don't fear them, don't ask anything of them" - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn ..."
I got to thinking today about how neocon and neoliberal are becoming interchangeable terms. They did not start out that
way. My understanding is they are ways of rationalizing breaks with traditional conservatism and liberalism. Standard conservatism
was fairly isolationist. Conservatism's embrace of the Cold War put it at odds with this tendency. This was partially resolved by
accepting the Cold War as a military necessity despite its international commitments but limiting civilian programs like foreign
aid outside this context and rejecting the concept of nation building altogether.
With the end of the Cold War conservative internationalism needed a new rationale, and this was supplied by the neoconservatives.
They advocated the adoption of conservatism's Cold War military centered internationalism as the model for America's post-Cold War
international relations. After all, why drop a winning strategy? America had won the Cold War against a much more formidable opponent
than any left on the planet. What could go wrong?
America's ability not simply to project but its willingness to use military power was equated with its power more generally. If
America did not do this, it was weak and in decline. However, the frequent use of military power showed that America was great and
remained the world's hegemon. In particular, the neocons focused on the Middle East. This sales pitch gained them the backing of
both supporters of Israel (because neoconservatism was unabashedly pro-Israel) and the oil companies. The military industrial complex
was also on board because the neocon agenda effectively countered calls to reduce military spending. But neoconservatism was not
just confined to these groups. It appealed to both believers in American exceptionalism and backers of humanitarian interventions
(of which I once was one).
As neoconservatism developed, that is with Iraq and Afghanistan, the neocons even came to embrace nation building which had always
been anathema to traditional conservatism. Neocons sold this primarily by casting nation building in military terms, the creation
and training of police and security forces in the target country.
9/11 too was critical. It vastly increased the scope of the neocon project in spawning the Global War on Terror. It increased
the stage of neocon operations to the entire planet. It effectively erased the distinction between the use of military force against
countries and individuals. Individuals more than countries became targets for military, not police, action. And unlike traditional
wars or the Cold War itself, this one would never be over. Neoconservatism now had a permanent raison d'être.
Politically, neoconservatism has become the bipartisan foreign policy consensus. Democrats are every bit as neocon in their views
as Republicans. Only a few libertarians on the right and progressives on the left reject it.
Neoliberalism, for its part, came about to address the concern of liberals, especially Democrats, that they were too anti-business
and too pro-union, and that this was hurting them at the polls. It was sold to the rubiat as pragmatism.
The roots of neoliberalism are the roots of kleptocracy. Both begin under Carter. Neoliberalism also known at various times and
places as the Washington Consensus (under Clinton) and the Chicago School is the political expression for public consumption of the
kleptocratic economic philosophy, just as libertarian and neoclassical economics (both fresh and salt water varieties) are its academic
and governmental face. The central tenets of neoliberalism are deregulation, free markets, and free trade. If neoliberalism had a
prophet or a patron saint, it was Milton Friedman.
Again just as neoconservatism and kleptocracy or bipartisan so too is neoliberalism. There really is no daylight between Reaganism/supply
side economics/trickledown on the Republican side and Clinton's Washington Consensus or Team Obama on the other.
And just as we saw with neoconservatism, neoliberalism expanded from its core premises and effortlessly transitioned into globalization,
which can also be understood as global kleptocracy.
The distinctions between neoconservatism and neoliberalism are being increasingly lost, perhaps because most of our political
classes are practitioners of both. But initially at least neoconservatism was focused on foreign policy and neoliberalism on
domestic economic policy. As the War on Terror expanded, however, neoconservatism came back home with the creation and expansion
of the surveillance state.
At the same time, neoliberalism went from domestic to global, and here I am not just thinking about neoliberal experiments,
like Pinochet's Chile or post-Soviet Russia, but the financialization of the world economy and the adoption of kleptocracy as the
world economic model.
jest on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 5:55am
I'm now under the opinion that you can't talk about any of the "neo-isms" without talking about the corporate state.
That's really the tie that binds the two things you are speaking of.
With neocons, it manifests itself through the military-industrial complex (Boeing, Raytheon, etc.), and with neolibs it
manifests itself through finance and industrial policy.
For example, you need the US gov't to bomb Iraq (Raytheon) in order to secure oil (Halliburton), which is priced & financed
in US dollars (Goldman Sachs). It's like a 3-legged stool; if you remove one of these legs, the whole thing comes down. But
each leg has two components, a statist component and a corporate component.
The entity that enables all of this is the corporate state.
It also explains why economic/financial interests (neolib) are now considered national security interests (neocon). The viability
of the state is now tied to the viability of the corporation.
lambert on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 9:18am
Corporate/statist (not sure "corporate" captures the looting/rentier aspect though). We see it everywhere, for example in the
revolving door.
I think the stool has more legs and is also more dynamic; more like Ikea furniture. For example, the press is surely critical
in organizing the war.
But the yin/yang of neo-lib/neo-con is nice: It's as if the neo-cons handle the kinetic aspects (guns, torture) and the neo-libs
handle the mental aspects (money, mindfuckery) but both merge (like Negronponte being on the board of Americans Select) over time
as margins fall and decorative aspects like democratic institutions and academic freedom get stripped away. The state and the
corporation have always been tied to each other but now the ties are open and visible (for example, fines are just a cost of doing
business, a rent on open corruption.)
And then there's the concept of "human resource," that abstracts all aspects of humanity away except those that are exploitable.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
jest on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 1:37pm
I like the term much better than Fascist, as it is 1) more accurate, 2) avoids the Godwin's law issue, and 3) makes them sound
totalitarianist.
Yes, I would agree that additional legs make sense. The media aspect is essential, as it neutralizes the freedom of the press,
without changing the constitution. It dovetails pretty well with the notion of Inverted Totalitarianism.
I think you could also make the argument that Obama is perhaps the most ideal combination of neolib & neocon. The
two sides of him flow together so seamlessly, no one seems to notice. But that's in part because he is so corporate.
Lex on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 8:28am
Actually, neoliberalism is an economic term. An economic liberal in the UK and EU is for open markets, capitalism, etc. You're
right that neoliberalism comes heavily from the University of Chicago, but it has little to do with American political liberalism.
A reading of the classical liberal economists puts some breaks on the markets, corporations, etc. Neoliberalism goes to the
illogical extremes of market theory and iirc, has some influence from the Austrian school ... which gives up on any pretense of
scientific exposition of economics or rationality at the micro level, assuming that irrationality will magically become rational
behavior in aggregate.
Therefore, US conservatives post Eisenhower but especially post Reagan are almost certainly economic neoliberals. Since Clinton,
liberals/Democrats have been too (at least the elected ones). You nailed neoconservative and both parties are in foreign policy
since at least Clinton ... though here lets not forget to go back as far as JFK and his extreme anti-Communism that led to all
sorts of covert operations, The Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Remember, the Soviets put the missiles in
Cuba because we put missiles in Turkey and they backed down from Cuba because we agreed to remove the missiles from Turkey; Nikita
was nice enough not to talk about that so that Kennedy didn't lose face.
"Don't believe them, don't fear them, don't ask anything of them" - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
Hugh on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 3:57pm
I agree that neoconservatism and neoliberalism are two facets of corporatism/kleptocracy. I like the kinetic vs. white collar
distinction.
The roots of neoliberalism go back to the 1940s and the Austrians, but in the US it really only comes into currency with Clinton
as a deliberate shift of the Democratic/liberal platform away from labor and ordinary Americans to make it more accommodating
to big business and big money. I had never heard of neoliberalism before Bill Clinton but it is easy to see how those tendencies
were at work under Carter, but not under Johnson.
This was a rough and ready sketch. I guess I should also have mentioned PNAC or the Project to Find a New Mission for the MIC.
Hugh on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 10:44pm
I have never understood this love of Clinton that some Democrats have just as I have never understood the attraction of Reagan
for Republicans. There is no Clinton faction. There is no Obama faction. Hillary Clinton is Obama's frigging Secretary of State.
Robert Rubin and Larry Summers, both of whom served as Bill Clinton's Treasury Secretary, were Obama's top financial and economic
advisors. Timothy Geithner was their protégé. Leon Panetta Obama's Director of the CIA and current Secretary of Defense was Clinton's
Director of OMB and then Chief of Staff.
The Democrats as a party are neoconservative and neoliberal as are Obama and the Clintons. As are Republicans.
What does corporations need regulation mean? It is rather like saying that the best way to deal with cancer is to find a cure
for it. Sounds nice but there is no content to it. Worse in the real world, the rich own the corporations, the politicians, and
the regulators. So even if you come up with good ideas for regulation they aren't going to happen.
What you are suggesting looks a whole lot another iteration of lesser evilism meets Einstein's definition of insanity. How
is it any different from any other instance of Democratic tribalism?
Lex on Mon, 08/20/2012 - 11:49pm
Perhaps it should be pointed out that the Clintons became fabulously wealthy just after Bill left office, mostly on the strength
of his speaking engagements for the financial sector that he'd just deregulated. Both he and Hillary hew to a pretty damned neoconservative
foreign policy ... with that dash of "humanitarian interventionism" that makes war palatable to liberals.
But your deeper point is that there isn't enough of a difference between Obama and Bill Clinton to really draw a distinction,
not in terms of ideology. What a theoretical Hillary Clinton presidency would have looked like is irrelevant, because both Bill
and Obama talked a lot different than they walked. Any projection of a Hillary Clinton administration is just that and requires
arguing that it would have been different than Bill's administration and policies.
The unfortunate fact of the matter is that at that level of politics, the levers of money and power work equally well on
both party's nomenklatura. They flock to it like moths to porch light.
That the money chose Obama over Clinton doesn't say all that much, because there's no evidence suggesting that the money didn't
like Clinton or that it would have chosen McCain over Clinton. It's not as if Clinton's campaign was driven into the ground by
lack of funds.
Regardless, that to be a Democrat i would kind of have to chose between two factions that are utterly distasteful to me just
proves that i have no business being a Democrat. And since i wouldn't vote for either of those names, i guess i'll just stick
to third parties and exit the political tribalism loop for good.
"Don't believe them, don't fear them, don't ask anything of them" - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
"Our justice system is represented by a blind-folded woman holding a set of scales. Those
scales do not tip to the right or the left; they do not recognize wealth, power, or social
status. The impartiality of our justice system is the bedrock of our republic..."
McClatchy
points out, since March 2015 Judicial Watch has been engaged in a back and forth battle with
the National Archives which argues that "the documents should be kept secret [to preserve]
grand jury secrecy and Clinton's personal privacy."
Judicial Watch, a conservative watchdog group that files Freedom of Information Act
requests, wants copies of the documents that the National Archives and Records Administration
has declined to release. It filed a FOIA request for the documents in March 2015 and in October
2015 the group sued for the 238 pages of responsive records.
According to Judicial Watch: " The National Archives argues that the documents should be
kept secret, citing grand jury secrecy and Clinton's personal privacy."
But Judicial Watch says that because so much about the Whitewater case has already been made
public, "there is no secrecy or privacy left to protect."
The documents in question are alleged drafts of indictments written by Hickman Ewing, the
chief deputy of Kenneth Starr, the independent counsel appointed to investigate Bill and
Hillary Clinton's alleged involvement in fraudulent real estate dealings dating back to the
70's.
Ewing told investigators he drafted the indictments in April 1995. According to Judicial
Watch, the documents pertain to allegations that Hillary Clinton provided false information and
withheld information from those investigating the Whitewater scandal.
Meanwhile, for those who haven't been alive long enough to remember some of the original
Clinton scandals dating back to the 1970's, the Whitewater scandal revolved around a series of
shady real estate deals in the Ozarks, not to mention a couple of illegal, federally-insured
loans, back when Bill was Governor of Arkansas.
Of course, like with all Clinton scandals, while several other people ended up in jail as a
result of the FBI's Whitewater investigation, Bill and Hillary emerged unscathed. Wikipedia
offers more details:
The Whitewater controversy, Whitewater scandal (or simply Whitewater), was an American
political episode of the 1990s that began with an investigation into the real estate
investments of Bill and Hillary Clinton and their associates, Jim McDougal and Susan McDougal,
in the Whitewater Development Corporation, a failed business venture in the 1970s and
1980s.
A March 1992 New York Times article published during the 1992 U.S. presidential campaign
reported that the Clintons, then governor and first lady of Arkansas, had invested and lost
money in the Whitewater Development Corporation. The article stimulated the interest of L. Jean
Lewis, a Resolution Trust Corporation investigator who was looking into the failure of Madison
Guaranty Savings and Loan, also owned by Jim and Susan McDougal.
Lewis looked for connections between the savings and loan company and the Clintons, and on
September 2, 1992, she submitted a criminal referral to the FBI naming Bill and Hillary Clinton
as witnesses in the Madison Guaranty case. Little Rock U.S. Attorney Charles A. Banks and the
FBI determined that the referral lacked merit, but Lewis continued to pursue the case. From
1992 to 1994, Lewis issued several additional referrals against the Clintons and repeatedly
called the U.S. Attorney's Office in Little Rock and the Justice Department regarding the case.
Her referrals eventually became public knowledge, and she testified before the Senate
Whitewater Committee in 1995.
David Hale, the source of criminal allegations against the Clintons, claimed in November
1993 that Bill Clinton had pressured him into providing an illegal $300,000 loan to Susan
McDougal, the Clintons' partner in the Whitewater land deal. The allegations were regarded as
questionable because Hale had not mentioned Clinton in reference to this loan during the
original FBI investigation of Madison Guaranty in 1989; only after coming under indictment
himself in 1993, did Hale make allegations against the Clintons. A U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission investigation resulted in convictions against the McDougals for their role in the
Whitewater project. Jim Guy Tucker, Bill Clinton's successor as governor, was convicted of
fraud and sentenced to four years of probation for his role in the matter. Susan McDougal
served 18 months in prison for contempt of court for refusing to answer questions relating to
Whitewater.
Neither Bill Clinton nor Hillary were ever prosecuted, after three separate inquiries found
insufficient evidence linking them with the criminal conduct of others related to the land
deal.
Just more attempts to "criminalize behavior that is normal"...
"National Security" Will Prevail Again. Hillary's health and mental condition are at
risk.
Hillary/Diezapam 2020
Holy war? FFS people, this shit's straight out of the End of Days stories or numerous
religious, spiritual and philosophical belief systems. Yes, the war between good and evil is
real and evil has the upper hand at the moment. Greatly has the upper hand.
Edit and More Importantly, Andre Ward's announced his retirement from boxing Man was a
thing of beauty in the ring....
In 1999, nine years before the Calabrese interview, Zeifman told the Scripps-Howard news
agency: "If I had the power to fire her, I would have fired her." In a 2008 interview on "The
Neal Boortz Show," Zeifman was asked directly whether he fired her. His answer: "Well, let me
put it this way. I terminated her, along with some other staff members who were ! we no
longer needed, and advised her that I would not ! could not recommend her for any further
positions."
They owned the property of what was most likely a drug smuggling operation in Paron,
Arkansas.
That property has ties with the Rose law firm in Little Rock , in which Hillary Rodham
Clinton was formerly a partner. While some observers believe the property was intended as an
additional presidential residence - the Arkansas Democrat Gazette, for example, reported it
was rumored to be a "White House West"; and contractors who worked on it whimsically tagged
it "Camp Chelsea" - there are strong indications something quite different might be taking
place in Paron
Simultaneous with this, residents said there was an increase in low-flying airplanes over
the property. Unlike the military aircraft that occasionally fly over the area, these were
"small Cessna-like" aircraft, according to Hill. He said the planes typically fly through a
pass in the Cockspur Mountains on Southeast's property, several miles from the main road.
"After the planes leave, 20 to 30 minutes will go by, and small trucks and Jeeps leave the
property at two different entrances," said Hill. He added that neighbors, during a flurry of
aircraft activity, had logged the details, which they then passed on to federal
authorities
The ones with Vince Foster's fingerprints on them?
" After nearly two years of searches and subpoenas, the White House said this evening that
it had unexpectedly discovered copies of missing documents from Hillary Rodham Clinton's law
firm that describe her work for a failing savings and loan association in the 1980's.
"The mysterious appearance of the billing records, which had been the specific subject of
various nvestigative subpoenas for two year s, sparked intense interest about how they
surfaced and where they had been"
"But Whitewater investigators believe that the billing records show significant
representation. They argue that the records prove that Ms. Clinton was not only directly
involved in the representation of Madison, but more specifically, in providing legal work on
the fraudulent Castle Grande land deal."
"Investigators believe this suggests that, at some point, this copy was passed from Vince
Foster to Hillary Clinton for her review.
In addition, investigators had the FBI conduct fingerprint analysis of the billing
records. Of significance, the prints of Vince Foster and Hillary Clinton were found."
It is extremely unfortunate that criminal behavior is now considered normal! The Clintons
are responsible for that.
The Clintons were extremely guilty of Whitewater for profiteering on a failed real estate
deal at Arkansas' residents expense, in addition to dozens of other crimes! I often wonder
how life could be much better if the Clintons were never elected! The invasive and rampant
corruption in virtually every sector of our society, has made this country 100%
dysfunctional!
There had been criminal activity at the local level in government in some regions, but
Clinton nationalized it, and legitimized it. Nixon was impeached, and resigned, giving people
belief that nobody was above the law.
Now, Trump has not committed a single impeachable offense, and all that they ever talk
about is impeachment!
I recall reading that Starr had DNC loyalties. My guess is that Republicans were more
concerned with a President Gore, than a President Clinton.
Although Hillary Clinton has blamed numerous factors and people for her loss to Donald Trump in
last year's election, no one has received as much blame as the Russian government. In an effort to
avoid blaming the candidate herself by turning the election results into a national scandal, accusations
of Kremlin-directed meddling soon surfaced. While such accusations have largely been discredited
by both
computer analysts and
award-winning journalists like Seymour Hersh, they continue to be repeated as the
investigation into Donald Trump's alleged collusion with the Russian government picks up steam.
However,
newly released Clinton emails suggest that that the former secretary of state's disdain for the
Russian government is a relatively new development. The emails, obtained by conservative watchdog
group Judicial Watch, show that the Russian government was included in invitations to exclusive Clinton
Foundation galas that began less than two months after Clinton became the top official at the U.S.
State Department.
In March of 2009, Amitabh Desai, then-Clinton Foundation director of foreign policy, sent invitations
to numerous world leaders, which included Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, then-Russian President
Dmitry Medvedev, and former President of the Soviet Union Mikhail Gorbachev. Desai's emails were
cc'd to Assistant Secretary of State Andrew Shapiro and later forwarded to top Clinton aide Jake
Sullivan.
The Clinton Foundation's activities during Hillary's tenure as secretary of state have been central
to the accusations that the Clinton family used their "charitable" foundation as a means of enriching
themselves via a massive "Pay to Play" scheme. Emails leaked by Wikileaks, particularly
the Podesta emails , offered
ample evidence connecting foreign donations to the Clintons and their foundation with preferential
treatment by the U.S. State Department.
"... My observation is that the New Class (professionals, lobbyists, financiers, teachers, engineers, etc.) have ruled the country in recent decades. For much of the twentieth century this class was in some tension with corporations, and used their skills at influencing government policy to help develop and protect the welfare state, since they needed the working class as a counterweight to the natural influence of corporate money and power. However, somewhere around 1970 I think this tension collapsed, since corporate managers and professionals realized that they shared the same education, background and interests. ..."
"... This "peace treaty" between former rivals allowed the whole newly enlarged New Class to swing to the right, since they really didn't particularly need the working class politically anymore. And since it is the hallmark of this class to seek prestige, power and money while transferring risk away from themselves, the middle class and blue collar community has been the natural recipient. Free trade (well, for non-professionals, anyway), neoliberalism, ruthless private equity job cutting, etc., etc. all followed very naturally. The re-alignment of the Democratic Party towards the right was a natural part of this evolution. ..."
"... They also sense that organized politics in this country – being chiefly the province of the New Class – has left them with little leverage to change any of this. ..."
"... the New Class has very strong internal solidarity – and since somebody has to pay for these little mistakes, everyone outside that class is "fair game." ..."
"... So in that sense–to the extent that you define liberal as the ideology of the New Class (neoliberal, financial-capitalistic, big corporate-friendly but opposed to non-meritocratic biases like racism, sexism, etc.) is "liberalism", I think it is reasonable to say that it has bred resistance and anger among the "losers." As far as having "failed", well, we'll see: the New Class still controls almost all the levers of power. It has many strategies for channeling lower-class anger and I think under Trump we'll see those rolled out. ..."
"... Perhaps some evolution in "the means of production" or in how governments are influenced will ultimately develop to divide or downgrade the New Class, and break its lock on the corridors of power, but I don't see it on the horizon just yet. If anyone else does, I'd love to hear more about it. ..."
"... A little puzzled by the inclusion of teachers, alongside financiers and the like, in William Meyer's list of the New Class rulers. Enablers of those rulers, no doubt, but not visibly calling the shots. But then I'm probably just another liberal elitist failing to recognize my own hegemony, like Chris. ..."
"... I assume he meant certain professors [of economics]. Actually on @4, there's a good chapter on the topic in a Thomas Franks latest. ..."
Obviously Mr. Deerin is, on its face, utilizing a very disputable definition
of "liberal."
However, I think a stronger case could be made for something like Mr.
Deerin's argument, although it doesn't necessarily get to the same conclusion.
My observation is that the New Class (professionals, lobbyists, financiers,
teachers, engineers, etc.) have ruled the country in recent decades. For
much of the twentieth century this class was in some tension with corporations,
and used their skills at influencing government policy to help develop and
protect the welfare state, since they needed the working class as a counterweight
to the natural influence of corporate money and power. However, somewhere
around 1970 I think this tension collapsed, since corporate managers and
professionals realized that they shared the same education, background and
interests.
Vive la meritocracy. This "peace treaty" between former rivals allowed
the whole newly enlarged New Class to swing to the right, since they really
didn't particularly need the working class politically anymore. And since
it is the hallmark of this class to seek prestige, power and money while
transferring risk away from themselves, the middle class and blue collar
community has been the natural recipient. Free trade (well, for non-professionals,
anyway), neoliberalism, ruthless private equity job cutting, etc., etc.
all followed very naturally. The re-alignment of the Democratic Party towards
the right was a natural part of this evolution.
I think the 90% or so of the community who are not included in this class
are confused and bewildered and of course rather angry about it. They
also sense that organized politics in this country – being chiefly the province
of the New Class – has left them with little leverage to change any of this.
Watching the bailouts and lack of prosecutions during the GFC made
them dimly realize that the New Class has very strong internal solidarity
– and since somebody has to pay for these little mistakes, everyone outside
that class is "fair game."
So in that sense–to the extent that you define liberal as the ideology
of the New Class (neoliberal, financial-capitalistic, big corporate-friendly
but opposed to non-meritocratic biases like racism, sexism, etc.) is "liberalism",
I think it is reasonable to say that it has bred resistance and anger among
the "losers." As far as having "failed", well, we'll see: the New Class
still controls almost all the levers of power. It has many strategies for
channeling lower-class anger and I think under Trump we'll see those rolled
out.
Let me be clear, I'm not saying Donald Trump is leading an insurgency
against the New Class – but I think he tapped into something like one and
is riding it for all he can, while not really having the slightest idea
what he's doing.
Perhaps some evolution in "the means of production" or in how governments
are influenced will ultimately develop to divide or downgrade the New Class,
and break its lock on the corridors of power, but I don't see it on the
horizon just yet. If anyone else does, I'd love to hear more about it.
A little puzzled by the inclusion of teachers, alongside financiers
and the like, in William Meyer's list of the New Class rulers. Enablers
of those rulers, no doubt, but not visibly calling the shots. But then I'm
probably just another liberal elitist failing to recognize my own hegemony,
like Chris.
"... My observation is that the New Class (professionals, lobbyists, financiers, teachers, engineers, etc.) have ruled the country in recent decades. For much of the twentieth century this class was in some tension with corporations, and used their skills at influencing government policy to help develop and protect the welfare state, since they needed the working class as a counterweight to the natural influence of corporate money and power. However, somewhere around 1970 I think this tension collapsed, since corporate managers and professionals realized that they shared the same education, background and interests. ..."
"... This "peace treaty" between former rivals allowed the whole newly enlarged New Class to swing to the right, since they really didn't particularly need the working class politically anymore. And since it is the hallmark of this class to seek prestige, power and money while transferring risk away from themselves, the middle class and blue collar community has been the natural recipient. Free trade (well, for non-professionals, anyway), neoliberalism, ruthless private equity job cutting, etc., etc. all followed very naturally. The re-alignment of the Democratic Party towards the right was a natural part of this evolution. ..."
"... They also sense that organized politics in this country – being chiefly the province of the New Class – has left them with little leverage to change any of this. ..."
"... the New Class has very strong internal solidarity – and since somebody has to pay for these little mistakes, everyone outside that class is "fair game." ..."
"... So in that sense–to the extent that you define liberal as the ideology of the New Class (neoliberal, financial-capitalistic, big corporate-friendly but opposed to non-meritocratic biases like racism, sexism, etc.) is "liberalism", I think it is reasonable to say that it has bred resistance and anger among the "losers." As far as having "failed", well, we'll see: the New Class still controls almost all the levers of power. It has many strategies for channeling lower-class anger and I think under Trump we'll see those rolled out. ..."
"... Perhaps some evolution in "the means of production" or in how governments are influenced will ultimately develop to divide or downgrade the New Class, and break its lock on the corridors of power, but I don't see it on the horizon just yet. If anyone else does, I'd love to hear more about it. ..."
"... A little puzzled by the inclusion of teachers, alongside financiers and the like, in William Meyer's list of the New Class rulers. Enablers of those rulers, no doubt, but not visibly calling the shots. But then I'm probably just another liberal elitist failing to recognize my own hegemony, like Chris. ..."
"... I assume he meant certain professors [of economics]. Actually on @4, there's a good chapter on the topic in a Thomas Franks latest. ..."
Obviously Mr. Deerin is, on its face, utilizing a very disputable definition
of "liberal."
However, I think a stronger case could be made for something like Mr.
Deerin's argument, although it doesn't necessarily get to the same conclusion.
My observation is that the New Class (professionals, lobbyists, financiers,
teachers, engineers, etc.) have ruled the country in recent decades. For
much of the twentieth century this class was in some tension with corporations,
and used their skills at influencing government policy to help develop and
protect the welfare state, since they needed the working class as a counterweight
to the natural influence of corporate money and power. However, somewhere
around 1970 I think this tension collapsed, since corporate managers and
professionals realized that they shared the same education, background and
interests.
Vive la meritocracy. This "peace treaty" between former rivals allowed
the whole newly enlarged New Class to swing to the right, since they really
didn't particularly need the working class politically anymore. And since
it is the hallmark of this class to seek prestige, power and money while
transferring risk away from themselves, the middle class and blue collar
community has been the natural recipient. Free trade (well, for non-professionals,
anyway), neoliberalism, ruthless private equity job cutting, etc., etc.
all followed very naturally. The re-alignment of the Democratic Party towards
the right was a natural part of this evolution.
I think the 90% or so of the community who are not included in this class
are confused and bewildered and of course rather angry about it. They
also sense that organized politics in this country – being chiefly the province
of the New Class – has left them with little leverage to change any of this.
Watching the bailouts and lack of prosecutions during the GFC made
them dimly realize that the New Class has very strong internal solidarity
– and since somebody has to pay for these little mistakes, everyone outside
that class is "fair game."
So in that sense–to the extent that you define liberal as the ideology
of the New Class (neoliberal, financial-capitalistic, big corporate-friendly
but opposed to non-meritocratic biases like racism, sexism, etc.) is "liberalism",
I think it is reasonable to say that it has bred resistance and anger among
the "losers." As far as having "failed", well, we'll see: the New Class
still controls almost all the levers of power. It has many strategies for
channeling lower-class anger and I think under Trump we'll see those rolled
out.
Let me be clear, I'm not saying Donald Trump is leading an insurgency
against the New Class – but I think he tapped into something like one and
is riding it for all he can, while not really having the slightest idea
what he's doing.
Perhaps some evolution in "the means of production" or in how governments
are influenced will ultimately develop to divide or downgrade the New Class,
and break its lock on the corridors of power, but I don't see it on the
horizon just yet. If anyone else does, I'd love to hear more about it.
A little puzzled by the inclusion of teachers, alongside financiers
and the like, in William Meyer's list of the New Class rulers. Enablers
of those rulers, no doubt, but not visibly calling the shots. But then I'm
probably just another liberal elitist failing to recognize my own hegemony,
like Chris.
"... "Have you ever met or talked to any Russian official or relative of any Russian banker, or any Russian or even read Gogol, now or in the past?" ..."
"... Progressives joined the FBI/CIA's 'Russian Bear' conspiracy: " Russia intervened and decided the Presidential election" – no matter that millions of workers and rural Americans had voted against Hillary Clinton, Wall Street's candidate and no matter that no evidence of direct interference was ever presented. Progressives could not accept that 'their constituents', the masses, had rejected Madame Clinton and preferred 'the Donald'. They attacked a shifty-eyed caricature of the repeatedly elected Russian President Putin as a subterfuge for attacking the disobedient 'white trash' electorate of 'Deploralandia'. ..."
"... Progressive demagogues embraced the coifed and manicured former 'Director Comey' of the FBI, and the Mr. Potato-headed Capo of the CIA and their forty thugs in making accusations without finger or footprints. ..."
"... Then Progressives turned increasingly Orwellian: Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over 2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump for promising to eventually expel 5 million more! ..."
"... Progressives, under Obama, supported seven brutal illegal wars and pressed for more, but complained when Trump continued the same wars and proposed adding a few new ones. At the same time, progressives out-militarized Trump by accusing him of being 'weak' on Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. They chided him for his lack support for Israel's suppression of the Palestinians. They lauded Trump's embrace of the Saudi war against Yemen as a stepping-stone for an assault against Iran, even as millions of destitute Yemenis were exposed to cholera. The Progressives had finally embraced a biological weapon of mass destruction, when US-supplied missiles destroyed the water systems of Yemen! ..."
"... Thank you for putting your finger on the main problem right there in the first paragraph. There were exceptions of course. I supported Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Primary that gave us the first black etc. But I never voted for Obama. Throughout the Cheney Admin I pleaded with progressives to bolt the party. ..."
"... This is an excellent summary of the evolution of "progressives" into modern militarist fascists who tolerate identity politics diversity. There is little to add to Mr. Petras' commentary. ..."
"... Barak Obama is America's biggest con man who accomplished nothing "progressive" during eight years at the top, and didn't even try. (Obamacare is an insurance industry idea supported by most Republicans, which is why it recently survived.) Anyone who still likes Obama should read about his actions since he left office. Obama quickly signed a $65 million "book deal", which can only be a kickback since there is no way the publisher can sell enough books about his meaningless presidency to justify that sum. Obama doesn't get royalties based on sales, but gets the money up front for a book he has yet to write, and will have someone do that for him. (Book deals and speaking fees are legal forms of bribery in the USA.) ..."
"... Then Obama embarked on 100 days of ultra expensive foreign vacations with taxpayers covering the Secret Service protection costs. He didn't appear at charity fundraisers, didn't campaign for Democrats, and didn't help build homes for the poor like Jimmy Carter. He returns from vacation this week and his first speech will be at a Wall Street firm that will pay him $400,000, then he travels to Europe for more paid speeches. ..."
"... They chose power over principles. Nobel War Prize winner Obomber was a particularly egregious chameleon, hiding his sociopathy through two elections before unleashing his racist warmongering in full flower throughout his second term. ..."
"... Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party bent over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act ..."
Over the past quarter century progressive writers, activists and academics have followed a trajectory
from left to right – with each presidential campaign seeming to move them further to the right. Beginning
in the 1990's progressives mobilized millions in opposition to wars, voicing demands for the transformation
of the US's corporate for-profit medical system into a national 'Medicare For All' public
program. They condemned the notorious Wall Street swindlers and denounced police state legislation
and violence. But in the end, they always voted for Democratic Party Presidential candidates who
pursued the exact opposite agenda.
Over time this political contrast between program and practice led to the transformation of the
Progressives. And what we see today are US progressives embracing and promoting the politics of the
far right.
To understand this transformation we will begin by identifying who and what the progressives are
and describe their historical role. We will then proceed to identify their trajectory over the recent
decades.
We will outline the contours of recent Presidential campaigns where Progressives were deeply
involved.
We will focus on the dynamics of political regression: From resistance to submission, from
retreat to surrender.
We will conclude by discussing the end result: The Progressives' large-scale, long-term embrace
of far-right ideology and practice.
Progressives by Name and Posture
Progressives purport to embrace 'progress', the growth of the economy, the enrichment of society
and freedom from arbitrary government. Central to the Progressive agenda was the end of elite corruption
and good governance, based on democratic procedures.
Progressives prided themselves as appealing to 'reason, diplomacy and conciliation', not brute
force and wars. They upheld the sovereignty of other nations and eschewed militarism and armed intervention.
Progressives proposed a vision of their fellow citizens pursuing incremental evolution toward
the 'good society', free from the foreign entanglements, which had entrapped the people in unjust
wars.
Progressives in Historical Perspective
In the early part of the 20th century, progressives favored political equality while opposing
extra-parliamentary social transformations. They supported gender equality and environmental preservation
while failing to give prominence to the struggles of workers and African Americans.
They denounced militarism 'in general' but supported a series of 'wars to end all wars'
. Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson embodied the dual policies of promoting peace at home
and bloody imperial wars overseas. By the middle of the 20th century, different strands emerged
under the progressive umbrella. Progressives split between traditional good government advocates
and modernists who backed socio-economic reforms, civil liberties and rights.
Progressives supported legislation to regulate monopolies, encouraged collective bargaining and
defended the Bill of Rights.
Progressives opposed wars and militarism in theory until their government went to war.
Lacking an effective third political party, progressives came to see themselves as the 'left
wing' of the Democratic Party, allies of labor and civil rights movements and defenders of civil
liberties.
Progressives joined civil rights leaders in marches, but mostly relied on legal and
electoral means to advance African American rights.
Progressives played a pivotal role in fighting McCarthyism, though ultimately it was the Secretary
of the Army and the military high command that brought Senator McCarthy to his knees.
Progressives provided legal defense when the social movements disrupted the House UnAmerican Activities
Committee.
They popularized the legislative arguments that eventually outlawed segregation, but it was courageous
Afro-American leaders heading mass movements that won the struggle for integration and civil rights.
In many ways the Progressives complemented the mass struggles, but their limits were defined by
the constraints of their membership in the Democratic Party.
The alliance between Progressives and social movements peaked in the late sixties to mid-1970's
when the Progressives followed the lead of dynamic and advancing social movements and community organizers
especially in opposition to the wars in Indochina and the military draft.
The Retreat of the Progressives
By the late 1970's the Progressives had cut their anchor to the social movements, as the anti-war,
civil rights and labor movements lost their impetus (and direction).
The numbers of progressives within the left wing of the Democratic Party increased through recruitment
from earlier social movements. Paradoxically, while their 'numbers' were up, their caliber had declined,
as they sought to 'fit in' with the pro-business, pro-war agenda of their President's party.
Without the pressure of the 'populist street' the 'Progressives-turned-Democrats' adapted
to the corporate culture in the Party. The Progressives signed off on a fatal compromise: The corporate
elite secured the electoral party while the Progressives were allowed to write enlightened manifestos
about the candidates and their programs . . . which were quickly dismissed once the Democrats took
office. Yet the ability to influence the 'electoral rhetoric' was seen by the Progressives as a sufficient
justification for remaining inside the Democratic Party.
Moreover the Progressives argued that by strengthening their presence in the Democratic Party,
(their self-proclaimed 'boring from within' strategy), they would capture the party membership,
neutralize the pro-corporation, militarist elements that nominated the president and peacefully transform
the party into a 'vehicle for progressive changes'.
Upon their successful 'deep penetration' the Progressives, now cut off from the increasingly disorganized
mass social movements, coopted and bought out many prominent black, labor and civil liberty activists
and leaders, while collaborating with what they dubbed the more malleable 'centrist' Democrats.
These mythical creatures were really pro-corporate Democrats who condescended to occasionally converse
with the Progressives while working for the Wall Street and Pentagon elite.
The Retreat of the Progressives: The Clinton Decade
Progressives adapted the 'crab strategy': Moving side-ways and then backwards but never forward.
Progressives mounted candidates in the Presidential primaries, which were predictably defeated
by the corporate Party apparatus, and then submitted immediately to the outcome. The election of
President 'Bill' Clinton launched a period of unrestrained financial plunder, major wars of aggression
in Europe (Yugoslavia) and the Middle East (Iraq), a military intervention in Somalia and secured
Israel's victory over any remnant of a secular Palestinian leadership as well as its destruction
of Lebanon!
Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party bent
over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act, thereby opening
the floodgates for massive speculation on Wall Street through the previously regulated banking sector.
When President Clinton gutted welfare programs, forcing single mothers to take minimum-wage jobs
without provision for safe childcare, millions of poor white and minority women were forced to abandon
their children to dangerous makeshift arrangements in order to retain any residual public support
and access to minimal health care. Progressives looked the other way.
Progressives followed Clinton's deep throated thrust toward the far right, as he outsourced manufacturing
jobs to Mexico (NAFTA) and re-appointed Federal Reserve's free market, Ayn Rand-fanatic, Alan Greenspan.
Progressives repeatedly kneeled before President Clinton marking their submission to the Democrats'
'hard right' policies.
The election of Republican President G. W. Bush (2001-2009) permitted Progressive's to temporarily
trot out and burnish their anti-war, anti-Wall Street credentials. Out in the street, they protested
Bush's savage invasion of Iraq (but not the destruction of Afghanistan). They protested the media
reports of torture in Abu Ghraib under Bush, but not the massive bombing and starvation of millions
of Iraqis that had occurred under Clinton. Progressives protested the expulsion of immigrants from
Mexico and Central America, but were silent over the brutal uprooting of refugees resulting from
US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the systematic destruction of their nations' infrastructure.
Progressives embraced Israel's bombing, jailing and torture of Palestinians by voting unanimously
in favor of increasing the annual $3 billion dollar military handouts to the brutal Jewish State.
They supported Israel's bombing and slaughter in Lebanon.
Progressives were in retreat, but retained a muffled voice and inconsequential vote in favor of
peace, justice and civil liberties. They kept a certain distance from the worst of the police state
decrees by the Republican Administration.
Progressives and Obama: From Retreat to Surrender
While Progressives maintained their tepid commitment to civil liberties, and their highly 'leveraged'
hopes for peace in the Middle East, they jumped uncritically into the highly choreographed Democratic
Party campaign for Barack Obama, 'Wall Street's First Black President'.
Progressives had given up their quest to 'realign' the Democratic Party 'from within':
they turned from serious tourism to permanent residency. Progressives provided the foot soldiers
for the election and re-election of the warmongering 'Peace Candidate' Obama. After the election,
Progressives rushed to join the lower echelons of his Administration. Black and white politicos joined
hands in their heroic struggle to erase the last vestiges of the Progressives' historical legacy.
Obama increased the number of Bush-era imperial wars to attacking seven weak nations under American's
'First Black' President's bombardment, while the Progressives ensured that the streets were quiet
and empty.
When Obama provided trillions of dollars of public money to rescue Wall Street and the bankers,
while sacrificing two million poor and middle class mortgage holders, the Progressives only criticized
the bankers who received the bailout, but not Obama's Presidential decision to protect and reward
the mega-swindlers.
Under the Obama regime social inequalities within the United States grew at an unprecedented rate.
The Police State Patriot Act was massively extended to give President Obama the power to order the
assassination of US citizens abroad without judicial process. The Progressives did not resign when
Obama's 'kill orders' extended to the 'mistaken' murder of his target's children and other family
member, as well as unidentified bystanders. The icon carriers still paraded their banner of the
'first black American President' when tens of thousands of black Libyans and immigrant workers
were slaughtered in his regime-change war against President Gadhafi.
Obama surpassed the record of all previous Republican office holders in terms of the massive numbers
of immigrant workers arrested and expelled – 2 million. Progressives applauded the Latino protestors
while supporting the policies of their 'first black President'.
Progressive accepted that multiple wars, Wall Street bailouts and the extended police state were
now the price they would pay to remain part of the "Democratic coalition' (sic).
The deeper the Progressives swilled at the Democratic Party trough, the more they embraced the
Obama's free market agenda and the more they ignored the increasing impoverishment, exploitation
and medical industry-led opioid addiction of American workers that was shortening their lives. Under
Obama, the Progressives totally abandoned the historic American working class, accepting their degradation
into what Madam Hillary Clinton curtly dismissed as the 'deplorables'.
With the Obama Presidency, the Progressive retreat turned into a rout, surrendering with one flaccid
caveat: the Democratic Party 'Socialist' Bernie Sanders, who had voted 90% of the time with the Corporate
Party, had revived a bastardized military-welfare state agenda.
Sander's Progressive demagogy shouted and rasped on the campaign trail, beguiling the young electorate.
The 'Bernie' eventually 'sheep-dogged' his supporters into the pro-war Democratic Party corral.
Sanders revived an illusion of the pre-1990 progressive agenda, promising resistance while demanding
voter submission to Wall Street warlord Hillary Clinton. After Sanders' round up of the motley progressive
herd, he staked them tightly to the far-right Wall Street war mongering Hillary Clinton. The Progressives
not only embraced Madame Secretary Clinton's nuclear option and virulent anti-working class agenda,
they embellished it by focusing on Republican billionaire Trump's demagogic, nationalist, working
class rhetoric which was designed to agitate 'the deplorables'. They even turned on the working
class voters, dismissing them as 'irredeemable' racists and illiterates or 'white trash' when
they turned to support Trump in massive numbers in the 'fly-over' states of the central US.
Progressives, allied with the police state, the mass media and the war machine worked to defeat
and impeach Trump. Progressives surrendered completely to the Democratic Party and started to advocate
its far right agenda. Hysterical McCarthyism against anyone who questioned the Democrats' promotion
of war with Russia, mass media lies and manipulation of street protest against Republican elected
officials became the centerpieces of the Progressive agenda. The working class and farmers had disappeared
from their bastardized 'identity-centered' ideology.
Guilt by association spread throughout Progressive politics. Progressives embraced J. Edgar Hoover's
FBI tactics: "Have you ever met or talked to any Russian official or relative of any Russian
banker, or any Russian or even read Gogol, now or in the past?" For progressives, 'Russia-gate'
defined the real focus of contemporary political struggle in this huge, complex, nuclear-armed superpower.
Progressives joined the FBI/CIA's 'Russian Bear' conspiracy: "Russia intervened and decided
the Presidential election" – no matter that millions of workers and rural Americans had voted
against Hillary Clinton, Wall Street's candidate and no matter that no evidence of direct interference
was ever presented. Progressives could not accept that 'their constituents', the masses, had rejected
Madame Clinton and preferred 'the Donald'. They attacked a shifty-eyed caricature of the repeatedly
elected Russian President Putin as a subterfuge for attacking the disobedient 'white trash' electorate
of 'Deploralandia'.
Progressive demagogues embraced the coifed and manicured former 'Director Comey' of the FBI,
and the Mr. Potato-headed Capo of the CIA and their forty thugs in making accusations without finger
or footprints.
The Progressives' far right - turn earned them hours and space on the mass media as long
as they breathlessly savaged and insulted President Trump and his family members. When they managed
to provoke him into a blind rage . . . they added the newly invented charge of 'psychologically
unfit to lead' – presenting cheap psychobabble as grounds for impeachment. Finally! American
Progressives were on their way to achieving their first and only political transformation: a Presidential
coup d'état on behalf of the Far Right!
Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as appeasement
and betrayal!
In return, President Trump began to 'out-militarize' the Progressives by escalating US involvement
in the Middle East and South China Sea. They swooned with joy when Trump ordered a missile strike
against the Syrian government as Damascus engaged in a life and death struggle against mercenary
terrorists. They dubbed the petulant release of Patriot missiles 'Presidential'.
Then Progressives turned increasingly Orwellian: Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over
2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump for promising to eventually expel 5 million
more!
Progressives, under Obama, supported seven brutal illegal wars and pressed for more, but complained
when Trump continued the same wars and proposed adding a few new ones. At the same time, progressives
out-militarized Trump by accusing him of being 'weak' on Russia, Iran, North Korea and China. They
chided him for his lack support for Israel's suppression of the Palestinians. They lauded Trump's
embrace of the Saudi war against Yemen as a stepping-stone for an assault against Iran, even as millions
of destitute Yemenis were exposed to cholera. The Progressives had finally embraced a biological
weapon of mass destruction, when US-supplied missiles destroyed the water systems of Yemen!
Conclusion
Progressives turned full circle from supporting welfare to embracing Wall Street; from preaching
peaceful co-existence to demanding a dozen wars; from recognizing the humanity and rights of undocumented
immigrants to their expulsion under their 'First Black' President; from thoughtful mass media critics
to servile media megaphones; from defenders of civil liberties to boosters for the police state;
from staunch opponents of J. Edgar Hoover and his 'dirty tricks' to camp followers for the 'intelligence
community' in its deep state campaign to overturn a national election.
Progressives moved from fighting and resisting the Right to submitting and retreating; from retreating
to surrendering and finally embracing the far right.
Doing all that and more within the Democratic Party, Progressives retain and deepen their ties
with the mass media, the security apparatus and the military machine, while occasionally digging
up some Bernie Sanders-type demagogue to arouse an army of voters away from effective resistance
to mindless collaboration.
But in the end, they always voted for Democratic Party Presidential candidates who pursued
the exact opposite agenda.
Thank you for putting your finger on the main problem right there in the first paragraph.
There were exceptions of course. I supported Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Primary that gave
us the first black etc. But I never voted for Obama. Throughout the Cheney Admin I pleaded with
progressives to bolt the party.
This piece accurately traces the path from Progressive to Maoist. It's a pity the Republican
Party is also a piece of shit. I think it was Sara Palin who said "We have two parties. Pick one."
This should be our collective epitaph.
This is an excellent summary of the evolution of "progressives" into modern militarist
fascists who tolerate identity politics diversity. There is little to add to Mr. Petras' commentary.
"Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as
appeasement and betrayal!"
Perhaps the spirit of Senator Joseph McCarthy is joyously gloating as progressives (and democrats)
take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House UnAmerican
Activities Committee.
The great Jimmy Dore is a big thorn for the Democrats. From my blog:
Apr 29, 2017 – Obama is Scum!
Barak Obama is America's biggest con man who accomplished nothing "progressive" during
eight years at the top, and didn't even try. (Obamacare is an insurance industry idea supported
by most Republicans, which is why it recently survived.) Anyone who still likes Obama should read
about his actions since he left office. Obama quickly signed a $65 million "book deal", which
can only be a kickback since there is no way the publisher can sell enough books about his meaningless
presidency to justify that sum. Obama doesn't get royalties based on sales, but gets the money
up front for a book he has yet to write, and will have someone do that for him. (Book deals and
speaking fees are legal forms of bribery in the USA.)
Then Obama embarked on 100 days of ultra expensive foreign vacations with taxpayers covering
the Secret Service protection costs. He didn't appear at charity fundraisers, didn't campaign
for Democrats, and didn't help build homes for the poor like Jimmy Carter. He returns from vacation
this week and his first speech will be at a Wall Street firm that will pay him $400,000, then
he travels to Europe for more paid speeches.
Obama gets over $200,000 a year in retirement, just got a $65 million deal, so doesn't need
more money. Why would a multi-millionaire ex-president fly around the globe collecting huge speaking
fees from world corporations just after his political party was devastated in elections because
Americans think the Democratic party represents Wall Street? The great Jimmy Dore expressed his
outrage at Obama and the corrupt Democratic party in this great video.
Left in the good old days meant socialist, socialist meant that governments had the duty of
redistributing income from rich to poor. Alas in Europe, after 'socialists' became pro EU and
pro globalisation, they in fact became neoliberal. Both in France and the Netherlands 'socialist'
parties virtually disappeared.
So what nowadays is left, does anyone know ?
Then the word 'progressive'. The word suggests improvement, but what is improvement, improvement
for whom ? There are those who see the possibility for euthanasia as an improvement, there are
thos who see euthanasia as a great sin.
Discussions about left and progressive are meaningless without properly defining the concepts.
They chose power over principles. Nobel War Prize winner Obomber was a particularly egregious
chameleon, hiding his sociopathy through two elections before unleashing his racist warmongering
in full flower throughout his second term. But, hey, the brother now has five mansions, collects
half a mill per speech to the Chosen People on Wall Street, and parties for months at a time at
exclusive resorts for billionaires only.
Obviously, he's got the world by the tail and you don't. Hope he comes to the same end as Gaddaffi
and Ceaușescu. Maybe the survivors of nuclear Armageddon can hold a double necktie party with
Killary as the second honored guest that day.
Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson embodied the dual policies of promoting peace at home
and bloody imperial wars overseas.
You left out the other Roosevelt.
Like a huge collective 'Monica Lewinsky' robot, the Progressives in the Democratic Party
bent over and swallowed Clinton's vicious 1999 savaging of the venerable Glass Steagall Act
Hilarious!
Ignoring Obama's actual expulsion of over 2 million immigrant workers, they condemned Trump
for promising to eventually expel 5 million more!
so it's not just conservative conspiracy theory stuff as some might argue.
Still, the overall point of this essay isn't affected all that much. Open borders is still
a "right wing" (in the sense this author uses the term) policy–pro-Wall Street, pro-Big Business.
So Obama was still doing the bidding of the donor class in their quest for cheap labor.
I've seen pro-immigration types try to use the Obama-deportation thing to argue that we don't
need more hardcore policies. After all, even the progressive Democrat Obama was on the ball when
it came to policing our borders, right?! Who needed Trump?
@Carlton Meyer If Jimmy keeps up these attacks on Wall Street, the Banksters, and rent-seekers
he is going to get run out of the Progressive movement for dog-whistling virulent Anti-Semitism.
Look at how the media screams at Trump every time he mentions Wall Street and the banks.
Mr. Petra has penned an excellent and very astute piece. Allow me a little satire on our progressive
friends, entitled "The path to hell is paved with good intentions".
The early socialist/progressive travellers were well-intentioned but naïve in their understanding
of human nature and fanatical about their agenda. To move the human herd forward, they had no
compulsions about resorting to harsher and harsher prodding and whipping. They felt entitled to
employ these means because, so they were convinced, man has to be pushed to move forward and they,
the "progressives", were the best qualified to lead the herd. Scoundrels, psychopaths, moral defectives,
and sundry other rascals then joined in the whipping game, some out of the sheer joy of wielding
the whip, others to better line their pockets.
So the "progressive" journey degenerates into a forced march. The march becomes the progress,
becoming both the means and the end at the same time. Look at the so-called "progressive" today
and you will see the fanatic and the whip-wielder, steadfast about the correctness of his beliefs.
Tell him/her/it that you are a man or a woman and he retorts "No, you are free to choose, you
are genderless". What if you decline such freedom? "Well, then you are a bigot, we will thrash
you out of your bigotry", replies the progressive. "May I, dear Sir/Madam/Whatever, keep my hard-earned
money in my pocket for my and my family's use" you ask. "No, you first have to pay for our peace-making
wars, then pay for the upkeep of refugees, besides which you owe a lot of back taxes that are
necessary to run this wonderful Big Government of ours that is leading you towards greener and
greener pastures", shouts back the progressive.
Fed up, disgusted, and a little scared, you desperately seek a way out of this progress. "No
way", scream the march leaders. "We will be forever in your ears, sometimes whispering, sometimes
screaming; we will take over your brain to improve your mind; we will saturate you with images
on the box 24/7 and employ all sorts of imagery to make you progress. And if it all fails, we
will simply pack you and others like you in a basket of deplorables and forget about you at election
time."
Knowing who is "progressive" and know who is "far-right" is like knowing who is "fascist" and
who is not. For obvious historical reasons, the Russian like to throw the "fascist" slogan against
anyone who is a non-Russian nationalist. However, I accept the eminent historian Carroll Quigley's
definition of fascism as the incorporation of society and the state onto single entity on a permanent
war footing. The state controls everything in a radically authoritarian social structure. As Quigley
states, the Soviet Union was the most complete embodiment of fascism in WWII. In WWII Germany,
on the other hand, industry retained its independence and in WWII Italy fascism was no more than
an empty slogan.
Same for "progressives". Everyone wants to be "progressive", right? Who wants to be "anti-progressive"?
However, at the end of the day, "progressive" through verbal slights of hand has been nothing
more than a euphemism for "socialist" or, in the extreme, "communist" the verbal slight-of-hand
because we don't tend to use the latter terms in American political discourse.
"Progressives" morphing into a new "far-right" in America is no more mysterious than the Soviet
Union morphing from Leninism to Stalinism or, the Jewish (Trotskyite) globalists fleeing Stalinist
nationalism and then morphing into, first, "Scoop" Jackson Democrats and then into Bushite Republicans.
As you might notice, the real issue is the authoritarian vs. the non-authoritarian state. In
this context, an authoritarian government and social order (as in communism and neoconservatism)
are practical pre-requisites necessity to force humanity to transition to their New World Order.
Again, the defining characteristic of fascism is the unitary state enforced via an authoritarian
political and social structure. Ideological rigor is enforced via the police powers of the state
along with judicial activism and political correctness. Ring a bell?
In the ongoing contest between Trump and the remnants of the American "progressive" movement,
who are the populists and who the authoritarians? Who are the democrats and who are the fascists?
I would say that who lands where in this dichotomy is obvious.
@Alfa158 Is Jimmy Dore really a "Progressive?" (and what does that mean, anyway?) Isn't Jimmy's
show hosted by the Young Turks Network, which is unabashedly Libertarian?
Anyway, what's so great about "the Progressive movement?" Seems to me, they're just pathetic
sheepdogs for the war-crazed Dems. Jimmy should be supporting the #UNRIG movement ("Beyond Trump
& Sanders") for ALL Americans:
On 1 May 2017 Cynthia McKinney, Ellen Brown, and Robert Steele launched
Petras, for some reason, low balls the number of people ejected from assets when the mafia
came to seize real estate in the name of the ruling class and their expensive wars, morality,
the Constitution or whatever shit they could make up to fuck huge numbers of people over. Undoubtedly
just like 9/11, the whole thing was planned in advance. Political whores are clearly useless when
the system is at such extremes.
Banks like Capital One specialize in getting a signature and "giving" a car loan to someone
they know won't be able to pay, but is simply being used, shaken down and repossessed for corporate
gain. " No one held a gun to their head! " Get ready, the police state will in fact put a gun
to your head.
Depending on the time period in question, which might be the case here, more than 20 million
people were put out of homes and/or bankrupted with more to come. Clearly a bipartisan effort
featuring widespread criminal conduct across the country – an attack on the population to sustain
militarism.
If I may add:
"and you also have to dearly pay for you being white male heterosexual for oppressing all colored,
all the women and all the sexually different through the history".
"And if it all fails, we will simply pack you and others like you in a basket of deplorables
and forget about you at election time. If we see that you still don't get with the program we
will reeducate you. Should you resist that in any way we'll incarcerate you. And, no, normal legal
procedure does not work with racists/bigots/haters/whatever we don't like".
"Progressives loudly condemned Trump's overtures for peace with Russia, denouncing it as appeasement
and betrayal!"
Perhaps the spirit of Senator Joseph McCarthy is joyously gloating as progressives (and democrats)
take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House UnAmerican
Activities Committee.
take their place as his heirs and successors and the 21st century incarnation of the House
UnAmerican Activities Committee
which itself was a progressive invention. There was no "right wing" anywhere in sight when
it was estsblished in 1938.
"... The reasoning was simple and is not hard to understand: Carthago delenda est. ..."
"... In a way McCain can be viewed now as a caricature of the Roman senator Cato the Elder, who is said to have used it as the conclusion to all his speeches. ..."
Your discussion just again had shown that there is no economics, only a political economy.
And all those neoliberal perversions, which are sold as an economic science is just an apologetics
for the financial oligarchy.
Apologetics of plunder in this particular case.
In a way the USSR with its discredited communist ideology, degenerated Bolshevik leadership
(just look at who was at the Politburo of CPSU at the time; people much lower in abilities then
Trump :-) and inept and politically naïve Mikhail Gorbachev at the helm had chosen the most inopportune
time to collapse :-)
And neoliberal vultures instantly circled the corpse and have had a feast. Geopolitical goals
of the USA also played important role in amplifying the scope of plunder.
No comparison of performance of Russia vs. China makes any sense if it ignores this fact.
While I would argue with the economic advice given the Russian government after 1988, I am simply
trying to understand the reasoning behind the advice, no more than that.
The reasoning was simple and is not hard to understand: Carthago delenda est.
In a way McCain can be viewed now as a caricature of the Roman senator Cato the Elder,
who is said to have used it as the conclusion to all his speeches.
History repeats "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce."
"... If America were a free and democratic country, with a free press and independent publishing houses (and assuming, of course, that Americans were a literate people), Williamson's book would topple the Clinton regime, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the rest of the criminal cabal that inhabits the world of modern corporate statism faster than you could say "Jonathan Hay." ..."
"... Hay, for those who need an introduction to the international financial buccaneers who control our lives, was the general director of the Harvard Institute of International Development (HIID) in Moscow (1992-1997), who facilitated the crippling of the Russian economy and the plundering of its industrial and manufacturing infrastructure with a strategy concocted by Larry Summers, Andre Schliefer (HIID's Cambridge-based manager), Jeffrey Sachs and his Swedish sidekick Anders Aslund, and a host of private players from banks and investment houses in Boston and New York - a plan approved and assisted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. ..."
"... These third-generation Bolsheviks - led by former Pravda hack Yegor Gaidar, grandson of a Bolshevik who achieved prominence as the teenage mass murderer of White Army officers, now heads the Moscow-based Institute for Economies in Transition - became instant millionaires (or billionaires) and left the Russian workers virtual slaves of them and their new foreign investors. ..."
"... Ironically, when Harvard's Sachs and Hay started identifying Russians they could work with, they ignored - or shunned - the most capable talent at hand: those numerous Russian economists who for 20 years had been studying the Swiss economist Wilhelm von Roepke and his disciple, Ludwig Erhard, father of Germany's "economic miracle" in anticipation of the day when Communism would collapse. Somewhat sardonically, Williamson notes that one, probably unintended, benefit of Gorbachev's perestroika was the recruitment of these Russian economists by top U.S. universities. ..."
"... On another level, Contagion is about the workings of international finance, the consolidation of capital into fewer and fewer hands, and the ruthless, death-dealing policies it inflicts on its target countries through currency manipulation, inflation, depression, taxation and war - with emphasis on Russia but with attention also given to Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia, the Balkans, and other countries, and how it uses its control over money to produce social chaos. ..."
"... Those who read Williamson's book will find particularly interesting her treatment of the Federal Reserve, and how this "bank" was designed to plunder the wealth of America through war, debt, and taxation, in order to maintain what is nothing more nor less than a giant pyramid scheme that depends on domination of the earth and its resources. ..."
"... The policies inflicted on Russia by the banks were cruel to the Nth degree; but the policy implementers - Williamson employs the derogatory Russian word m yakigolovy ("soft-headed ones") applied to the Americans - were a foppish lot, streaming into Russia by the thousands (the IMF, alone, with 150 staffers) with their outrageous salaries and per diem allowances, renting out the finest dachas, bringing in their exotic consumer goods, driving up prices for goods and rents, spurring a boom in the drug and prostitution businesses, and then watching, cold-heartedly, the declining fortunes of their hosts as they lost everything - including the artistic heritage of the country. ..."
"... Gore, who was raised to be President, has impeccable Russian connections. His father, of course, was Lenin financier Armand Hammer's pocket senator, and it was Hammer who paid for Al Jr.'s expensive St. Alban's Prep schooling; and, as Williamson reports, Al Jr.'s daughter married Andrew Schiff, grandson of Jacob, who, as a member of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., underwrote anti-czarist political agitation for two decades before Lenin's coup, and congratulated Lenin upon his successful revolution. ..."
"... By March 1999, Russia was now a financial basket case, and billions, if not tens of billions of U.S. taxpayer-backed loans had vanished into the secret bank accounts of both Russian and American gangster capitalists, and the news was starting to make little vibrations on Capitol Hill. "The U.S. administration's response to the debacle was repulsively similar to a typical Bill Clinton bimbo-eruption operation: Having ruined Russia by cosseting her in debt, meddling ignorantly in her internal affairs, and funding a drunken usurper, his agents denied all error and slandered ('slimed') her," writes Williamson. ..."
"... The cost to the American taxpayers of Clinton regime bailouts in a three-and-a-half-year period, Williamson notes, is more than $180 billion! The "new financial architecture" Clinton has erected, she writes, "isn't new at all, but rather something the international public lenders have been wanting for decades, i.e., an automatic bailout for their own bad practices." ..."
"... As the extent of the corruption of the Clinton-Yeltsin "reform" plan for Russia unfolded last year, with the attendant Bank of New York scandal, the mysterious death of super banker Edmond Safra in his Monte Carlo penthouse, the collapse of the Russian stock market, and the whiplash effect in Southeast Asia, Congress was pressed to hold hearings. ..."
"... What resulted, as Williamson accurately narrates it, was just a smoke screen, show hearings that barely rose above the seriousness of a Gilbert and Sullivan farce - though they did result in proposed new domestic banking laws that, if passed, will effectively make banks another federal police force responsible for reporting to the U.S. government the most minute financial transactions of U.S. citizens. ..."
"... In this regard, it is instructive to quote Williamson at length: "If the FBI, [Manhattan District Attorney] Robert Morgenthau, or Congress were serious about getting to the bottom of the plundering of Russia's assets and U.S. taxpayers' resources, they would show far more professional interest in exactly what was said and agreed in the private meetings [U.S. Treasury secretary] Larry Summers, Strobe Talbott, and [former Treasury Secretary] Robert Rubin conducted with Anatoly Chubais [former Russian finance minister, who oversaw the distribution and sale of Russian industries], and Sergie Vasiliev [Yeltsin's principal legal adviser, and a member of the Chubais clan], and later Chubais again in June and July of 1998. ..."
"... And why did Michel Camdessus [who left the presidency of the IMF earlier this year] announce his sudden retirement so soon after Moscow newspapers reported that a $200,000 payment was made to him from a secret Kremlin bank account? . . . ..."
"... You see, as this book explains, the Clinton's Russia policy did not just plunder Russians, leaving them destitute while creating a new and ruthless class of international capitalist gangsters at U.S. taxpayer expense; it had the double consequence of bringing all Americans deeper into the bankers' New World Order by increasing their debt load, decreasing their privacy, and restricting their civil rights. If only Americans cared. ..."
After 1991 Eastern Europe and FSU were mercilessly looted. That was tremendous one time transfer
of capital (and scientists and engineers) to Western Europe and the USA. Which helped to secure
"Clinton prosperity period"
China were not plundered by the West. Russia and Eastern Europe were. That's the key difference.
For Russia this period was called by Anne Williamson in her testimony before the Committee
on Banking and Financial Services of the United States House of Representatives "The economic
rape of Russia"
How Clinton & Company & The Bankers Plundered Russia by Paul Likoudis
May 4, 2000
The other day I was surprised to learn that Jeffrey Sachs, the creator of "shock therapy"
capitalism, who participated in the looting of Russia in the 1990s, is now NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo's
top adviser for health care. So we in NY will get shock therapy, much as the Russians did two
decades ago. Here is a story I wrote for The Wanderer in 2000:
===
How Clinton & Company & The Bankers Plundered Russia
by Paul Likoudis
In an ordinary election year, Anne Williamson's Contagion would be political dynamite, a
bombshell, a block-buster, a regime breaker.
If America were a free and democratic country, with a free press and independent publishing
houses (and assuming, of course, that Americans were a literate people), Williamson's book
would topple the Clinton regime, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the rest
of the criminal cabal that inhabits the world of modern corporate statism faster than you could
say "Jonathan Hay."
Hay, for those who need an introduction to the international financial buccaneers who
control our lives, was the general director of the Harvard Institute of International Development
(HIID) in Moscow (1992-1997), who facilitated the crippling of the Russian economy and the
plundering of its industrial and manufacturing infrastructure with a strategy concocted by
Larry Summers, Andre Schliefer (HIID's Cambridge-based manager), Jeffrey Sachs and his Swedish
sidekick Anders Aslund, and a host of private players from banks and investment houses in Boston
and New York - a plan approved and assisted by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Contagion can be read on many different levels.
At its simplest, it is a breezy, slightly cynical, highly entertaining narrative of Russian
history from the last months of Gorbachev's rule to April 2000 - a period which saw Russia
transformed from a decaying socialist economy (which despite its shortcomings, provided a modest
standard of living to its citizens) to a "managed economy" where home-grown gangsters and socialist
theoreticians from the West, like Hay and his fellow Harvardian Jeffrey Sachs, delivered 2,500%
inflation and indescribable poverty, and transferred the ownership of Russian industry to Western
financiers.
Williamson was an eyewitness who lived on and off in Russia for more than ten years, where
she reported on all things Russian for The New York Times, Th e Wall Street Journal, and a
host of other equally reputable publications. She knew and interviewed just about everybody
involved in this gargantuan plundering scheme: Russian politicians and businessmen, the new
"gangster" capitalists and their American sponsors from the IMF, the World Bank, USAID, Credit
Suisse First Boston, the CIA, the KGB - all in all, hundreds of sources who spoke candidly,
often ruthlessly, of their parts in this terrible human drama.
Her account is filled with quotations from interviews with top aides of Yeltsin and Clinton,
all down through the ranks of the two hierarchical societies to the proliferating mass of Russian
destitute, pornographers, pimps, drug dealers, and prostitutes. Some of the principal characters,
of course, refused to talk to Williamson, such as Bill Clinton's longtime friend from Oxford,
Strobe Talbott, now a deputy secretary of state and, Williamson suspects, a onetime KGB operative
whose claim to fame is a deceitful translation of the Khrushchev Memoirs. (A KGB colonel refused
to confirm or deny to Williamson that Clinton and Talbott visited North Vietnam together in
1971 - though he did confirm their contacts with the KGB for their protests against the U.S.
war in Vietnam in Moscow. See especially footnote 1, page 210.)
The 546-page book (the best part of which is the footnotes) gives a nearly day-by-day report
on what happened to Russia; left unstated, but implied on every page, is the assumption that
those in the United States who think what happened in Russia "can't happen here" better realize
it can happen here.
Once the Clinton regime and its lapdogs in the media defined Russian thug Boris Yeltsin
as a "democrat," the wholesale looting of Russia began. According to the socialist theoreticians
at Harvard, Russia needed to be brought into the New World Order in a hurry; and what better
way to do it than Sachs' "shock therapy" - a plan that empowered the degenerate, third-generation
descendants of the original Bolsheviks by assigning them the deeds of Russia's mightiest state-owned
industries - including the giant gas, oil, electrical, and telecommunications industries, the
world's largest paper, iron, and steel factories, the world's richest gold, silver, diamond,
and platinum mines, automobile and airplane factories, etc. - who, in turn, sold some of their
shares of the properties to Westerners for a song, and pocketed the cash, while retaining control
of the companies.
These third-generation Bolsheviks - led by former Pravda hack Yegor Gaidar, grandson
of a Bolshevik who achieved prominence as the teenage mass murderer of White Army officers,
now heads the Moscow-based Institute for Economies in Transition - became instant millionaires
(or billionaires) and left the Russian workers virtual slaves of them and their new foreign
investors.
When Russian members of the Supreme Soviet openly criticized the looting of the national
patrimony by these new gangsters early in the U.S.-driven "reform" program, in 1993, before
all Soviet institutions were destroyed, Yeltsin bombed Parliament.
Ironically, when Harvard's Sachs and Hay started identifying Russians they could work
with, they ignored - or shunned - the most capable talent at hand: those numerous Russian economists
who for 20 years had been studying the Swiss economist Wilhelm von Roepke and his disciple,
Ludwig Erhard, father of Germany's "economic miracle" in anticipation of the day when Communism
would collapse. Somewhat sardonically, Williamson notes that one, probably unintended, benefit
of Gorbachev's perestroika was the recruitment of these Russian economists by top U.S. universities.
In the new, emerging global economy, it's clear that Russia is the designated center for
heavy manufacturing - just as Asia is for clothing and computers - with its nearly unlimited
supply of hydroelectric power, iron and steel, timber, gold and other precious metals.
This helps explain why America's political elites don't give a fig about the closing down
of American industries and mines. As Williamson observes, Russia is viewed as some kind of
"closet."
What is important for Western readers to understand - as Williamson reports - is that when
Western banks and corporations bought these companies at bargain basement prices, they bought
more than just industrial equipment. In the Soviet model, every unit of industrial production
included workers' housing, churches, opera houses, schools, hospitals, supermarkets, etc.,
and the whole kit-and-caboodle was included in the selling price. By buying large shares of
these companies, Western corporations became, ipso facto, town managers.
Another Level
On another level, Contagion is about the workings of international finance, the consolidation
of capital into fewer and fewer hands, and the ruthless, death-dealing policies it inflicts
on its target countries through currency manipulation, inflation, depression, taxation and
war - with emphasis on Russia but with attention also given to Mexico, Thailand, Indonesia,
the Balkans, and other countries, and how it uses its control over money to produce social
chaos.
Those who read Williamson's book will find particularly interesting her treatment of
the Federal Reserve, and how this "bank" was designed to plunder the wealth of America through
war, debt, and taxation, in order to maintain what is nothing more nor less than a giant pyramid
scheme that depends on domination of the earth and its resources.
Williamson is of that small but noble school of economics writers who believe that the academic
field of economics is not some esoteric science that can only be comprehended by those with
IQs in four digits, and she - drawing on such writers as Hayek and von Mises, Roepke and the
late American Murray Rothbard - explains in layman's vocabulary the nuts and bolts of sound
economic principles and the real-world effects of the Fed's policies on hapless Americans.
Contagion also serves up a severe indictment of the World Bank, the International Monetary
Fund, and the other international "lending" agencies spawned by the Council on Foreign Relations
and similar "councils" and "commissions" which are fronts for the big banks run by the Houses
of Rockefeller, Morgan, Warburg, et al.
The policies inflicted on Russia by the banks were cruel to the Nth degree; but the
policy implementers - Williamson employs the derogatory Russian word m yakigolovy ("soft-headed
ones") applied to the Americans - were a foppish lot, streaming into Russia by the thousands
(the IMF, alone, with 150 staffers) with their outrageous salaries and per diem allowances,
renting out the finest dachas, bringing in their exotic consumer goods, driving up prices for
goods and rents, spurring a boom in the drug and prostitution businesses, and then watching,
cold-heartedly, the declining fortunes of their hosts as they lost everything - including the
artistic heritage of the country.
Williamson describes brilliantly that heady atmosphere in Moscow in the early days of the
IMF/USAID loan-scamming: a 24-hour party. There were bars like the Canadian-operated Hungry
Duck, which lured Russian teenage girls into its bar with a male striptease and free drinks,
"who, once thoroughly intoxicated, were then exposed to crowds of anxious young men the club
admitted only late in the evening."
The Third Level
At a third and more intriguing level, Contagion is about America's criminal politics in
the Clinton regime, and, inevitably, the reader will put Williamson's book down with the sense
that Al Gore will be the next occupier of the White House.
Gore, who was raised to be President, has impeccable Russian connections. His father,
of course, was Lenin financier Armand Hammer's pocket senator, and it was Hammer who paid for
Al Jr.'s expensive St. Alban's Prep schooling; and, as Williamson reports, Al Jr.'s daughter
married Andrew Schiff, grandson of Jacob, who, as a member of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., underwrote
anti-czarist political agitation for two decades before Lenin's coup, and congratulated Lenin
upon his successful revolution.
Williamson also documents Gore's intimate involvement with powerful Wall Street financial
houses, and his New York breakfast meeting with multibillionaire George Soros (a key Russian
player) just as the Russian collapse was underway.
Williamson tells an interesting story of Gore's response to the IMF/World Bank/USAID plunder
of U.S. taxpayers for the purpose of hobbling Russia.
By March 1999, Russia was now a financial basket case, and billions, if not tens of
billions of U.S. taxpayer-backed loans had vanished into the secret bank accounts of both Russian
and American gangster capitalists, and the news was starting to make little vibrations on Capitol
Hill. "The U.S. administration's response to the debacle was repulsively similar to a typical
Bill Clinton bimbo-eruption operation: Having ruined Russia by cosseting her in debt, meddling
ignorantly in her internal affairs, and funding a drunken usurper, his agents denied all error
and slandered ('slimed') her," writes Williamson.
"Pundits and academics joined government officials in bemoaning Mother Russia's thieving
ways, her bottomless corruption and constant chaos, all the while wringing their soft hands
with a schoolmarm's exasperation. Russia's self-appointed democracy coach Strobe Talbott ('Pro-Consul
Strobe' to the Russians) would get it right. An equally sanctimonious Albert Gore - the same
Al Gore who'd been so quick to return the CIA's 1995 report detailing Viktor Chernomyrdin's
and Anatoly Chubais' personal corruption with the single word 'Bullshit' scrawled across it
- took the low road and sniffed that the Russians would just have to get their own economic
house in order and cut their own deal with the IMF. . . ."
The cost to the American taxpayers of Clinton regime bailouts in a three-and-a-half-year
period, Williamson notes, is more than $180 billion! The "new financial architecture" Clinton
has erected, she writes, "isn't new at all, but rather something the international public lenders
have been wanting for decades, i.e., an automatic bailout for their own bad practices."
As the extent of the corruption of the Clinton-Yeltsin "reform" plan for Russia unfolded
last year, with the attendant Bank of New York scandal, the mysterious death of super banker
Edmond Safra in his Monte Carlo penthouse, the collapse of the Russian stock market, and the
whiplash effect in Southeast Asia, Congress was pressed to hold hearings.
What resulted, as Williamson accurately narrates it, was just a smoke screen, show hearings
that barely rose above the seriousness of a Gilbert and Sullivan farce - though they did result
in proposed new domestic banking laws that, if passed, will effectively make banks another
federal police force responsible for reporting to the U.S. government the most minute financial
transactions of U.S. citizens.
Double Effect
In this regard, it is instructive to quote Williamson at length: "If the FBI, [Manhattan
District Attorney] Robert Morgenthau, or Congress were serious about getting to the bottom
of the plundering of Russia's assets and U.S. taxpayers' resources, they would show far more
professional interest in exactly what was said and agreed in the private meetings [U.S. Treasury
secretary] Larry Summers, Strobe Talbott, and [former Treasury Secretary] Robert Rubin conducted
with Anatoly Chubais [former Russian finance minister, who oversaw the distribution and sale
of Russian industries], and Sergie Vasiliev [Yeltsin's principal legal adviser, and a member
of the Chubais clan], and later Chubais again in June and July of 1998.
"Instead of allowing Larry Summers to ramble casually in response to questions at a banking
committee hearing, the Treasury secretary should be asked exactly who suckered him - his Russian
friends, his own boss [former Harvard associate Robert Rubin, his boss at Treasury who was
once cochairman at Goldman Sachs], or private sector counterparts of the Working Committee
on Financial Markets [a White House group whose membership is drawn from the country's main
financial and market institutions: the Fed, Treasury, SEC, and the Commodities & Trading Commission].
. . . Or did he just bungle the entire matter on account of wishful thinking? Or was it gross
incompetence?
"The FBI and Congress ought to be very interested in establishing for taxpayers the truth
of any alleged 'national security' issues that justified allowing the Harvard Institute of
International Development to privatize U.S. bilateral assistance. It too should be their brief
to discover the relationship between the [Swedish wheeler-dealer and crony of Sachs, Anders]
Aslund/Carnegie crowd and Treasury and exactly what influence that relationship may have had
on the awarding of additional grants to Harvard without competition. On what basis did Team
Clinton direct their financial donor, American International Group's (AIG) Maurice Greenberg
(a man nearly as ubiquitous as any Russian oligarch in sweetheart public-funding deals), to
Brunswick Brokerage when sniffing out a $300 million OPIC guarantee for a Russian investment
fund. . . .
And why did Michel Camdessus [who left the presidency of the IMF earlier this year]
announce his sudden retirement so soon after Moscow newspapers reported that a $200,000 payment
was made to him from a secret Kremlin bank account? . . .
"American and Russian citizens can never be allowed to learn what really happened to the
billions lent to Yeltsin's government; it would expose the unsavory and self-interested side
of our political, financial, and media elites. . . . Instead, the [House] Banking Committee
hearings will use the smoke screen of policing foreign assistance flows to pass legislation
that will effectively end U.S. citizens' financial privacy while making them prisoners of their
citizenship. . . . The Banking Committee will use the opportunity the Russian dirty money scandal
presents to reanimate the domestic 'Know Your Customer' program, which charges domestic banks
with monitoring and reporting on the financial transactions in which middle-class Americans
engage. This data is collected and used by various government agencies, including the IRS;
meaning that if a citizen sells the family's beat-up station wagon or their 'starter' home,
the taxman is alerted immediately that the citizen's filing should reflect the greater tax
obligation in that year of the sale. . . . Other data on citizens for which the government
has long thirsted will also be collected by government's newest police force, the banks. .
. ."
You see, as this book explains, the Clinton's Russia policy did not just plunder Russians,
leaving them destitute while creating a new and ruthless class of international capitalist
gangsters at U.S. taxpayer expense; it had the double consequence of bringing all Americans
deeper into the bankers' New World Order by increasing their debt load, decreasing their privacy,
and restricting their civil rights. If only Americans cared.
October 18, 1994 Remarks on the Nuclear Agreement With North Korea William J. Clinton
Good afternoon. I am pleased that the United States and North Korea yesterday reached agreement on the text of a framework
document on North Korea's nuclear program.
"... First. Robert Rubin was a main architect of the high dollar policy that led to the explosion of the trade deficit in the last decade. This led to the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs and decimating communities across the Midwest. Second, Rubin was a major advocate of financial deregulation during his years in the Clinton administration. Finally, Rubin was a direct beneficiary of deregulation, since he left the administration to take a top job at Citigroup. He made over $100 million in this position before he resigned in the financial crisis when bad loans had essentially put Citigroup into bankruptcy. (It was saved by government bailouts.) ..."
"... It is important to recognize that the Fed is currently dominated by people with close ties to the financial industry. The Fed Open Market Committee (FOMC) which determines interest rate policy has 19 members. While 7 are governors appointed by the president and approved by Congress (only 4 of the governor seats are currently filled), 12 are presidents of the district banks. These bank presidents are appointed through a process dominated by the banks in the district. (Only 5 of the 12 presidents have a vote at any one time, but all 12 participate in discussions.) ..."
Robert Rubin, Who Made a Fortune on the Housing Bubble, Argues for Preserving Wall Street's Power
Over the Fed
The Federal Reserve Board has more direct control over the economy than any other institution
in the country. When it decides to raise interest rates to slow the economy, it can ensure that millions
of workers don't get jobs and prevent tens of millions more from getting the bargaining power they
need to gain wage increases. For this reason, it is very important who is making the calls on interest
rates and who they are listening to.
Robert Rubin, who served as Treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, weighed in * today
in the New York Times to argue for the status quo. There are a few important background points on
Rubin that are worth mentioning before getting into the substance.
First. Robert Rubin was a main architect of the high dollar policy that led to the explosion of
the trade deficit in the last decade. This led to the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs and
decimating communities across the Midwest. Second, Rubin was a major advocate of financial deregulation
during his years in the Clinton administration. Finally, Rubin was a direct beneficiary of deregulation,
since he left the administration to take a top job at Citigroup. He made over $100 million in this
position before he resigned in the financial crisis when bad loans had essentially put Citigroup
into bankruptcy. (It was saved by government bailouts.)
Rubin touts the current apolitical nature of the Fed. He warns about:
"Efforts to denigrate the integrity of the Fed's work, and to inject groundless opinion, politics
and ideology, must be rejected by the board - and that means governors and other members of the Federal
Open Market Committee must be willing to withstand aggressive attacks."
It is important to recognize that the Fed is currently dominated by people with close ties to
the financial industry. The Fed Open Market Committee (FOMC) which determines interest rate policy
has 19 members. While 7 are governors appointed by the president and approved by Congress (only 4
of the governor seats are currently filled), 12 are presidents of the district banks. These bank
presidents are appointed through a process dominated by the banks in the district. (Only 5 of the
12 presidents have a vote at any one time, but all 12 participate in discussions.)
It seems bizarre to describe this process as apolitical or imply there is great integrity here.
Rubin's claim is particularly ironic in light of the fact that one of the bank presidents was just
forced to resign ** after admitting to leaking confidential information on interest rate policy to
a financial analyst.
There is good reason for the public to be unhappy about the Fed's excessive concern over inflation
*** over the last four decades and inadequate attention to unemployment. This arguably reflects the
interests of the financial industry, which often stands to lose from higher inflation and have little
interest in the level of employment. It is understandable that someone who has made his fortune in
the financial industry would want to protect the status quo with the Fed, but there is little reason
for the rest of us to take him seriously.
Pucker
February 24, 2017 at 9:51
am
#
Apparently, the code words like "pizza", "cheese", "hotdog", "pasta", etc. are
from an FBI list of code words commonly used by pedophiles. These words appear
in the Podesta emails. They're not just found in the Podesta emails.
On page 20, it says that the strongest indicator of a pedophile is a person
who collects child pornography. John Podesta's brother collected sexually
bizarre and sadistic photos of young children.
hmuller
February 24, 2017 at
10:06 am
#
Good point, Pucker. All the pro-Podesta apologists can't explain away the
code language. Especially, disturbing are remarks (I think by owner James
Alefantis) about 4 sick pizzas left over from the last session on sale for
$1000. Be sure and dispose of them properly."
Then there's Laura Silsby
rescued from a Haitian jail by the Clintons after being caught trafficking
in children for prostitution.
Either JHK can't believe that such blatant evil exists in the world or
he's pimping for that well entrenched crowd.
malthuss
February
24, 2017 at 5:01 pm
#
I have pages of Word docs and have listened to too many facts,
Start with
You Tube, Titus Frost, especially hhis talk and
display of sick 'art' on his PIZZA BRAIN –investigated.
Why is Katy Perry and the other bimbo, Miley, wearing Pizza
Costumes?
and,
WHAT IS PIZZAGATE
CHILD SEX SLAVERY
PEDOPHILE RING
BILL CLINTON SEX SCANDAL
BILL CLINTON PEDOPHILIA
BILL CLINTON SEX SLAVE ISLAND
BILL CLINTON ORGY ISLAND
LAURA SILSBY HAITi CHILD TRAFFICKING
MONICA PETERSON
CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING
CLINTON HAITI
THE CLINTON FOUNDATION
JEFFREY EPSTEIN
LOLITA EXPRESS
PEDOPHILE ISLAND
ROGER CLINTON COCAINE
ROGER CLINTON PRESIDENTIAL PARDON
DAN LASATER
DAN LASATER PRESIDENTIAL PARDON
PIZZAGATE EVIDENCE
PIZZAGATE PROOF
PIZZAGATE DOCUMENTARY
END TIMES NEWS REPORT
JAKE MORPHONIOS
JAMES ALEFANTIS
JOHN PODESTA
TONY PODESTA
COMET PING PONG
etc.
Janos Skorenzy
February
24, 2017 at 3:26 pm
#
Most intellectuals hate Conspiracies for two reasons: one good and one
bad. On the good side, there is just too much lunacy and crackpottery
once conjecture and Freud's "primary process" (fantasy) get going. On
the bad side, they hate not having full information or at least a
partial store of consensus information from which to analyze. But Life
is Conspiracy – and sometimes we have to go with what we have. In this
regards, detectives are superior to intellectuals: they do it all the
time. Ditto scientists. It's the inductive process. Once you get
enough you form a hypothesis. Then you test it. That's all we're
asking for in regards to this case. And I think we both agree: what
they would find would bring down the System.
And there are two reasons these people can get away with it: one
because of the number of the Elite who are involved. And second
because people think a priori that it's not possible that such evil
exists or that they could get away with it. Because people think it
can't exist and they couldn't get away it enables them to get away
with it.
Walter B
February
24, 2017 at 7:47 pm
#
The utilization of "Conspiracy theorist" came about after the
common man on the street started waking up to the fact that he was
being screwed by those in power and lied to consistently. Did you
know that during World War II, President Roosevelt, was onboard the
battleship USS Iowa in route to North Africa when it was
"accidently torpedoed" (the fish detonated in the ship's wake and
did not actually impact the ship) by the US destroyer, the William
D. Porter? Well it's the first I am hearing of it so I guess that
these people are pretty good at keeping things quiet when they go
wrong, especially REALLY wrong
I am reading the trilogy of the war by Rick Atkinson, and in the
second book in the series, The Day of Battle, the revelation was
detailed much to my surprise. If our own people can accidently fire
a live torpedo at one of our own battleships, especially the one
that happens to be transporting the standing President of the
United States on it at the time, well there is no telling what
supreme act of incompetence they will pull of next.
Those who rule lie their asses off every damned day and cover up
every damned screw up they create until enough time goes by so that
those that are now in the general public don't give a damn anymore.
You would have to be retarded or on their payroll to believe
otherwise.
"... In any event, it was "intercepts" leaked from deep in the bowels of the CIA to the Washington Post and then amplified in a 24/7 campaign by the War Channel (CNN) that brought General Flynn down. ..."
"... But here's the thing. They were aiming at Donald J. Trump. And for all of his puffed up bluster about being the savviest negotiator on the planet, the Donald walked right into their trap, as we shall amplify momentarily. ..."
"... But let's first make the essence of the matter absolutely clear. The whole Flynn imbroglio is not about a violation of the Logan Act owing to the fact that the general engaged in diplomacy as a private citizen. ..."
"... It's about re-litigating the 2016 election based on the hideous lie that Trump stole it with the help of Vladimir Putin. In fact, Nancy Pelosi was quick to say just that: ..."
"... 'The American people deserve to know the full extent of Russia's financial, personal and political grip on President Trump and what that means for our national security,' House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a press release. ..."
"... And Senator Graham, the member of the boobsey twins who ran for President in 2016 while getting a GOP primary vote from virtually nobody, made clear that General Flynn's real sin was a potential peace overture to the Russians: ..."
"... We say good riddance to Flynn, of course, because he was a shrill anti-Iranian warmonger. But let's also not be fooled by the clinical term at the heart of the story. That is, "intercepts" mean that the Deep State taps the phone calls of the President's own closest advisors as a matter of course. ..."
"... As one writer for LawNewz noted regarding acting Attorney General Sally Yates' voyeuristic pre-occupation with Flynn's intercepted conversations, Nixon should be rolling in his grave with envy: ..."
"... Yes, that's the same career apparatchik of the permanent government that Obama left behind to continue the 2016 election by other means. And it's working. The Donald is being rapidly emasculated by the powers that be in the Imperial City due to what can only be described as an audacious and self-evident attack on Trump's Presidency by the Deep State. ..."
"... Indeed, the paper details an apparent effort by Yates to misuse her office to launch a full-scale secret investigation of her political opponents, including 'intercepting calls' of her political adversaries. ..."
"... Yet on the basis of the report's absolutely zero evidence and endless surmise, innuendo and "assessments", the Obama White House imposed another round of its silly school-boy sanctions on a handful of Putin's cronies. ..."
"... Of course, Flynn should have been telling the Russian Ambassador that this nonsense would be soon reversed! ..."
"... But here is the ultimate folly. The mainstream media talking heads are harrumphing loudly about the fact that the very day following Flynn's call -- Vladimir Putin announced that he would not retaliate against the new Obama sanctions as expected; and shortly thereafter, the Donald tweeted that Putin had shown admirable wisdom. ..."
"... That's right. Two reasonably adult statesman undertook what might be called the Christmas Truce of 2016. But like its namesake of 1914 on the bloody no man's land of the western front, the War Party has determined that the truce-makers shall not survive. ..."
General Flynn's tenure in the White House was only slightly longer than that of President-elect
William Henry Harrison in 1841. Actually, with just 24 days in the White House, General Flynn's tenure
fell a tad short of old "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too". General Harrison actually lasted 31 days before
getting felled by pneumonia.
And the circumstances were considerably more benign. It seems that General Harrison had a fondness
for the same "firewater" that agitated the native Americans he slaughtered at the famous battle memorialized
in his campaign slogan. In fact, during the campaign a leading Democrat newspaper skewered the old
general, who at 68 was the oldest US President prior to Ronald Reagan, saying:
Give him a barrel of hard [alcoholic] cider, and a pension of two thousand [dollars] a year
and he will sit the remainder of his days in his log cabin.
That might have been a good idea back then (or even now), but to prove he wasn't infirm, Harrison
gave the longest inaugural address in US history (2 hours) in the midst of seriously inclement weather
wearing neither hat nor coat.
That's how he got pneumonia! Call it foolhardy, but that was nothing compared to that exhibited
by Donald Trump's former national security advisor.
General Flynn got the equivalent of political pneumonia by talking for hours during the transition
to international leaders, including Russia's ambassador to the US, on phone lines which were bugged
by the CIA Or more accurately, making calls which were "intercepted" by the very same NSA/FBI spy
machinery that monitors every single phone call made in America.
Ironically, we learned what Flynn should have known about the Deep State's plenary surveillance
from Edward Snowden. Alas, Flynn and Trump wanted the latter to be hung in the public square as a
"traitor", but if that's the solution to intelligence community leaks, the Donald is now going to
need his own rope factory to deal with the flood of traitorous disclosures directed against him.
In any event, it was "intercepts" leaked from deep in the bowels of the CIA to the Washington
Post and then amplified in a 24/7 campaign by the War Channel (CNN) that brought General Flynn down.
But here's the thing. They were aiming at Donald J. Trump. And for all of his puffed up bluster
about being the savviest negotiator on the planet, the Donald walked right into their trap, as we
shall amplify momentarily.
But let's first make the essence of the matter absolutely clear. The whole Flynn imbroglio
is not about a violation of the Logan Act owing to the fact that the general engaged in diplomacy
as a private citizen.
It's about re-litigating the 2016 election based on the hideous lie that Trump stole it with
the help of Vladimir Putin. In fact, Nancy Pelosi was quick to say just that:
'The American people deserve to know the full extent of Russia's financial, personal and political
grip on President Trump and what that means for our national security,' House Minority Leader Nancy
Pelosi said in a press release.
Yet, we should rephrase. The re-litigation aspect reaches back to the Republican primaries, too.
The Senate GOP clowns who want a war with practically everybody, John McCain and Lindsey Graham,
are already launching their own investigation from the Senate Armed Services committee.
And Senator Graham, the member of the boobsey twins who ran for President in 2016 while getting
a GOP primary vote from virtually nobody, made clear that General Flynn's real sin was a potential
peace overture to the Russians:
Sen. Lindsey Graham also said he wants an investigation into Flynn's conversations with a Russian
ambassador about sanctions: "I think Congress needs to be informed of what actually Gen. Flynn said
to the Russian ambassador about lifting sanctions," the South Carolina Republican told CNN's Kate
Bolduan on "At This Hour. And I want to know, did Gen. Flynn do this by himself or was he directed
by somebody to do it?"
We say good riddance to Flynn, of course, because he was a shrill anti-Iranian warmonger.
But let's also not be fooled by the clinical term at the heart of the story. That is, "intercepts"
mean that the Deep State taps the phone calls of the President's own closest advisors as a matter
of course.
This is the real scandal as Trump himself has rightly asserted. The very idea that the already
announced #1 national security advisor to a President-elect should be subject to old-fashion "bugging,"
albeit with modern day technology, overwhelmingly trumps the utterly specious Logan Act charge at
the center of the case.
As one writer for LawNewz noted regarding acting Attorney General Sally Yates' voyeuristic
pre-occupation with Flynn's intercepted conversations, Nixon should be rolling in his grave with
envy:
Now, information leaks that Sally Yates knew about surveillance being conducted against
potential members of the Trump administration, and disclosed that information to others. Even
Richard Nixon didn't use the government agencies themselves to do his black bag surveillance operations.
Sally Yates involvement with this surveillance on American political opponents, and possibly the
leaking related thereto, smacks of a return to Hoover-style tactics. As writers at Bloomberg and
The Week both noted, it wreaks of 'police-state' style tactics. But knowing dear Sally as I do,
it comes as no surprise.
Yes, that's the same career apparatchik of the permanent government that Obama left behind
to continue the 2016 election by other means. And it's working. The Donald is being rapidly emasculated
by the powers that be in the Imperial City due to what can only be described as an audacious and
self-evident attack on Trump's Presidency by the Deep State.
Indeed, it seems that the layers of intrigue have gotten so deep and convoluted that the nominal
leadership of the permanent government machinery has lost track of who is spying on whom. Thus, we
have the following curious utterance by none other than the Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee,
Rep. Devin Nunes:
'I expect for the FBI to tell me what is going on, and they better have a good answer,' he told
The Washington Post. 'The big problem I see here is that you have an American citizen who had his
phone calls recorded.'
Well, yes. That makes 324 million of us, Congressman.
But for crying out loud, surely the oh so self-important chairman of the House intelligence committee
knows that everybody is bugged. But when it reaches the point that the spy state is essentially using
its unconstitutional tools to engage in what amounts to "opposition research" with the aim of election
nullification, then the Imperial City has become a clear and present danger to American democracy
and the liberties of the American people.
As Robert Barnes of LawNewz further explained, Sally Yates, former CIA director John Brennan and
a large slice of the Never Trumper intelligence community were systematically engaged in "opposition
research" during the campaign and the transition:
According to published reports, someone was eavesdropping, and recording, the conversations of
Michael Flynn, while Sally Yates was at the Department of Justice. Sally Yates knew about this eavesdropping,
listened in herself (Pellicano-style for those who remember the infamous LA cases), and reported
what she heard to others. For Yates to have such access means she herself must have been involved
in authorizing its disclosure to political appointees, since she herself is such a political appointee.
What justification was there for an Obama appointee to be spying on the conversations of a future
Trump appointee?
Consider this little tidbit in
The Washington Post . The paper, which once broke Watergate, is now propagating the benefits
of Watergate-style surveillance in ways that do make Watergate look like a third-rate effort. (With
the) FBI 'routinely' monitoring conversations of Americans...... Yates listened to 'the intercepted
call,' even though Yates knew there was 'little chance' of any credible case being made for prosecution
under a law 'that has never been used in a prosecution.'
And well it hasn't been. After all, the Logan Act was signed by President John Adams in 1799 in
order to punish one of Thomas Jefferson's supporters for having peace discussions with the French
government in Paris. That is, it amounted to pre-litigating the Presidential campaign of 1800 based
on sheer political motivation.
According to the Washington Post itself, that is exactly what Yates and the Obama holdovers did
day and night during the interregnum:
Indeed, the paper details an apparent effort by Yates to misuse her office to launch a full-scale
secret investigation of her political opponents, including 'intercepting calls' of her political
adversaries.
So all of the feigned outrage emanating from Democrats and the Washington establishment about
Team Trump's trafficking with the Russians is a cover story. Surely anyone even vaguely familiar
with recent history would have known there was absolutely nothing illegal or even untoward about
Flynn's post-Christmas conversations with the Russian Ambassador.
Indeed, we recall from personal experience the thrilling moment on inauguration day in January
1981 when word came of the release of the American hostages in Tehran. Let us assure you, that did
not happen by immaculate diplomatic conception -- nor was it a parting gift to the Gipper by the
outgoing Carter Administration.
To the contrary, it was the fruit of secret negotiations with the Iranian government during the
transition by private American citizens. As the history books would have it because it's true, the
leader of that negotiation, in fact, was Ronald Reagan's national security council director-designate,
Dick Allen.
As the real Washington Post later reported, under the by-line of a real reporter, Bob Woodward:
Reagan campaign aides met in a Washington DC hotel in early October, 1980, with a self-described
'Iranian exile' who offered, on behalf of the Iranian government, to release the hostages to Reagan,
not Carter, in order to ensure Carter's defeat in the November 4, 1980 election.
The American participants were Richard Allen, subsequently Reagan's first national security adviser,
Allen aide Laurence Silberman, and Robert McFarlane, another future national security adviser who
in 1980 was on the staff of Senator John Tower (R-TX).
To this day we have not had occasion to visit our old friend Dick Allen in the US penitentiary
because he's not there; the Logan Act was never invoked in what is surely the most blatant case ever
of citizen diplomacy.
So let's get to the heart of the matter and be done with it. The Obama White House conducted a
sour grapes campaign to delegitimize the election beginning November 9th and it was led by then CIA
Director John Brennan.
That treacherous assault on the core constitutional matter of the election process culminated
in the ridiculous Russian meddling report of the Obama White House in December. The latter, of course,
was issued by serial liar James Clapper, as national intelligence director, and the clueless Democrat
lawyer and bag-man, Jeh Johnson, who had been appointed head of the Homeland Security Department.
Yet on the basis of the report's absolutely zero evidence and endless surmise, innuendo and
"assessments", the Obama White House imposed another round of its silly school-boy sanctions on a
handful of Putin's cronies.
Of course, Flynn should have been telling the Russian Ambassador that this nonsense would
be soon reversed!
But here is the ultimate folly. The mainstream media talking heads are harrumphing loudly
about the fact that the very day following Flynn's call -- Vladimir Putin announced that he would
not retaliate against the new Obama sanctions as expected; and shortly thereafter, the Donald tweeted
that Putin had shown admirable wisdom.
That's right. Two reasonably adult statesman undertook what might be called the Christmas
Truce of 2016. But like its namesake of 1914 on the bloody no man's land of the western front, the
War Party has determined that the truce-makers shall not survive.
We haven't had deep state (successfully) take out a President since JFK. I am sure they will
literally be gunning for Donald Trump! His election screwed up the elite's world order plans ...
poor Soros ... time for him to take a dirt knap!
Be careful Trump! They will try and kill you! The United States government is COMPLETELY corrupt.
Draining the swamp means its either you or they die!
Let us help Trump's presidency to make America (not globalist) great again.
Not only democrats rigged Primary to elect Clinton as presidential candidate last year even
though she has poor judgement (violating government cyber security policy) and is incompetent
(her email server was not secured) when she was the Secretary of State, and was revealed to be
corrupt by Bernie Sanders during the Primary, but also democrats encourage illegal immigration,
discourage work, and "conned" young voters with free college/food/housing/health care/Obama phone.
Democratic government employees/politicians also committed crimes to leak classified information
which caused former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn losing his job and undermined Trump's
presidency.
However middle/working class used their common senses voting against Clinton last November.
Although I am not a republican and didn't vote in primary but I voted for Trump and those Republicans
who supported Trump in last November since I am not impressed with the "integrity" and "judgement"
of democrats, Anti-Trump protesters, Anti-Trump republicans, and those media who endorsed Clinton
during presidential election and they'll work for globalists, the super rich, who moved jobs/investment
overseas for cheap labor/tax and demanded middle/working class to pay tax to support welfare of
illegal aliens and refugees who will become globalist's illegal voters and anti-Trump protesters.
To prevent/detect voter fraud, "voter ID" and "no mailing ballots" must be enforced to reduce
possible "voter frauds on a massive scale" committed by democratic/republic/independent party
operatives. All the sanctuary counties need to be recounted and voided county votes if recount
fails since the only county which was found to count one vote many times is the only "Sanctuary"
county, Wayne county, in recount states (Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin) last year. The
integrity of voting equipment and voting system need to be tested, protected and audited. There
were no voting equipment stuck to Trump. Yet, many voting equipment were found to switch votes
to Clinton last November. Voter databases need to be kept current. Encourage reporting of "voter
fraud on a massive scale" committed by political party operatives with large reward.
Trump knows whats coming. Rush Limbaugh said "I've known Trump for a long time, he is a winner
and I am sure none of this phases him at all. The media didn't create him, the media can't destroy
him."
Flynn has been there for several years. If he was such a threat why did they not take action
sooner since Soweeto appointed him in 2012? It must be that Soweto Obama is his spy buddy then,
both of them in league with the Russians since Obama has been with Flynn for a much longer time
he had to know if something was up.
The entire Russian spy story is a complete Fake news rouse.
I am wondering what they'll say tomorrow to draw attention awya form the muslim riots in Sweden.
If the news of Muslim riots in Sweden, then Trump will be even more vindicated and the MSM will
look even more stupid and Fake.
The Deep State has accentually lost control of the Intelligence Community via its Agents /
Operatives & Presstitute Media vehicle's to Gas Light the Masses.
So what Criminals at large Obama, Clapper & Lynch have done 17 days prior to former CEO Criminal
Obama leaving office was to Decentralize & weaken the NSA. As a result, Intel gathering was then
regulated to the other 16 Intel Agencies.
Thus, taking Centuries Old Intelligence based on a vey stringent Centralized British Model,
De Centralized it, filling the remaining 16 Intel Agenices with potential Spies and a Shadow Deep
State Mirror Government.
All controlled from two blocks away at Pure Evil Criminal War Criminal Treasonous at large,
former CEO Obama's Compound / Lair.
It's High Treason being conducted "Hidden In Plain View" by the Deep State.
It's the most Bizzare Transition of Power I've ever witnessed. Unprecedented.
Flynn did not tell Pence that Pence's best friend was front and center on the Pizzagate list.
That's what cost Flynn his job...it had fuck all do do with the elections.
Catastrophic mistake. Proof of sexual misconduct accumulated by the deep state makes it possible to dictate the votes &c. of
Congress, decisions of judges and administrators, &c.
Without a one-time blanket amnesty - however morally revolting - deep state control of government will endure. If you want
to end its control of the ship of state, you must remove its nuclear option : blackmail (threat of exposure/prosecution/bankruptcy/family
impoverishment/dying in prison).
the whole Military Intelligence is rife with pedophilia and sodomy – I can't imagine how Flynn avoided it – the whole top ranking
guys are involved – watch video interview of Kay Griggs –
Good point, but there are many types of amnesty. The first is the amnesty of tolerance, consenting adult sex mutual or professional,
no matter how distasteful or strange, whether adulterous or not, should be considered private and off the table, but never kiddy-fiddling
(actual rather than fictitious, in the real that is). Publication of tolerated sexual matters should be slammed, tolerance does
not mean condoning, tolerance is what it says tolerating what is not condoned.
That is an amnesty that every civilised nation follows I can't see why the US should not adopt it as it use to be the case.
In Australia we tolerate a lot of things, ex prime minister Bob Hawke was a notorious womaniser a faithless husband, and his antics
were a national laugh.
I also agree blackmail is one of the main weapons and sexuality is one of its mainstays. Its an puritanical extension of identity
politics, I believe toleration is the amnesty. I think your logic and argument is correct.
Look at the other way, a corrupt person, rips off this person and that, they are a public menace. A corrupt judge that cheats
on taxes, runs fictions companies, uses legal fictions to launder wealth is defrauding the public as a whole - it is a worse crime.
By extension accepting bribes, favours, preferential treatment, corporate support is to provide inequality before the law, negate
the whole purpose of the judiciary and again is a worse crime than tax fraud - it is at best a serious conflict of interest (serious
enough for removal), but is usually the accepted method of tilting the judicial system which is, with evidence, criminal. and
all the evidence has to be is that judge has accepted favours and their judgements demonstrate his gratitude to the social network
that provided the favour.
Against this a man whose marriage is happy, but sexually disaster, visits prostitutes or keeps a mistress, or has fathered
a child, is as is nothing - if only it was tolerated whilst terrible crimes are tolerated instead. Flint's water poisoning is
not a scandal it is a criminal conspiracy that stemmed from a criminal neglect. Banks that seize homes that they purposefully
overvalued and over-lent of which we have a mountain of documents to show this was done purposefully - the banks are the ones
that should suffer, not those desperate to own a house and were sent to them, by Real Estate agents and developer.
A sea change in attitude, on really simple stuff, has a disproportional effect. And today that is actually easier to achieve
than ever before. My advice is to go to the local churches and argue that their fixation on sex is producing untold evils in the
world and their moral righteousness is being misdirected. A direct confrontation on theological grounds etc.,
Sorry for the rant your point has been taken on board well and truly.
The first is the amnesty of tolerance, consenting adult sex mutual or professional, no matter how distasteful or strange, whether
adulterous or not, should be considered private and off the table, but never kiddy-fiddling (actual rather than fictitious, in
the real that is).
@Greg -
No rant at all. IMO this is the real elephant in the political livingroom. People are coming to understand who the orcs are,
how they operate and what their objective is. They can be mentioned now without everything melting down in a storm of terror.
But that they have the whole US government, industry and military (pardon the expression) "by the balls" is not known so well.
Nor is it appreciated that no necessary change can be expected to gain political traction so long as this iron control continues.
The trial balloon figure of 30% compromised is probably a gross underestimate. And we are not talking about marital infidelities
with secretaries or "escorts" but romping with adolescents (both sexes but apparently boys are their favorites - http://educate-yourself.org/tg/franklincoverupexcerptwashtimesphoto.shtml
Franklin/Boys Town scandal, Sandusky/Penn State, pizzagate, et al.)
This may not be the place for it but, if not, where ? The "Age of Consent" to sexual relations in the early US varied, but
was often put at 9 years of age (this when puberty occurred around age 17-18). I see this as no evidence of moral turpitude, but
of hard-nosed realism. It was human nature (as you have the moral decency to note) that people were going to get up to stuff like
that, and there was no need to make bigger issue of it than it was. If it stirred popular outrage, the perpetrator could expect
to be lynched or, where I grew up, shot "in a tragic accident" during hunting season when he was in the woods. People took care
of their own problems. And gravely mistrusted the judicial system where the ability of wealth and connections (business relationships
and funny handshakes) all but guaranteed impunity.
We now take it for granted (see Goebbels on the power of simple repetition to create "public opinion") that sex between an
adolescent and an adult is the single worst moral outrage imaginable. In reality (I came to understand it inside the criminal
justice system during 20+ years of working in it), making this a criminal offense, with the age of consent raised to 18 (completely
ridiculous with puberty now happening in elementary school and given the "sexualization" of children by the orc media) was a strategic
coup by the prison-industrial complex. By legally re-defining this as RAPE (!) and the perpetrator as a RAPIST (!) - well, repeat
this often enough in court with an adolescent well coached by the childrens' services caseworker to see herself as a VICTIM who
was GROOMED by him (when the actual dynamics of the situation were often the other way around), and a conviction was a prosecutor's
easiest victory in an average month. Not to mention that the threat of sentence piling (pioneered during the Nixon years - prosecuting
the same offense as as many separate crimes as possible, with sentences running consecutively) all but guaranteed "plea bargains"
without even the expense or inconvenience of a trial.
Prisons love(d) this, as (except for homosexual pederasts) "sex offenders" ( almost 100% White for some strange reason
) are the most easily managed demographic of all. If a state prison (or private one) could house 2,500 of them, it could operate
with a staff of, probably,10 guards per 8-hour shift.
Now, with the MSM and academia having turned sex with adolescents into the new "forbidden fruit," the appeal of it to the idle
imaginations of the susceptible is multiplied. The whole thing stinks to high heaven of rank hypocrisy, human exploitation and
lives ruined by a system that exploits human frailties as profit & control opportunities.
Now I am ranting, so will stop here. Noting that there is a LOT more that needs to be said on this.
Yes, the writing style is a bit dated, but it gives the bottom-line in really clear, well-written
English.
It's a GREAT little book, should be required reading with proof by some book report written
by each economist, before their being allowed any public discussion about the FEDERAL RESERVE.
It's probably more relevant today for all U.S. citizens than it was back in the early 1900's.
The Great Moderation era Fed has some good aspects but has fundamentally failed to understand
how its obsession with keeping inflation from ever even thinking abut going up has suppressed
wages and caused labor hysteresis.
I think they assume that all those problems just equilibriate away across the cycle but the
reality is not that.
So definitely it could and should be better.
But .. that doesn't make every proposal to change it a good one, or even a coherent one. Nor
does it justify the attitude that we should just blow everything up and hope something better
happens. Those bad arguments are what got us Trump, and at no point should reasonable people pander
to such bad arguments, or confuse the fact that bad arguments are widely held with the notion
that they aren't bad.
Which was done under "Maestro" Greenspan. This Ann Rand follower and staunch believer in unrestrained
"free market" (which means the law of jungles) subverted the institution and pressured the Presidents
who deviated from the "Party line" (and one time Bill Clinton tried). This is the extent he was
a Maestro. Later, after 2008, Maestro turned into cornered rat, but this is quite another story.
Under Maestro Greenspan Fed as an institution became not so dissimilar to such post
WWII financial institutions as IMF and World Bank (which became the key instruments for implementing
"Washington consensus"). It became a very effective enforcer of the neoliberalization of the country.
"... By Naked Capitalism reader aliteralmind, aka Jeff Epstein. Jeff, a progressive activist and journalist, was one of only around forty candidates in the county to be personally endorsed by Bernie Sanders, and was a pledged delegate for him at the DNC. Jeff is also currently starring in Feel The Bern-The Musical , which will very soon be performed in New York. Originally posted on Citizens' Media TV ..."
"... "to be in the tank is to be "lovingly enthralled; foolishly enraptured; passionately bedazzled"" ..."
"... Today, the President announced a major new step that his Administration is taking to make mortgages more affordable and accessible for creditworthy families. ..."
Posted on
January 28, 2017 by
Yves Smith By
Naked Capitalism reader aliteralmind, aka Jeff Epstein. Jeff, a progressive activist and journalist,
was one of only around forty candidates in the county to be personally endorsed by Bernie Sanders,
and was a pledged delegate for him at the DNC. Jeff is also currently starring in
Feel
The Bern-The Musical , which will very soon be performed in New York. Originally posted on
Citizens'
Media TV
But while it is technically true that Trump did sign the order reversing the decrease, it is a
misleading picture. This story is more a negative reflection on President Obama than it is on Trump.
A Brief Tutorial From Someone Who Is Learning the Subject Right Along With You
Generally speaking, if you are a first time homebuyer and purchase a house with a down payment
of less than 20% of the home's worth, you are required to purchase mortgage insurance. This insurance
is to protect the the lender in case you default on your payments.
Let's use the example of a $200,000 home with a $10,000 (5%) down payment. So you need to borrow
$190,000.
And then every year, you pay the annual premium of $1,520.
$190,000 * .008 = $1,520
As you pay off your principal, this number goes down.
The
Obama administration's reduction of the annual premium rate is .25 points (the upfront premium
remains unchanged). So with the same loan above, your annual premium would instead be $1,045.
.008 - .0025 = .0055
$190,000 * .0055 = $1,045
That's a savings of $475 a year, or about $40 a month.
$1,520 - $1,045 = $475
$475 / 12 months = $39.59
Backlash Against Trump
The criticism of Trump for this move has been unrelenting and, at least in my internet bubble,
unanimous. I have not seen any criticism of the Obama administration at all; including by, disappointingly,
one of my primary sources of news, The Young Turks. (Can't find the video at the moment, but they
briefly criticized Trump for the move, without looking further into the issue.)
Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said Friday that Trump's words in his inaugural
speech "ring hollow" following the mortgage premium action.
"In one of his first acts as president, President Trump made it harder for Americans to afford
a mortgage," he said. "What a terrible thing to do to homeowners. Actions speak louder than
words."
"This action is completely out of alignment with President Trump's words about having the government
work for the people," said John Taylor, president of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition,
through a spokesman. "Exactly how does raising the cost of buying a home help average people?"
Sarah Edelman, director of housing policy for the left-leaning Center for American Progress,
in an e-mail wrote, "On Day 1, the president has turned his back on middle-class families - this
decision effectively takes $500 out of the pocketbooks of families that were planning to buy a
home in 2017. This is not the way to build a strong economy."
"Donald Trump's inaugural speech proclaimed he will govern for the people, instead of the political
elite," [Liz Ryan Murray, policy director for national grassroots advocacy group People's Action]
said. "But minutes after giving this speech, he gave Wall Street a big gift at the expense of
everyday people. Trump may talk a populist game, but policies like this make life better for hedge
fund managers and big bankers like his nominee for Treasury, Steven Mnuchin, not for everyday
people."
The Full Picture
To say that Trump took savings away from the neediest of homebuyers is not true, because homebuyers
never had the savings to begin with. The rate reduction was not
announced until January 9 of this year–11 days before the end of Obama's eight year term–and
was not set to take effect until January 27, a full week after Trump was sworn in.
In addition, Obama's reduction decision seems to have been made without any advance notice or
even a projection document justifying the decrease.
As I understand it
, both of these things are unusual with a change of this magnitude.
Finally, with the announcement made little more than a week before the new administration was
to be sworn in, and despite Trump being entirely responsible for implementing this change, the incoming
administration was not consulted.
Trump, who claimed a populist mantle in his first speech as a president, signed the executive
order less than an hour after leaving the inaugural stage. It reverses an Obama-era policy.
"Obama-era policy" implies the reduction was made long ago, and has been in force for much of
that time.
(Rates can't be raised if they were never lowered.)
Conclusion: It Was a Set Up
Finally. After eight years of hard work and multiple requests, your boss approaches you on
a Monday morning and says, "Good news! Starting in two weeks, I'm giving you a raise. Congratulations."
Two days later, you find out that he decided to leave the company months ago, and his final
day is Friday. Your raise doesn't start until a week after that.
You ask him about your new boss. "Well, he's a pretty strict guy." He leans in, puts the back
of his hand to the side of his mouth, lowers his voice, and continues, "Honesty, I hear he is
a bit difficult to work with. Real penny pincher." He sits up, his voice back to its normal cadence,
"But don't worry. I'm leaving a note on his desk telling him just how important this raise is
to you and your family." He stands up and slaps you on the back as he walks away. "I'm sure he'll
keep my word."
If that were me, I would be upset at my new boss, but I would be furious at my old one. He
had eight years to do something.
This was nothing more than an opportunistic political maneuver by the outgoing president, to set
the incoming president up for failure. All while pretending to care about American homeowners. If
the President Obama really wanted to help Americans, he would've considered this move–or something
similar–long ago. Instead, he told them he was giving them a gift and promised that it would be delivered
by Trump, knowing full well that he would never follow through. Lower-income Americans were used
as pawns in a cheap political game.
"The Trump administration would be accused on day one of raising mortgage costs for average
Americans if it reverses the FHA move," analyst Jaret Seiberg, managing director at Cowen Group
Inc., wrote in a note to clients. "Trump's career has been real estate. It would seem out of
character for him to be aggressively negative on real estate in his first week in office."
[ ]
"I have no reason to believe this will be scaled back," [HUD Secretary Julian] Castro told
reporters. The premium cut "offers a good benefit to hardworking American families out there
at a time when interest rates might well continue to go up."
It is not Trump's responsibility to keep the promises that Obama makes on his way out the door.
It is Obama's responsibility to not promise what is not promiseable.
There are so many things for progressives to criticize Trump about. This is not one of them.
So Who Are We Fighting Anyway?
To paraphrase Jimmy Dore ,
"The way to oppose Trump is to agree with him when he's right, and to fight him when he's wrong.
Anything else delegitimizes you, especially in the eyes of his supporters."
And again in another of his videos
: "We don't need to unite against Trump. We need to unite against corruption and corporatism."
If Democrats do something wrong, we need to fight them. If Trump does something wrong, we need
to fight him. If Trump does something right, we need to stand with him.
If we can't win with the truth, we don't deserve to win.
I agree with the sentiment but after watching the D party protest war under Bush, never talk
about it under Obama, and then cheerlead for it with Hillary I don't think they actually stand
for anything except identity politics.
Right, they traded support for real issues for identity politics. Identity politics which is
lovingly celebrated on TYT every day by the way. I'm not sure how or why anyone would go to that
rancid cesspool of biased disinformation for news, but ok.
Here is a litmus test: anyone who gave a pro forma endorsement of Hillary OK, understandable,
and I can kind of tolerate that. But for the others who were in the tank for Hillary like TYT–all
except for Jimmy Dore–those people are persona non grata from here out.
Totally disagree that TYT was in the tank for Hillary. Have watched these guys every day since
around May. They're all pro-Bernie. They clearly wanted Hillary over Trump during the general
(and I did too, but that's waaaaaay not to say I'm pro-Hillary), but I don't think "in the tank
for Hillary" is a fair characterization for any of them.
To me, the best evidence is that I have not witnessed Jimmy Dore being forced to tone his admittedly
louder and more vehement anti-Hillary ranting down on any show, including the main show. They
even gave him his own show around the end of the primaries where he gleefully goes off (Aggressive
Progressives).
As an aside, The Jimmy Dore Show seems fresher than Aggressive Progressives, I believe because
he rehearses the bits on own show first. On TJDS, he is frequently good, and consistently on fire.
Naked Cap, the entire TYT network, Glenn Greenwald, Le Show, and of course, Bernie Sanders,
are among my most important truth tellers.
It's not that clear cut. For instance, if you are a person of color, there was good reason
to be plenty worried about Trump. Violence against immigrants picked up big time in the UK after
Brexit, so there's a close parallel. And his appointment of Jeff Sessions as AG is hardly encouraging.
Did you see their election day coverage? Here are the highlights:
TYT meltdown .
My favorite part starts at 14m50s, when Kasparian rants about how she has no respect for women
who didn't vote for Clinton and calls them "f@#king dumb". Solidarity!
What the – ????? – like the right wing is not all about Identity Politics from an ethnic and
religious foundations .. errrrrrr .
Now that the Democrats embraced free market neoliberalism and went off the reservation with
non traditional views wrt whom could join the club, being the only thing separating the two, its
a bit wobbly to make out like there is some massive schism between the two.
Disheveled . you can't have a "dominate" economic purview running the ship for 50ish years
and then devolve into polemic political warfare ..
jgordon– Identity politics lovingly celebrated on that rancid cesspool of biased disinformation
every day. Wow, takes my breath away. I've watched the TYT evening news for ~10 months virtually
ever day and I'd guesstimate that I viewed 60 of their You Tube clips. Seems to me you're projecting.
Given your strident certitude you should have no trouble provide any links that convinced you
of your opinion, buttress your argument. The daily recurrences of "identity politics" put it out
there. What convinced you they were "in the tank for Hillary"? It'd be hard to come up with a
more inaccurate phrase. They full throatedly endorsed Sanders in the primaries. Cenk announced
on the Monday (IIRC) before that he would be voting for HRC so how do you arrive at using "in
the tank"? I found your remarks a "rancid cesspool of biased disinformation" long on emotion and
very short on facts and evidence. That's why it seems like projection.
The US support for the Saudi war in Yemen is the most clearcut example of the moral worthlessness
of many liberals. Actually, to their credit many Democrats and a few Republicans in Congress have
opposed it, but it isn't a big cause because Obama was the one doing it. I imagine Trump will
continue the policy, but don't expect anything to change– Trump can be opposed on other issues,
so there will be no incentive to criticize him on an issue when the Trump people can say they
are just continuing what Obama started.
It is infuriating to hear liberals mindlessly repeating how disgraceful it is to see Trump
cozying up with a dictator who has blood on his hands. It is the eternal sunshine of the spotless
mind with these people.
Hear, hear! Thanks to NC that Common Dreams piece set off my bs detector immediately. There's
a larger framing question we can add as well: who benefits from PMI?
Using the example above, the home buyer pays an upfront premium of $3,300 which gives them
no additional equity in their home, and somewhere between $1400 and $1500 a year for their premium,
which also doesn't increase their equity. And, they continue to pay PMI until they achieve a loan
to value ratio of 80%.
So you buy your 200K house and dutifully pay your mortgage and PMI, which, btw, is also not
tax deductible. You finally get to the point where through a combination of paying down your mortgage
and increasing home prices, you have 80% equity in your home. Then the housing market tanks, and
your 200K home is worth 170K. Your house is worth less than you paid for it and you're stuck paying
$1500 a year in fees that don't reduce the amount of your mortgage, that you can't deduct from
your taxes, and that you can't get rid of until you have 80% equity in your house.
Sign me up!
So who benefits? Certainly not the middle class would be homeowner, who not only gets screwed
on the finances, but thanks to inflation of home prices, is getting screwed on the finances so
that they can spend 200K on a crappy little ranch that's a 40 minute commute to their job one
way on a good day.
I also read about this on the Neocon/Neolib pro-war propaganda and general disinformation site
for women and manginas Huffington Post, and I have to say that they were spinning really hard
to make this look like something horrible Trump had done. But even in the extremely biased article
I read they surreptitiously had to admit that this was a rule the Obama regime had put in place
the midnight before Obama departed and that Trump was just reversing it. I read this before I
knew anything else about t he subject and already had a pretty good idea of what was going on.
But the above post helped a lot.
Finance benefits – they get to keep promoting unaffordable mortgages.
We refused to pay this BS insurance when purchasing our house, since it wan't insuring us against
anything but rather we'd be paying for the bank's insurance against ourselves. Seems a lot more
like a scam when you frame it that way, considering that the bank is lending you money they just
created in the first place.
Instead we saved up for another year or two until we had the whole 20% down required to avoid
the insurance. I do understand that not everyone can afford 20% down depending on their job and
where they live however if enough people refused both PMI and to purchase because they couldn't
afford 20% down on an overpriced house (and we are in another bubble already, at least in my area),
prices would drop until people could really afford them.
Finance pretends they are just trying to make the American Dream available to everybody and
too many have taken the bait to the point where finance as a percentage of GDP is near or at an
all time high. The reality is that it's mostly just a scam to benefit finance and turn the population
into debt slaves.
The home owner was able to purchase a home with less than 20% down. The PMI protects the lender
during default, which is considerably higher when borrower has no skin in the game. Also, there
are other options such as lender paid mi.
Additionally, most of you are confusing PMI – Private Mortgage Insurance- with FHA Upfront
and MIP. With the latter being required regardless of the down payment. Secondly, the author was
wrong on his facts. MIP is .85 @ 96.5% and .80 @ 30 years. 15 YR.terns offer reduced
PMI is another insurance company rip-off. Requiring people to escrow taxes with no interest
paid to them by the banks using those funds is another rip-off.
Trying to condense this whole article into a tweet is a challenge. . .
"Obama cuts mortg. ins. rate for <20% down by 25 pts ($500 on $200k home) 11days prior to exit
in con artist act sure to be dropped by Trump resulting in bogus media claims about Dem support
for working class homeowners."
I agree. If we Progressives are to make any fwd movement, we can't beat up on DJT on any and
everything. I am also cautioning friends & family to do so too. If cry "foul" everyou time he
acts, that delegitimizes us.
One recent example is the Trumps' arrivall @ wh b4 the inauguration. A snapshot shows DJT entering
WH before the Obamas and Mrs. DJT. Once posted, goes viral and the talk is how ill-mannered, selfish
is and how gracious the Obamas are for escorting the Mrs. after her "oafish" husband
What is not shown is that DJT stops, comes back, and ushers the trio ahead of him. (which you
can see on CSPAN ).
When I saw the truth of what happened, after reading the negative comments, that worried me.
We REALLY need to be more dis corning and employ critical thinking.
Have to be careful not to be swayed by bullshit, no matter where it comes from.
This explanation, while nice, only serves to make Trump look dumb. He jumped into an obvious
trap. Rather than focus on how Obama tricked him, I'm a bit more concerned with what this portends
for the future. See, if the president is unable, either for political or personal reasons, to
avoid easy pitfalls like this, the odds of his success aren't very high.
By the way, this reads like one more zing at Obama after he's already left the building. He
earned most of the criticism he got, definitely from this site, but I feel like this is overdoing
it. Criticizing him for not doing it sooner? Totally valid. Criticizing him for tripping up his
successor? Petty.
Pointing out the hypocrisy of Schumer and Kaine isn't part of that pettiness, though. That
will be useful to remember as they cozy up to the Don and claim they're doing it to "help working
families."
I am admittedly a political newbie (Bernie woke me up never did anything before him but vote),
and perhaps I am missing something, but I would be much less upset about it if he didn't screw
middle class Americans in the process.
That this is considered petty, by which I believe you mean normal politics, is exactly the
problem.
The article makes it pretty clear, if I am reading it and the links and background right, that
the screwing is principally in the form of requiring mortgage insurance to insure THE LENDER (or
note holder or whoever MERS says gets paid on default). And that the "benefit" you may feel was
(according to the spin) "taken away," was not even an "entitlement" because it would not have
even been in effect until three weeks AFTER Obama (who has screwed the middle class and everyone
else not in the Elite, nine ways from nowhere, for 8 years), and would not change the abuse that
is PMI. And would not have "put dollars in the pockets of consumers" anyway for long after that.
And how many homeowners are in the category?
And banksters and mortgage brokers and the rest, gee whiz, we mopes are supposed to be concerned
about THEM? About people whose paydays come from commissions on the dollar amount of the loans
they write? Where all the "incentives," backed by the Real Economy that undergirds the ability
of the US Government to do its fiat money forkovers to lenders that connived to change the policies
against prudential lending to inflate the bubble that crashed and burned so many, are all once
again being pointed in the direction of making Realtors ™(c)(BS) and lenders even richer on flips
and flops and dumb transactions and churning?
Just to clarify, and please anyone correct me, this was not any kind of "rate reduction." Rate
reductions are what is supposed to happen under the various homeowner "they let
you live in their house as long as you pay the rent mortgage" relief programs
that never happened except to transfer more money to the Banksters. As in "reduce the unaffordable
interest rate on oppressive mortgages." And "mark to market." And PRINCIPAL reductions
as a result. And I do know the nominal difference between "title" states and "equitable interest"
states - in either, the note holder effectively owns the house and property until the last nickel
is paid, and as seen in the foreclosure racket, often not even the. And the "homeowner" gets to
pay the taxes and maintain and maybe improve the place, to protect the note holder's equity "Fee
simple absolute" is a comforting myth.
As the article points out, the only potential reduction in money from borrower to lender/loan
servicer (since the PMI underwriters seem to have such close financial ties to the insured note
holder, there's but slim difference between the parts of the racket) might have been that tiny
reduction in the insurance PREMIUM.
Niggling over terms, maybe, but that's what "the law" is made up of.
And apologies if I mistook the referent of "he" to be "Trump" rather than Obama and his clan
- but nonetheless
This excellent analytic walkthrough is a model for what must be done to ward off any form of
"Obama 2!" as a political battle cry. It must be done relentlessly and without any consideration
of being fair to that neoliberal schemer. The Clintonites will claw their way back from the edge
of their political grave if they can draw on such sentiments.
Exactly, what we need is an FDR approach, which Bernie Sanders Democrats are far more likely
to deliver. Instead of bailing out AIG and Goldman Sachs, FDR would have set up a Homeonwers Loan
Corporation to buy up all the adjustable rate mortgages and convert them to fixed-rate mortgages,
and instead of the zero-interest loans going to Wall Street from the Fed, they'd have gone to
homeowners facing foreclosure, who could then stay in their homes and pay them off over time.
But when Obama came in, he brought in Larry Summers and Tim Geithner, who preached about "not
returning to the failed policied of FDR." What a pack of con artists. I prefer your honest hustlers
to those guys (i.e. Team Trump, American Hustle 2.0 at least you know what to expect.)
>See, if the president is unable, either for political or personal reasons, to avoid easy pitfalls
like this
How is this a pitfall? Trump puts a hold on a "last minute Obama change", lets it sit for awhile,
and then reinstates it or maybe even makes it better. Then Trump owns the reduction, not Obama.
This essay focuses on timing and tactics. Not analyzed is the essential question of What
is the appropriate premium for mortgage insurance?
It's an actuarial question based on prior loss experience. Real estate moves in long cycles.
Each trough is different in depth.
Such questions aside, HUD's annual mortgage insurance premium of 0.8% was in the middle of
the typical range of 0.5% to 1.0% charged by private mortgage insurers. Obama's short-lived cut
to 0.55% would have put HUD's premium at the low end, on what probably are higher-risk loans.
Obama's action mirrors what's seen in other gov-sponsored insurance programs, such as pension
benefit guarantee schemes which are chronically under-reserved. Cheap premiums look like a free
benefit, until the guarantee fund goes bust in a down cycle, and taxpayers get hit with a bailout.
What's so stupendously silly about Obama's diktat is that it was too late to provide
any electoral benefit. Whereas if HUD's mortgage insurance pool later went bust, it could have
been blamed on Obama for cutting premiums without any actuarial analysis.
Perhaps HUD secretary Ben Carson will ask a more fundamental question: what is HUD doing in
the mortgage insurance business, anyway? Obama's ham-handed tampering with premiums for political
purposes shows why government is not well placed to be in the insurance business - it has skewed
incentives. Ditch it, Ben!
In researching this story (I have no financial background, and have never owned anything beyond
a car), I had a theory that the reduction made no fiscal sense because the Feds raised rates for
the first time in 2016, after hovering above near zero for eight years, to .5%.
My thinking was that
the move was to discourage new borrowers by making loans more expensive, therefore increasing
the cost of mortgages and ultimately threatening the solvency of the FHA. I was wrong, which is
disappointing because it would have made for a more dramatic ending, in that Trump's revoking
the decrease would have been the "correct" thing to do.
Aye. You make an excellent point that essentially everybody in media has ignored.
What should the mortgage insurance rate actually be? And the answer is simple: It should be high
enough to cover losses incurred by mortgage defaults (plus operating expenses), but no higher.
I don't know what that rate should have actually been, but if it was 0.55%, then Obama and
the FHA should have lowered the rate years ago to avoid overcharging people. And if 0.80% was
the right rate, then Obama should never have lowered it at all, given that it would ultimately
require a taxpayer bailout. Either way , Obama is incompetent.
If the only consideration is cost to customers, then the proper rate is 0%. Offer it for free!!
But if you want to the program to actually be self-sustaining, so that it doesn't require continuous
injection of taxpayer dollars and be a perpetual target for cancellation by Congress, then you
have to charge enough to cover losses. Whether the average mortgage rate is 3.5% or 4.0% or 6.2%
matters not a whit in this calculation.
Net conclusion: Obama is either a flaming incompetent who flat-out doesn't understand the concept
of insurance, or this was a deliberate attempt to impose a political headache on Trump.
An analogy could be made to municipal bond insurance, which like mortgage insurance is intended
to protect the lender against loss of principal:
Municipal bond insurance adds a layer of protection in the rare case of default. However,
that protection is dependent on the insurance companies' credit quality.
Municipal bond insurance used to be commonplace; now it's quite rare. Why is that? As of
2008, nearly half of all newly issued municipal bonds carried some form of insurance. Today,
the share is less than 7%.
The number of municipal bond insurers has also declined and their credit ratings have fallen.
A number of bond insurers went bust during the Great Recession. Plus, a large default by
Puerto Rico has caused many municipal market participants to question the ability of insurance
companies to pay on the bonds they insure.
Muni bond insurers were publicly traded, profit seeking companies. But they underpriced their
insurance, probably because no one expected a 1930s-style crisis like 2008.
Obama had no more concept about how to price mortgage insurance than I do about how to perform
brain surgery. He was just mindlessly handing out bennies at public expense in the dark of night,
before skulking away into well-deserved obscurity.
I dunno Jim – perhaps Obama DID know (or was advised) that the rate cut was actuarially unsound
thus setting up his successor for problems down the road or bad optics upfront if the cut was
reversed.
Yep. To quote the White House press release, " Today, the President announced a major new
step that his Administration is taking to make mortgages more affordable and accessible for creditworthy
families. "
That's not a valid reason to lower PMI rates. PMI rates must cover losses, and higher
interest rates on mortgages may very well mean higher default rates. If so, PMI rates would need
to go up as well.
Now if the press release had talked about PMI overcharges by the FHA, then I might
have have bought it. But they didn't. There was no mention of actuarial soundness at all
.
For a good explanation of how mortgage insurance works and the impact of the discussed premium
increase/decrease, check out David Dayen's (a frequent contributor to NC) article on the Intercept
here . David goes more in depth on the actual numbers and what they mean.
I did briefly hear some discussion in the news about the FHA mortgage insurance program having
been underfunded in the recent past. This could have given an additional reason for Trump to block
the lower rate until the numbers could be analyzed. I did a search and found a couple of articles
from before either of these decisions that illustrate different perspectives on this issue:
The latter article is from 2009 but includes some interesting details about significant amounts
of money being transferred from the fund to the treasury department.
From the first link, as of 2015: " his recent decision to lower mortgage insurance premiums
despite the FHA falling short of its capital reserve requirement." So the fund was out of compliance
with the law, and this was a long-running point of contention between the administration and the
Republicans in Congress.
What we don't know yet is whether the fund reached its goal, which would justify lowing the
premium. The Congress members were complaining about being lied to.
"What is the appropriate premium for mortgage insurance?"
"Such questions aside, HUD's annual mortgage insurance premium of 0.8% was in the middle of
the typical range of 0.5% to 1.0% charged by private mortgage insurers. Obama's short-lived cut
to 0.55% would have put HUD's premium at the low end, on what probably are higher-risk loans."
The argument here seems to be that what is typical is appropriate. By that argument, 0.55%
which falls in that range would be ok. The argument that it's too low assumes that the range as
it stands is somehow rationally defined, which is another assumption that itself bears scrutiny.
To say that 0.5-1.0% is ok is an assumption, and should be examined in detail right along with
the 0.55 and 0.8 HUD figures before firmer conclusions could be drawn. The results would give
an informed answer to the rhetorical question " what is HUD doing in the mortgage insurance business,
anyway?" Absent that, we're reduced to arguments, tainted on both sides by political inclinations.
Jeff Epstein's clarification is exemplary.
One may be more effective, but if it's not feasible, it doesn't matter how effective it would
be in theory. See this comment by Martin from Canada a few days ago:
Maybe a viable new progressive party can be created. But it sure won't be easy. If it weren't
extremely difficult, don't you think that the Greens would have done it by now? For now, I think
that people need to be actively looking for candidates to run in the 2018 Democratic primaries.
In a few places, at the state level, this will be happening in 2017. See:
Obama came in off the golf course after Trump was elected and issued dozens of similar diktats i
recall wondering at the time that if all those moves were so important, why didn't he make them
in the 8 years he had
EZ real issue for Democrats to embrace. Stop the sales tax of food at the state/muni level.
Shift that burden (or as much as reasonably possible) to the top income brackets.
Oh wait, the places where Democrats can do this, always solidly vote D and there's no incentive.
There is an art to politics. As anyone who studies the subject knows, one has to be both "Lion
& Fox." Lion .for the strength to drive policies, but also a Fox in order to avoid "Snares and
Traps." Bannon, who actually has been writing these executive orders, stepped right into this
Trap. Rookie mistake. This is what happens when you have ideologues attempting to actually govern.
They "step in it." I believe that Jeff is a bit naive and thin skinned here as to "The Game."
Obama did indeed set a snare ..but I am a bit more concerned by Steve's arrogance for boldly stepping
in it and allowing the opposition a fine platform to grandstand on the issue. Rookie mistake.
Arrogance & Stupidity.
Afaics there are two ways in which this game can be played:
A)
1: 0bama sets the trap.
2: Trump nullifies the reduction in rates while simultaneously denouncing 0bama for setting the
trap.
3: MSMedia circus.
B)
1: 0bama sets the trap.
2: Trump nullifies the reduction in rates.
3: D-party denounces Trump.
4: MSMedia circus.
5: Trump/Bannon denounces 0bama for setting the trap.
6: MSMedia once again loses credibility, at least in the eyes of Trump supporters.
Why is option A better than B? Am I missing something here?
If everyone with less than 20% equity has PMI, why didn't it pay off after the crash and lessen
the need for a bailout? Logic would dictate most of the foreclosures were on homes people bought
most recently with less than 20% down. Did PMI pay any money during the crash and to whom and
for what?
If it didn't do any good during the last crash to lessen the public bailout, what's the point
of requiring it?
That is a very good question and I don't remember hearing anything about PMI paying out during
the crash (but that could just be my memory). In fact it never even crossed my mind but yeah you'd
think that should have mitigated some of the losses. Maybe any payout would only benefit the mortgage
holder directly and wouldn't carry through to the mortgage-based securities? That seems odd though
and if true would be a strong case for severely curtailing if not eliminating at least the more
exotic bets.
I watched a few times until what's his name, the main turk, interrupted and talked over the
female co-host too many times for my stomach. There are too many good choices to give clicks to
that type of behavior. Hey this is the 21st century.
I don't know . Obama made many policy changes after the election results came.
It's not as if government is a fast moving engine. This could have been in the works for years
and got expedited for obvious reasons. It took years for Obama to start commuting drug sentences,
also Chelsea Manning, and there was no political gain in it for him.
Unless the policy was itself a fraud, it's impossible to know whether it was implemented cynically.
I made this point below, once it escapes moderation, but basically: 1) the article fails to
tell us whether the new rate made sense; and 2) Clinton did the same thing – a bunch of last-minute
progressive moves, designed to stroke his legacy and punk his Republican successor. Let's hope
the clemency actions are less reversible than the policy moves.
The MIP rate reduction was either an ill-advised reaction to the recent spike in mortgage rates
or a simple set-up for the incoming administration. I suspect is was a combination of both, and
likely designed more for political gain than anything.
It's hard to take a guy seriously when he professes to be concerned about home affordability
when he spent the last 8 years "foaming the runway" for banks as millions of people were foreclosed
on their homes, only to watch many of those same homes get gobbled up by Wall Street and rented
back out to them.
Fewer underwater borrowers will at least curtail the path to feudalism in this new echo housing
bubble.
Another issue is who would have actually benefited from the Obama rate cut. We are supposed
to believe it would have been home buyers, but a uniform increase in the spending power of home
buyers as a group is to a large extent offset by a corresponding increase in home prices. To that
extent it would be sellers (including private equity) and not low income buyers who would benefit.
Also, as far as I'm concerned, if Obamamometer was serious about helping homeowners there are
many more better ways to do it than "foaming the runway" for banks, or preempting any meaningful
action through his statewide get out of jail free card settlement, or actually trying to stop
his buddies from blowing asset bubble after asset bubble.
Moreover, if you can´t put up more than 20% up front to buy a house maybe the problem is that
wages are shit compared to property prices and people can´t afford anything more than cheap meth
or oxycontin to cope with their sorry lives.
Pardon if this is a duplication, but: Isn't there a very large omission here? Was the premium
decrease justified, or not? It's supposed to be government insurance, so the premium should cover
the costs. Did it? Would the proposed lower premium cover them? (Yeah, I know, MMT. But apparently
the idea here was to have a self-supporting program, so it should be self-supporting unless you
announce otherwise.)
That said: this is part of a pattern. Obama made a number of progressive policy moves at the
very last minute, most of them reversible. This is nothing but legacy-stroking, as well as setting
a trap for the next Pres. Clinton did the same thing, along with some questionable pardons.
I noticed the false headlines on yahoo news (the bastion of fake and worthless news) and I
immediately checked it to find that O'Liar had planted this landmine so that it could blow up
in Trump's face. Sure enough, when Trump canceled it, he was the bad guy (even though it had never
had gone into effect as this article points out). What a cynical move by O'Liar and how cynical
can his sycophants be?
Great post! I saw the headlines when the story came out and instantly thought there was something
"off", something a little too pat about the stories. But I wasn't sure what was wrong with the
stories, and was left confused. This post of investigative reporting and facts informs me what
was actually happening. Thank you.
The reaction here puzzles me to the point of confusion. Absent any argument that the policy
didn't offer it's claimed benefits (cost savings for the middle-class), is the left so virtuous
that it will reject and refuse to fight for any advance which isn't selflessly arrived at?
Compare this to "conservatives" who successfully campaigned in 2010 against supposed Medicare
cuts related to Obamacare implementation, when they'd love nothing more than to kill the program
outright.
We, by contrast, we won't even fight for what we claim to believe in, if it isn't wrapped in
virtue.
You are missing that this is insurance, and the cost of losses must be paid for somehow. From
Bruce's comment above:
What should the mortgage insurance rate actually be? And the answer is simple: It should
be high enough to cover losses incurred by mortgage defaults (plus operating expenses), but
no higher.
I don't know what that rate should have actually been, but if it was 0.55%, then Obama and
the FHA should have lowered the rate years ago to avoid overcharging people. And if 0.80% was
the right rate, then Obama should never have lowered it at all, given that it would ultimately
require a taxpayer bailout. Either way, Obama is incompetent.
If the only consideration is cost to customers, then the proper rate is 0%. Offer it for
free!! But if you want to the program to actually be self-sustaining, so that it doesn't require
continuous injection of taxpayer dollars and be a perpetual target for cancellation by Congress,
then you have to charge enough to cover losses. Whether the average mortgage rate is 3.5% or
4.0% or 6.2% matters not a whit in this calculation.
Net conclusion: Obama is either a flaming incompetent who flat-out doesn't understand the
concept of insurance, or this was a deliberate attempt to impose a political headache on Trump.
Granted, but nobody knows the facts. Bruce wants to damn Obama for not doing it before, or
damn him now for doing it. But nothing he either did or didn't do will be deemed acceptable at
this point, even if the reduction is fully warranted.
Have we never heard politics? Process? Delay? Your net conclusion may still prove to be the
correct one, though I'm not sure that failure to implement change earlier, assuming it was warranted,
could be justly laid at the feet of Obama. But we do know?
"... Most of the major changes he mentions are clearly and explicitly the consequence of policy changes, mostly by Republicans, starting with Reagan: deregulation, lower taxes on the wealthy, a lack of antitrust enforcement, and the like. ..."
This is frankly rather disingenuous. Most of the major changes he mentions are clearly and explicitly
the consequence of policy changes, mostly by Republicans, starting with Reagan: deregulation,
lower taxes on the wealthy, a lack of antitrust enforcement, and the like.
libezkova -> DrDick... January 25, 2017 at 09:29 PM
Read through the link and it's not nearly that simple, especially when you consider the fact that
some trends, though plausibly or certainly reinforced through policy, aren't entirely or even
primarily caused by policy.
I did not say they were the *only* factors, but they are the primary causes. If you look at the
timelines and data trends it is pretty clear. Reagan broke the power of the Unions and started
deregulation (financialization is a consequence of this), which is the period when the big increases
began. Automation plays a secondary role in this. what has happened is that the few industries
which are most conducive to automation have remained here (like final assembly of automobiles),
while the many, more labor intensive industries (automobile components manufacturing) have been
offshored to low wage, not labor or environmental protections countries.
Both parties participated in the conversion of the USA into neoliberal society. So it was a bipartisan
move.
Clinton did a lot of dirty work in this direction and was later royally remunerated for his
betrayal of the former constituency of the Democratic Party and conversion it into "yet another
neoliberal party"
Obama actually continued Bush and Clinton work. He talked about 'change we can believe in'
while saving Wall street and real estate speculators from jail they fully deserved.
Very true. Republicans were in the vanguard and did most heavy lifting. That's undeniable.
But Clinton's negative effects were also related to the weakening the only countervailing force
remaining on the way of the neoliberalism -- trade unionism. So he played the role of "subversive
agent" in the Democratic Party. His betrayal of trade union political interests and his demoralizing
role should be underestimated.
hile everyone's been gearing up for President Trump's inauguration, the Clinton Foundation made a
major announcement this week that went by with almost no notice: For all intents and purposes, it's
closing its doors.
In a tax filing, the Clinton Global Initiative said it's firing 22 staffers and closing its
offices, a result of the gusher of foreign money that kept the foundation afloat suddenly drying up
after Hillary Clinton failed to win the presidency.
It proves what we've said all along: The Clinton Foundation was little more than an
influence-peddling scheme to enrich the Clintons, and had little if anything to do with "charity,"
either overseas or in the U.S. That sound you heard starting in November was checkbooks being
snapped shut in offices around the world by people who had hoped their donations would buy access to
the next president of the United States.
And why not? There was a strong precedent for it in Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of
state. While serving as the nation's top diplomat, the Clinton Foundation took money from at least
seven foreign governments - a clear breach of Clinton's pledge on taking office that there would be
total separation between her duties and the foundation.
Is there a smoking gun? Well, of the 154 private interests who either officially met or had
scheduled phone talks with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state, at least 85 were donors
to the Clinton Foundation or one of its programs.
... ... ...
Using the Freedom of Information Act, Judicial Watch in
August obtained emails
(that had been hidden from investigators) showing that Clinton's top
State Department aide, Huma Abedin, had given "special expedited access to the secretary of state"
for those who gave $25,000 to $10 million to the Clinton Foundation. Many of those were facilitated
by a former executive of the foundation, Doug Band, who headed Teneo, a shell company that managed
the Clintons' affairs.
As part of this elaborate arrangement, Abedin was given special permission to work for the State
Department, the Clinton Foundation and Teneo - another very clear conflict of interest.
As Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said at the time, "These new emails confirm that Hillary
Clinton abused her office by selling favors to Clinton Foundation donors."
The seedy saga doesn't end there. Indeed, there are so many facets to it, some may never be
known. But there is still at least one and possibly four active federal investigations into the
Clintons' supposed charity.
Americans aren't willing to forgive and forget. Earlier this month, the IBD/TIPP Poll asked
Americans whether they would like President Obama to pardon Hillary for any crimes she may have
committed as secretary of state, including the illegal use of an unsecured homebrew email server. Of
those queried, 57% said no. So if public sentiment is any guide, the Clintons' problems may just be
beginning.
Writing in the Washington Post in August of 2016, Charles Krauthammer pretty
much summed up the whole tawdry tale
: "The foundation is a massive family enterprise disguised
as a charity, an opaque and elaborate mechanism for sucking money from the rich and the tyrannous to
be channeled to Clinton Inc.," he wrote. "Its purpose is to maintain the Clintons' lifestyle
(offices, travel accommodations, etc.), secure profitable connections, produce favorable publicity
and reliably employ a vast entourage of retainers, ready to serve today and at the coming Clinton
Restoration."
Except, now there is no Clinton Restoration. So there's no reason for any donors to give money to
the foundation. It lays bare the fiction of a massive "charitable organization," and shows it for
what it was: a scam to sell for cash the waning influence of the Democrats' pre-eminent power
couple. As far as the charity landscape goes, the Clinton Global Initiative won't be missed.
"... So I found myself on the crazy left. I'm genuinely more "lefty" than I was 15 years ago, but even now I'm not exactly calling for full communism. I generally think that usually the best use of my efforts are to pull the party leftward (not that I think I have the superpowers required to do this), not just because I'm more lefty, but because the forces pulling them to the right continue to be powerful and well-funded. Also, if the "crazy" position is a minimum wage of $25 an hour, then $15 an hour doesn't look so crazy anymore (for example). If the best we can ever do is a compromise, then it's best not to start the negotiations with the compromise position. ..."
"... People get mad about criticizing Democrats these days in a way they never did before. People like Obama associates "the crazy left" with Bernie, blaming him (and therefore the crazy left) for Clinton's election problems. Maybe I'm wrong, but whatever horrors the Trump administration is going to unleash, the important thing is for the Democrats to draw distinctions, and not just hope for team R to step on enough rakes. "Not as evil as the other guys" just doesn't win elections, even when the other guys are really f!@#ing evil. ..."
Changing Perspectives
Short blog post means big generalizations, but...
Post-impeachment, post-Bush selection, post-9/11 was a
weird time in American politics (I suppose a specific
weird time, it's always a weird time). One thing people
forget about the impeachment era was that it was basically
The Left (sometimes actually The Left like The Nation
magazine writers and sometimes people who found themselves
being branded The Left because of this) who defended Bill
Clinton in the whole Monica Madness era (and before).
Mainstream media (hi New York Times!), columnists, cable
news personalities, all the respectable prominent
"centrist" Democrats, were falling all over themselves to
condemn that nasty Bill Clinton and his nasty penis, and
Ken Starr was treated as the second coming of Jesus in
respectable DC circles. It was a weird time in which the
crazy left were actually the biggest defenders of the
Democratic party, much bigger defenders of it than the
Democratic party itself. It was a time when you wouldn't
have been surprised if you woke up one morning and half
the party hadn't decided to switch teams and become
Republicans. "I was a Democrat before Bill Clinton did
nasty things with that woman, but now I don't think rich
people should pay taxes anymore..."
And then the selection, and then Iraq, and then Bush's
re-election, and the whole Social Security privatization
nonsense... It was always the "crazy left" that was trying
to make the Democratic party just, you know, be Democrats,
and everybody else basically being like "Why can't a
Democrat be more like a Republican." Being against the war
or against Social Security privatization (the Dems finally
woke up on that one, but it took a lot of yelling) wasn't
exactly calling for full communism, and plenty of people
who thought they were just standard squishy Democrats
suddenly found themselves being lumped together with
radicals.
So I found myself on the crazy left. I'm genuinely more
"lefty" than I was 15 years ago, but even now I'm not
exactly calling for full communism. I generally think that
usually the best use of my efforts are to pull the party
leftward (not that I think I have the superpowers required
to do this), not just because I'm more lefty, but because
the forces pulling them to the right continue to be
powerful and well-funded. Also, if the "crazy" position is
a minimum wage of $25 an hour, then $15 an hour doesn't
look so crazy anymore (for example). If the best we can
ever do is a compromise, then it's best not to start the
negotiations with the compromise position.
People get mad about criticizing Democrats these days
in a way they never did before. People like Obama associates "the crazy left" with Bernie, blaming him (and
therefore the crazy left) for Clinton's election problems.
Maybe I'm wrong, but whatever horrors the Trump
administration is going to unleash, the important thing is
for the Democrats to draw distinctions, and not just hope
for team R to step on enough rakes. "Not as evil as the
other guys" just doesn't win elections, even when the
other guys are really f!@#ing evil.
As the candidates for the next NEC chair narrow, a debate
has erupted regarding the suitability of candidates either
too directly related to former US Treasury Secretary Robert
Rubin or Wall Street. Mark Thoma came out first:
I still think a break from the Wall Street connected side
of the Clinton administration would have political value.
Brad DeLong subsequently declared his support for Gene
Sperling. Next up was Felix Salmon, who, like Thoma, notes
that the three leading candidates, Gene Sperling, Roger
Altman, and Richard Levin, are all "multi-millionaires with
close ties to Wall Street." He singles out Sperling for a
particularly harsh criticism, first questioning the nature of
Sperling's ties to Wall Street:
...there's Sperling, who in some ways is the worst of the
three when it comes to grubbing money from Wall Street.
Salmon relies on Ezra Klein to paint a picture of Sperling
as a low-class influence peddler, and then extends his attack
to Sperling's competence:
Noam Scheiber does his best to defend Sperling, but is far
from persuasive-the general picture he paints is of a man
whose heart might be in the right place but who never seems
to get anything done. The last time he was at the NEC he sat
quietly by while Treasury pushed through various deregulatory
measures; within the Obama administration his main claim to
fame seems to be the bank tax, which never actually got
enacted.
Finally, he echo's Thoma's concerns:
More generally, Sperling has done nothing to counter the
general impression that he's one of many Rubinites in the
administration, in the context of a political atmosphere
where one of the few points of agreement between the right
and left is that the departure of Summers can and should be
taken as an opportunity to finally put as much distance
between Obama and Rubin as possible.
This elicits a response from DeLong, who defines himself
as a long-time Rubinite and launches into a spirited defense
of Rubin:
Robert Rubin went to work for the Clinton Administration
in 1993 with four goals: (1) to make the decision-making
process work smoothly; (2) to match the tax revenues of the
federal government to its spending commitments; (3) to make
the tax and transfer system more progressive so that people
like him paid more and America's working class paid less; and
(4) to make the financial system work more smoothly and
transparently and so diminish the rents earned because of
market position and institutional connections by people like
him.
(1), (2), and (3) were big successes. (4) was a
failure--the belief that financial deregulation would
diminish Wall Street payouts because organizations like
Goldman Sachs would face new competition from deep-pocket
commercial banks--turned out to be wrong. Why it was wrong I
do not understand. But it was a failure. However, it was not
a catastrophic failure--it was not the repeal of
Glass-Steagall that caused our current downturn, but rather
other and different regulatory failures long after Rubin had
left office...
DeLong does acknowledge that Citigroup shareholders have a
legitimate gripe, and so do the American people:
I think that if you are an American or a citizen of the
world you have a beef with Rubin for believing--as I did--in
the "Greenspanist" doctrine that the Federal Reserve had the
tools to put a firewall between finance and employment and
should thus regard bubbles principally with benign neglect.
What I find curious is that DeLong neglects to mention
what I believe was a central element of the Rubin agenda, and
an element that was in fact the most disastrous in the long
run - the strong Dollar policy.
The strong Dollar policy takes shape in 1995. At that
point, Rubin made it clear that the rest of the world was
free to manipulate the value of the US Dollar to pursue their
own mercantilist interests. This should have been more
obvious at the time given that China was last named a
currency manipulator in 1994, but the immensity of that
decision was lost as the tech boom engulfed America.
Moreover, Rubin adds insult to injury in the Asian
Financial Crisis, by using the IMF as a club to enact far
reaching reforms on nations seeking aid. The lesson learned -
never, ever run a current account deficit. Accumulating
massive reserves is the absolute only way to guarantee you
can always tell the nice men from the IMF and the US Treasury
to get off your front porch.
In effect, Rubin encourages the US to unilaterally enact a
new Plaza Accord on itself. Michael Pettis reminds us of what
the Plaza Accord meant for Japan:
Not only did Tokyo wait way too long to begin the
rebalancing process, but when the rest of the world (i.e. the
US) refused to absorb its huge and expanding trade surplus
and forced up the value of the yen, Tokyo made things worse –
it counteracted the impact of the rising yen by expanding
investment, expanding credit, and lowering interest rates.
This accelerated Japan's structural imbalances, set off a
further frenzied rise in asset prices and capacity, and
worsened the eventual adjustment. This also seems to have
happened after China began revaluing the RMB after July 2005.
This sounds like an eerily similar story. To counteract
the impact of the rising trade deficit, US policymakers
increasingly relied on asset bubbles to support domestic
demand. It goes beyond benign neglect, which assumes you know
acknowledge you have a bubble. US policymakers didn't even
see the train wreck ahead. They simply enjoyed the fruits of
the bubble thinking it reflected sound economic policy. Back
to 2005:
Ben S. Bernanke does not think the national housing boom
is a bubble that is about to burst, he indicated to Congress
last week, just a few days before President Bush nominated
him to become the next chairman of the Federal Reserve.
U.S. house prices have risen by nearly 25 percent over the
past two years, noted Bernanke, currently chairman of the
president's Council of Economic Advisers, in testimony to
Congress's Joint Economic Committee. But these increases, he
said, "largely reflect strong economic fundamentals," such as
strong growth in jobs, incomes and the number of new
households.
At least Japan had the excuse that they were forced into
the Plaza Accord, perhaps justifiably given their expanding
current account surplus of the time. Rubin has no such excuse
- the strong dollar policy was entirely a self inflicted
wound that goes far beyond simple "benign neglect" of
bubbles. To be sure, Yves Smith argues in Econned that Asian
central banks were threatening to sell Dollar assets, but
adds that the main motivation was supporting Japan. Most
importantly, Rubin entirely missed how Chinese policymakers
would take advantage of America's newfound love for an
artificially strong currency.
But did he really miss it? Wall Street was making money
hand over foot intermediating the current account deficit,
which raises the question that many of us still have: Was
Rubin working for the American people or Wall Street? As far
as I can tell, the greatest coup of the last two decades was
how easily Wall Street managed to secure the support of
Democrats, knowing of course they always had the support of
Republicans.
And what has been the ultimate achievement then of the
Rubin era? A lost decade for jobs and industrial production
and a massively unbalanced global economy. The promised
compensating job surge in other sectors has so far been
absent. Ultimately, didn't Rubin simply lay the foundation
for today's economy that is decried by DeLong?:
From here it does look like a two-tier, profit-driven
recovery--no parking places within a quarter mile of Tiffanys
and long lines at Williams and Sonoma and Sur la Table, with
people buying $12 cans of almond paste, while some of my
daughter's high school classmates are now being told they
cannot afford to go to college next year.
And by the way, it is not clear that we did China any
favors either by the strong Dollar policy, as they are now
faced with a massive internal rebalancing act - there is no
guarantee anymore that China is the future, nor that China
will escape the fate of Japan.
I agree with DeLong that being associated with the Wall
Street, the Clinton Administration in general and Rubin in
particular should not alone disqualify one from serving in
the Obama Administration. But we shouldn't give Rubin a free
pass either. The strong dollar policy reinforced and
entrenched massive and disruptive distortions to patterns of
global consumption and production. Unwinding those
disruptions is proving to be very costly. The long-term
impact of the strong Dollar policy needs to be counted among
Rubin's legacies.
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. The Wall Street
banking cartel controls the Fed, Treasury, and the NEC...but
it's only bad, according to 'liberal' economists when a
Republican appoints these guys...Obama got shielded from
criticism.
lol,wall street banking cartel has controlled everything from
the 19th century commodity money to BW to the modern dollar
standard every since Andrew Jackson gave them the power in
the 1830's in the US. Of course New York replaced London in
the 1930's.
Bill Clinton is to Ronald
Reagan as Dwight D. Eisenhower was to Franklin D. Roosevelt.
And as the Wisconsin Recall recedes into history's
rearview mirror, Barack Obama and the Stealth Socialism he
represents is nowhere but in trouble.
Which is exactly why all of these stories about the sub
rosa rivalry between ex-President Clinton and President Obama
are so relevant, not to mention important to understand.
First, Ike and FDR.
Dwight D. Eisenhower famously rode into the White House in
1952 as a genuine American hero. While other presidents had
distinguished war records, only a small handful had to that
point entered the presidency celebrated for their military
genius. ...
Ike was the man behind D-Day, indisputably one of the
central events in ending World War II. He had a fabulous grin
and a likeable personality - not for nothing his campaign's
famous slogan, "I Like Ike."
But a political thinker Ike was not, nor did he pretend to
be one.
In 1952, the Republican Party had been out of the White
House for 20 years. In the space of those 20 years Americans
had become convinced that the liberal theory of Big
Government - aka the New Deal of Franklin Roosevelt and the
Fair Deal of Harry Truman - was the wave of the future.
Modernity was here - and Big Government was its name.
In 1936, 1940, 1944 and 1948 the GOP had begun a conscious
shift to acceptance of what Barry Goldwater would later scorn
as the "dime store New Deal." The Big Government idea was
accepted as political gospel - and GOP progressives or
liberals believed that the route to political success for
both the GOP and country was to simply swallow the concept
whole. ...
Eisenhower was very much in the moderate Republican role.
Not as a result of any thorough study of political philosophy
- he was a student of matters military. But to the extent he
had thought politics through, Ike was a thorough-going
moderate. Like Hoover, Eisenhower too was a favorite of
Democrats, many of whom wanted to draft him to replace Truman
atop the 1948 Democratic ticket. By 1952 his biggest backers
included Dewey and Massachusetts GOP liberal Senator Henry
Cabot Lodge. His biggest opponent was famously Ohio's
conservative "Mr. Republican" Senator Robert Taft. ...
Which brings us to Bill Clinton.
By the time Clinton took office as the first Democrat to
succeed Ronald Reagan, the consensus over the role of Big
Government had been irretrievably smashed. In its place stood
the new consensus - the Reagan Consensus. An understanding
that taxes must be kept low to encourage economic growth -
and that spending had to be restrained.
No one was more acutely aware of this than Bill Clinton
himself. He had in fact spent years positioning himself as a
"centrist" or "New Democrat." Working with the centrist
Democratic Leadership Council, Clinton fought to give the
Democrats a more moderate veneer after years of McGovern,
Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis had left Americans with the
realization that Liberalism was hopelessly captured by
tax-and-spend special interests - with public employee unions
at the top of the list.
Yet once elected president, Clinton plunged into the
presidency as an activist Democrat in the mold of his hero
JFK, With a bust of FDR on his desk, Clinton and wife Hillary
spent two years fighting the Reagan Consensus with
"HillaryCare" - a government-controlled health care system.
They failed. According to aide George Stephanopoulos, the
quickly frustrated President Clinton was grousing that he was
being forced to behave as an "Eisenhower Republican."
He wasn't happy - but if he were going to win re-election
Bill Clinton was determined to get on with accommodating the
Reagan Consensus.
By 1995, with the 1994 Gingrich-led sweep of Congress on a
Reaganesque platform now a fact, Clinton formally
acknowledged the new consensus - the Reagan Consensus. "The
era of Big Government is over," he proclaimed in his State of
the Union message. ...
"According to aide George Stephanopoulos, the quickly
frustrated President Clinton was grousing that he was being
forced to behave as an "Eisenhower Republican.""
This is
the episode certain progressive neoliberals refuse to
acknowledge.
Rubin and Greenspan convinced Clinton to drop his middle
class spending bill campaign promise in favor of deficit
reduction and bending to the wishes of the bond market.
James Carville mockingly quipped that now he wanted to be
reincarnated as the bond market. "You can intimidate
anybody."
Private sector investment over government spending with
all sorts of academic economics as rationale.
Government debt would "crowd out' private investment.
Krugman proclaims the Clinton era a Nirvana.
"Note that the dollar rose by more than 40
percent from the start of 1996 to its peak in 2002. That was
the strong dollar policy of then Treasury Secretary Robert
Rubin. This also was when our trade deficit started to
explode. Do folks remember all the people screaming against
Rubin pushing a strong dollar because of the harm it would do
to the countries in the developing world with dollar
denominated debt? Yeah, I can't quite remember that either."
Brad Setser directs out attention to our exports - which he
notes are not growing in large part due to the dollar
appreciation. OK, imports are growing which is not a surprise
for two reasons - that dollar appreciation once again and the
growth in overall US real GDP. Now if we can only get real
GDP to grow and the dollar to devalue. But that ain't
happening with Trump's proposed policies. Of course my last
statement will likely upset the feelings of certain trolls
here. So be it.
Twenty-five years ago, Bill Clinton almost single-handedly sold the Democratic Party to Wall Street
making it the second neoliberal party in the USA (soft neoliberals) and betaying interest of working
class and middle class. The political base of the party became "neoliberal intelligencia" and minority
groups, such as sexual minorities, feminists (with strong lesbian bent) deceived by neoliberals part
of black community (that part that did not manage to get in jail yet ;-) , etc. Clintonism (aka "soft"
neoliberalism) as an ideology was dead after 2007, but still exists in zombie stage. and even counterattacks
in some countries.
The author is afraid using the term "neoliberalism" like most Us MSM. Which is a shame. In this
sense defeat of Hillary Clinton was just the last nail in the coffin of "soft neoliberalism" (Third
Way) ideology. Tony Blair was send to dustbin of history even earlier then that. Destruction of jobs
turned many members of trade unions hostile to Democrats (so much for "they have nowhere to go" Bill
Clinton dirty trick) and they became easy pray of far right. In this sense Bill Clinton is the godfather
of far right in the USA and he bears full personal responsibility for Trump election.
In foreign policy Clinton was a regular bloodthirsty neocon persuing glibal neoliberal empire led
by the USA, with Madeline Albright as the first (but not last) warmonger female Secretary of State
Notable quotes:
"... Twenty-five years ago, Bill Clinton almost single-handedly repositioned the Democratic Party
for electoral success, co-opting and defusing Republican talking points ..."
"... "New Democrat" he'd once exemplified was now extinct, a victim first of Clinton's own successes,
and then of the economic and social dislocations of the globalism whose inevitability he foresaw when
he predicted that Americans would one day "change jobs four or five times in their lifetimes!" ..."
"... Bill Clinton's "Third Way" ideology was also undone by sheer geopolitical realities ..."
"... ..."People thought she'd been conceived in Goldman Sachs' trading desk," says one veteran Clinton
aide ..."
"... his personal and sexual misconduct in office, and his and his wife's tendency toward legalistic
corner-cutting-a point Sanders also drove home, even as he disavowed any interest in "her damn emails."
..."
their quarter-century project to build a mutual buy-one, get-one-free Clinton dynasty has ended
in her defeat, and their joint departure from the center of the national political stage they had
hoped to occupy for another eight years. Their exit amounts to a finale not just for themselves,
but for Clintonism as a working political ideology and electoral strategy.
Twenty-five years ago, Bill Clinton almost single-handedly repositioned the Democratic Party
for electoral success, co-opting and defusing Republican talking points and moving the party
toward the center on issues like welfare and a balanced budget, in the process becoming the first
presidential nominee of his party since Franklin D. Roosevelt to win two consecutive terms.
... ... ...
"New Democrat" he'd once exemplified was now extinct, a victim first of Clinton's own successes,
and then of the economic and social dislocations of the globalism whose inevitability he foresaw
when he predicted that Americans would one day "change jobs four or five times in their lifetimes!"
Bill Clinton's "Third Way" ideology was also undone by sheer geopolitical realities --
there are almost no Blue Dog Democrats left after a generation of redistricting, primary challenges
and electoral defeats in the South
...while Hillary Clinton recognized the change intellectually, she seemed unable to catch up to
the practical realities of its political implications for her campaign
..."People thought she'd been conceived in Goldman Sachs' trading desk," says one veteran
Clinton aide
...Obama had not only largely overlooked the concerns of white working-class voters but, with
his health care overhaul, had been seen as punishing them financially to provide new benefits to
the poorest Americans. Fairly or not, he lost the public argument.
...Bill Clinton himself was far from an unalloyed asset in Hillary's campaign this year. The rosy
glow that had come to surround much of his post presidency, and his charitable foundation's good
works around the world, receded in the face of Trump's relentless reminders of his personal and
sexual misconduct in office, and his and his wife's tendency toward legalistic corner-cutting-a point
Sanders also drove home, even as he disavowed any interest in "her damn emails."
It may come off as a shocker, but I found this piece to be too apologetic of the Clintons.
"By 2016, spurred by anger at Wall Street, and at Washington gridlock and business as usual,
the Democratic Party had moved well to the left of the one Bill Clinton had inherited in 1992.
And while Hillary Clinton recognized the change intellectually, she seemed unable to catch
up to the practical realities of its political implications for her campaign."
I tend to see this sort of language peppered throughout the article. First is the choice of
wording. "The Democratic Party had moved well to the left " The problem with this language is
that it ignores the issues in place of an empty word "left". Voters did not "move to the left",
but rather had new issues that needed redress that didn't exist then, or that morphed and evolved
from past issues. At no point did the Clintons campaign ever talk about the issues beyond their
platitudes and sound bites. Clinton's take on global warming is literally just, "investing in
new technologies and renewable energy systems to wean our dependence off of foreign oil."
Second, the author declares several times that "Clinton understood this, but was unable to
capitalize on it." As a general rule, I try not to pretend what people think or understand. I
am not a mind reader and any claim to that effect will be nothing more than speculation. All I
have to go on is what someone says and does. And when all that you say is little more than empty
platitudes, the claim that she understands anything is rather hard to justify.
In regards to the authors specific claim that Clinton understood that the electorate "moved
to the left of the party," I find this hard to accept, even from its own vapid context. If anything,
Clinton seemed to have nothing but contempt for "the left", and certainly for Sander's supporters.
Indeed, the Democratic narrative has always been that election are won "at the center" or just
"left of center". If she understood that the party had "moved further to the left", then she also
believed that the party had moved too far to the left and needed to be dragged back to the center
in order to avoid losing to Trump.
"[The] Democratic Party that was seen as more sympathetic to criminals than to victims was
not a Democratic Party that was going to win elections. Bill Clinton had to correct that, and
he did, and by 2015 we just did not have that kind of violent crime any more," Kamarck says.
The Clintons expressed regret for their 1990s posture, in light of declining crime rates, but
Donald Trump still managed to paint the pair as somehow soft on crime,"
Here we come to one of the central tenants of "Clintionism", the issue of perception trumping
reality. The problem: Republicans were painting Democrats as being too sympathetic to Criminals.
Solution: Start beating on criminals until the image is repaired.
At no point is the question ever asked if the Dems really were "too soft on criminals" or even
what that means? To Republicans, giving prisoners blankets and a pillow to sleep on is being "too
soft." Today, being "soft" now includes a reluctance to torture, not embracing capital punishment,
or insisting suspects get a fair trial. What's next? Would being "too soft" soon mean not shoveling
coal fast enough into Trump's furnaces?
The proper response is to first reflect on the question. Are we, or are we not too soft on
criminals? If the answer is yes, then admit to the mistake and effect change to your platform
accordingly. If no, then stand up for your position and defend it. Or heaven forbid, call out
the Republicans for their barbarity!
But this isn't a bug of Clintonism, but a feature. The question itself is irrelevant. Instead,
you had the prison industrial complex turning a profit by how many heads were held behind bars.
For the privet prisons to see profits, the courts needed to convict more black people, convicted
them faster, and hold them for longer sentences. And of course, poor prison conditions were the
inevitable consequence of cost cutting. Why give a black inmate a blanket and a pillow when the
money would be better used on stock buy backs and corporate bonusses.
The importance of image is then only relevant for winning elections. Being "too soft on crime"
had more to do with shaping the expectations of the electorate so that they would rubber stamp
the policy incentives handed to them by the donors.
" Clintonism was always Bill Clinton himself, and his singular ability to speak to both
the most elite audiences and the most everyday ones in ways that could move each "
This is the heart of Clintonism, moving both the elites and electorate. Back then, voters had
no idea this was happening, and even trusted "Bubba" that he knew what he was doing. But even
back then, Bill was duplicitous. I remember voting for Bill Clinton because he opposed NAFTA and
campaigned against it. A necessary position in order to win support of the unions, who was the
backbone of the Democratic Party at the time.
But it turned out this was his "public position". Once he got into office, he signed NAFTA
into law, without any explanation as to why his position changed. This was his "privet position",
more than likely reflected in the speeches he made to the elites at the time. So at the end of
the day, Bill's "singular ability" was the power to lie to the voters in order to get elected
and pass the donor's agenda.
Today, it's irrelevant if HRC understood this or not. The electorate has becoming increasingly
aware of Democratic duplicity, and it turns out they do not appreciate being lied to. Nor is this
a new lessen. This is largely why Obama beat Hillary eight years ago, by replacing Clinton style
duplicity with an emotional appeal of "hope and change." Eight years later, she returned to the
stage with the same playbook that failed her the last time.
Indeed, this seems to be the authors point. It worked for Bill – so it should have worked for
Hillary twenty-five years later.
"Do I think it will hurt Bill Clinton in the long run?" Sperling asks. "No, because he will
still be most remembered for helping to bring about eight of the best years of shared growth
and peace our country has had."
This also seems to be the hallmark of Clintonism, self-aggrandizement. This is the Washington
narrative that Bill oversaw the best years of shared growth. But both popular and academic perceptions
of this period are changing, and not for the better of the legacy. Rather than overseeing massive
shared economic growth, Bill is not seen as laying the foundation for the economic collapse that
took place decades later.
The Clinton miracle was unsustainable. A fact that was already apparent even during Bill's
administration as the various trade deals Bill passed ended up producing that great sucking sound
of jobs leaving the nation. Today, we are surrounded by the ruins of Bill's legacy, factories
abandoned in the 90's are now in such poor condition that they are caving in from their own weight.
Production lines that once was the arsenal of freedom, has been to trees and shrubs piercing cement
floors and reaching for gaps in the ceiling.
We couldn't rebuild now even if we were allowed to, not without first fully razing Bill's legacy
to the ground.
And yet, the establishment continues to labor under the delusion that this is what works. Even
as Obama surveyed the smoldering ruins of the housing markets originally created by Bill's deregulation,
his first compulsion was to immediately begin re-inflating the housing market. Democrats have
become like the robot arm trying to build a tower of blocks, unaware that the tower it has already
build has collapsed in on itself. So now the Democratic Party keeps lofting up new blocks and
dropping them into thin air, incapable of grasping that it has become an absurd parity of itself,
incapable grasping the world around them, let alone self-reflection.
"Now Clinton's time as the party's Mr. Fix-It, and even as its "Explainer-in-Chief," as
Obama famously styled him, has ended for good. It will be left for someone in the next generation
to build a new New Democratic coalition, one that can somehow rise above prevailing identity
politics (much as Clinton did) to forge an interracial coalition of working-class voters who
can carry the big swing states in the heart of the country that count in the Electoral College "
Is it? This is the main question I am asking. Is Clintonism really, truly dead? The author
seems to be lamenting the death of Clintonim, while I would say good riddance. But I fear that
far from Clintonism being dead, it goes into hibernation.
Clintionism has already survived a long hibernation cycle. Indeed, the author actually noted
that the majority of time under Clintonism, the Whitehouse was held by Republicans.
Clintonism is basically about influence pedaling. Your generous donations will almost always
result in that mining lease, pipe line route, or pollution permit you always wanted. And the more
offices you hold, the greater your ability to influence legislation, and the more "influence"
you have to sell. So what happens when you lose an election, and start running out of influence?
Don't forget about the revolving door. Being voted out of office his hardly a political death
these days, not when there is a limo waiting for you, ready to whisk you away to a lucrative career
as a lobbyist, media commentator, or think tanks professor. As the saying goes, how can we ever
miss you if you never go away.
This was written in 2011 but it summarizes Obama presidency pretty nicely, even today. Betrayer
in chief, the master of bait and switch. That is the essence of Obama legacy. On "Great Democratic betrayal"...
Obama always was a closet neoliberal and neocon. A stooge of neoliberal financial oligarchy, a puppet,
if you want politically incorrect term. He just masked it well during hist first election campaigning
as a progressive democrat... And he faced Romney in his second campaign, who was even worse, so after
betraying American people once, he was reelected and did it twice. Much like Bush II. He like
another former cocaine addict -- George W Bush has never any intention of helping American people, only
oligarchy.
Notable quotes:
"... IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. ..."
"... We (yes, we) recognise that capitalism is the most efficient way to maximise overall prosperity and quality of life. But we also recognise that unfettered, it will ravage the environment, abuse labor, and expand income disparity until violence or tragedy (or both) ensues. ..."
"... These are the lessons we've learned since the industrial revolution, and they're the ones that we should be drawing from the past decade. We recognise that we need a strong federal government to check these tendencies, and to strike a stable, sustainable balance between prosperity, community, opportunity, wealth, justice, freedom. We need a voice to fill the moral vacuum that has allowed the Koch/Tea/Fox Party to emerge and grab power. ..."
"... Americans know this---including, of course, President Obama (see his April 13 speech at GW University). But as this article by Dr. Westen so effectively shows, Obama is incompetent to lead us back ..."
"... he is not competent to lead us back to a state of American morality, where government is the protector of those who work hard, and the provider of opportunity to all Americans. ..."
"... I've heard him called a mediator, a conciliator, a compromiser, etc. Those terms indicate someone who is bringing divergent views together and moving us along. That's part of what a leader does, though not all. Yet I don't think he's even lived up to his reputation as a mediator. ..."
"... Almost three years after I voted for Obama, I still don't know what he's doing other than trying to help the financial industry: the wealthy who benefit most from it and the technocrats who run it for them. But average working people, people like myself and my daughter and my grandson, have not been helped. We are worse off than before. And millions of unemployed and underemployed are even worse off than my family is. ..."
"... So whatever else he is (and that still remains a mystery to me), President Obama is not the leader I thought I was voting for. ..."
"... I knew that Obama was a charade early on when giving a speech about the banking failures to the nation, instead of giving the narrative Mr. Westen accurately recommended on the origins of the orgy of greed that just crippled our economy and caused suffering for millions of Americans ..."
"... He should have been condemning the craven, wanton, greed of nihilistic financial gangsters who hijacked our economy. Instead he seemed to be calling for all Americans not to hate rich people. That was not the point. Americans don't hate rich people, but they should hate rich people who acquire their wealth at the expense of the well being of an entire nation through irresponsible, avaricious, and in some instances illegal practices, and legally bribe politicians to enact laws which allow them to run amok over our economy without supervision or regulation. ..."
"... I knew then that Obama was either a political lemon, in over his head, an extremely conflict averse neurotic individual with a compulsive need for some delusional ideal of neutrality in political and social relations, or a political phony beholden to the same forces that almost destroyed the country as Republicans are. ..."
When Barack Obama rose to the lectern on Inauguration Day, the nation was in tatters. Americans
were scared and angry. The economy was spinning in reverse. Three-quarters of a million people lost
their jobs that month. Many had lost their homes, and with them the only nest eggs they had. Even
the usually impervious upper middle class had seen a decade of stagnant or declining investment,
with the stock market dropping in value with no end in sight. Hope was as scarce as credit.
In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what
they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end. They needed to hear that
he understood what they were feeling, that he would track down those responsible for their pain and
suffering, and that he would restore order and safety. What they were waiting for, in broad strokes,
was a story something like this:
"I know you're scared and angry. Many of you have lost your jobs, your homes, your hope. This
was a disaster, but it was not a natural disaster. It was made by Wall Street gamblers who speculated
with your lives and futures. It was made by conservative extremists who told us that if we just eliminated
regulations and rewarded greed and recklessness, it would all work out. But it didn't work out. And
it didn't work out 80 years ago, when the same people sold our grandparents the same bill of goods,
with the same results. But we learned something from our grandparents about how to fix it, and we
will draw on their wisdom. We will restore business confidence the old-fashioned way: by putting
money back in the pockets of working Americans by putting them back to work, and by restoring integrity
to our financial markets and demanding it of those who want to run them. I can't promise that we
won't make mistakes along the way. But I can promise you that they will be honest mistakes, and that
your government has your back again." A story isn't a policy. But that simple narrative - and the
policies that would naturally have flowed from it - would have inoculated against much of what was
to come in the intervening two and a half years of failed government, idled factories and idled hands.
That story would have made clear that the president understood that the American people had given
Democrats the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress to fix the mess the Republicans
and Wall Street had made of the country, and that this would not be a power-sharing arrangement.
It would have made clear that the problem wasn't tax-and-spend liberalism or the deficit - a deficit
that didn't exist until George W. Bush gave nearly $2 trillion in tax breaks largely to the wealthiest
Americans and squandered $1 trillion in two wars.
And perhaps most important, it would have offered a clear, compelling alternative to the dominant
narrative of the right, that our problem is not due to spending on things like the pensions of firefighters,
but to the fact that those who can afford to buy influence are rewriting the rules so they can cut
themselves progressively larger slices of the American pie while paying less of their fair share
for it.
But there was no story - and there has been none since.
In similar circumstances, Franklin D. Roosevelt offered Americans a promise to use the power of
his office to make their lives better and to keep trying until he got it right. Beginning in his
first inaugural address, and in the fireside chats that followed, he explained how the crash had
happened, and he minced no words about those who had caused it. He promised to do something no president
had done before: to use the resources of the United States to put Americans directly to work, building
the infrastructure we still rely on today. He swore to keep the people who had caused the crisis
out of the halls of power, and he made good on that promise. In a 1936 speech at Madison Square Garden,
he thundered, "Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate
as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me - and I welcome their hatred."
When Barack Obama stepped into the Oval Office, he stepped into a cycle of American history, best
exemplified by F.D.R. and his distant cousin, Teddy. After a great technological revolution or a
major economic transition, as when America changed from a nation of farmers to an urban industrial
one, there is often a period of great concentration of wealth, and with it, a concentration of power
in the wealthy. That's what we saw in 1928, and that's what we see today. At some point that power
is exercised so injudiciously, and the lives of so many become so unbearable, that a period of reform
ensues - and a charismatic reformer emerges to lead that renewal. In that sense, Teddy Roosevelt
started the cycle of reform his cousin picked up 30 years later, as he began efforts to bust the
trusts and regulate the railroads, exercise federal power over the banks and the nation's food supply,
and protect America's land and wildlife, creating the modern environmental movement.
Those were the shoes - that was the historic role - that Americans elected Barack Obama to fill.
The president is fond of referring to "the arc of history," paraphrasing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr.'s famous statement that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
But with his deep-seated aversion to conflict and his profound failure to understand bully dynamics
- in which conciliation is always the wrong course of action, because bullies perceive it as weakness
and just punch harder the next time - he has broken that arc and has likely bent it backward for
at least a generation.
When Dr. King spoke of the great arc bending toward justice, he did not mean that we should wait
for it to bend. He exhorted others to put their full weight behind it, and he gave his life speaking
with a voice that cut through the blistering force of water cannons and the gnashing teeth of police
dogs. He preached the gospel of nonviolence, but he knew that whether a bully hid behind a club or
a poll tax, the only effective response was to face the bully down, and to make the bully show his
true and repugnant face in public.
IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic
inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack
Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. Instead of indicting the
people whose recklessness wrecked the economy, he put them in charge of it. He never explained that
decision to the public - a failure in storytelling as extraordinary as the failure in judgment behind
it. Had the president chosen to bend the arc of history, he would have told the public the story
of the destruction wrought by the dismantling of the New Deal regulations that had protected them
for more than half a century. He would have offered them a counternarrative of how to fix the problem
other than the politics of appeasement, one that emphasized creating economic demand and consumer
confidence by putting consumers back to work. He would have had to stare down those who had wrecked
the economy, and he would have had to tolerate their hatred if not welcome it. But the arc of his
temperament just didn't bend that far.
Michael August 7, 2011
Eloquently expressed and horrifically accurate, this excellent analysis articulates the frustration
that so many of us have felt watching Mr...
Bill Levine August 7, 2011
Very well put. I know that I have been going through Kübler-Ross's stages of grief ever since
the foxes (a.k.a. Geithner and Summers) were...
AnAverageAmerican August 7, 2011
"In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of
what they had just been through, what caused it,...
Unfortunately, the Democratic Congress of 2008-2010, did not have the will to make the economic
and social program decisions that would have improved the economic situation for the middle-class;
and it is becoming more obvious that President Obama does not have the temperament to publicly
push for programs and policies that he wants the congress to enact.
The American people have a problem: we reelect Obama and hope for the best; or we elect a Republican
and expect the worst. There is no question that the Health Care law that was just passed would
be reversed; Medicare and Medicare would be gutted; and who knows what would happen to Social
Security. You can be sure, though, that business taxes and regulation reforms would not be in
the cards and those regulations that have been enacted would be reversed. We have traveled this
road before and we should be wise enough not to travel it again!
Brilliant analysis - and I suspect that a very large number of those who voted for President
Obama will recognize in this the thoughts that they have been trying to ignore, or have been trying
not to say out loud. Later historians can complete this analysis and attempt to explain exactly
why Mr. Obama has turned out the way he has - but right now, it may be time to ask a more relevant
and urgent question.
If it is not too late, will a challenger emerge in time before the 2012 elections, or will
we be doomed to hold our noses and endure another four years of this?
Very eloquent and exactly to the point. Like many others, I was enthralled by the rhetoric
of his story, making the leap of faith (or hope) that because he could tell his story so well,
he could tell, as you put it, "the story the American people were waiting to hear."
Disappointment has darkened into disillusion, disillusion into a species of despair. Will I
vote for Barack Obama again? What are the options?
This is the most brilliant and tragic story I have read in a long time---in fact, precisely
since I read when Ill Fares the Land by Tony Judt. When will a leader emerge with a true moral
vision for the federal government and for our country? Someone who sees government as a balance
to capitalism, and a means to achieve the social and economic justice that we (yes, we) believe
in? Will that leadership arrive before parts of America come to look like the dystopia of Johannesburg?
We (yes, we) recognise that capitalism is the most efficient way to maximise overall prosperity
and quality of life. But we also recognise that unfettered, it will ravage the environment, abuse
labor, and expand income disparity until violence or tragedy (or both) ensues.
These are the lessons we've learned since the industrial revolution, and they're the ones
that we should be drawing from the past decade. We recognise that we need a strong federal government
to check these tendencies, and to strike a stable, sustainable balance between prosperity, community,
opportunity, wealth, justice, freedom. We need a voice to fill the moral vacuum that has allowed
the Koch/Tea/Fox Party to emerge and grab power.
Americans know this---including, of course, President Obama (see his April 13 speech at
GW University). But as this article by Dr. Westen so effectively shows, Obama is incompetent to
lead us back to America's traditional position on the global economic/political spectrum.
He's brilliant and eloquent. He's achieved personal success that is inspirational. He's done some
good things as president. But he is not competent to lead us back to a state of American morality,
where government is the protector of those who work hard, and the provider of opportunity to all
Americans.
Taxes, subsidies, entitlements, laws... these are the tools we have available to achieve our
national moral vision. But the vision has been muddled (hijacked?) and that is our biggest problem.
-->
I voted for Obama. I thought then, and still think, he's a decent person, a smart person, a
person who wants to do the best he can for others. When I voted for him, I was thinking he's a
centrist who will find a way to unite our increasingly polarized and ugly politics in the USA.
Or if not unite us, at least forge a way to get some important things done despite the ugly polarization.
And I must confess, I have been disappointed. Deeply so. He has not united us. He has not forged
a way to accomplish what needs to be done. He has not been a leader.
I've heard him called a mediator, a conciliator, a compromiser, etc. Those terms indicate
someone who is bringing divergent views together and moving us along. That's part of what a leader
does, though not all. Yet I don't think he's even lived up to his reputation as a mediator.
Almost three years after I voted for Obama, I still don't know what he's doing other than
trying to help the financial industry: the wealthy who benefit most from it and the technocrats
who run it for them. But average working people, people like myself and my daughter and my grandson,
have not been helped. We are worse off than before. And millions of unemployed and underemployed
are even worse off than my family is.
So whatever else he is (and that still remains a mystery to me), President Obama is not
the leader I thought I was voting for. Which leaves me feeling confused and close to apathetic
about what to do as a voter in 2012. More of the same isn't worth voting for. Yet I don't see
anyone out there who offers the possibility of doing better.
This was an extraordinarily well written, eloquent and comprehensive indictment of the failure
of the Obama presidency.
If a credible primary challenger to Obama ever could arise, the positions and analysis in this
column would be all he or she would need to justify the Democratic party's need to seek new leadership.
I knew that Obama was a charade early on when giving a speech about the banking failures
to the nation, instead of giving the narrative Mr. Westen accurately recommended on the origins
of the orgy of greed that just crippled our economy and caused suffering for millions of Americans,
he said "we don't disparage wealth in America." I was dumbfounded.
He should have been condemning the craven, wanton, greed of nihilistic financial gangsters
who hijacked our economy. Instead he seemed to be calling for all Americans not to hate rich people.
That was not the point. Americans don't hate rich people, but they should hate rich people who
acquire their wealth at the expense of the well being of an entire nation through irresponsible,
avaricious, and in some instances illegal practices, and legally bribe politicians to enact laws
which allow them to run amok over our economy without supervision or regulation.
I knew then that Obama was either a political lemon, in over his head, an extremely conflict
averse neurotic individual with a compulsive need for some delusional ideal of neutrality in political
and social relations, or a political phony beholden to the same forces that almost destroyed the
country as Republicans are.
This was written in 2011 but it summarizes Obama presidency pretty nicely, even today. Betrayer
in chief, the master of bait and switch. That is the essence of Obama legacy. On "Great Democratic betrayal"...
Obama always was a closet neoliberal and neocon. A stooge of neoliberal financial oligarchy, a puppet,
if you want politically incorrect term. He just masked it well during hist first election campaigning
as a progressive democrat... And he faced Romney in his second campaign, who was even worse, so after
betraying American people once, he was reelected and did it twice. Much like Bush II. He like
another former cocaine addict -- George W Bush has never any intention of helping American people, only
oligarchy.
Notable quotes:
"... IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. ..."
"... We (yes, we) recognise that capitalism is the most efficient way to maximise overall prosperity and quality of life. But we also recognise that unfettered, it will ravage the environment, abuse labor, and expand income disparity until violence or tragedy (or both) ensues. ..."
"... These are the lessons we've learned since the industrial revolution, and they're the ones that we should be drawing from the past decade. We recognise that we need a strong federal government to check these tendencies, and to strike a stable, sustainable balance between prosperity, community, opportunity, wealth, justice, freedom. We need a voice to fill the moral vacuum that has allowed the Koch/Tea/Fox Party to emerge and grab power. ..."
"... Americans know this---including, of course, President Obama (see his April 13 speech at GW University). But as this article by Dr. Westen so effectively shows, Obama is incompetent to lead us back ..."
"... he is not competent to lead us back to a state of American morality, where government is the protector of those who work hard, and the provider of opportunity to all Americans. ..."
"... I've heard him called a mediator, a conciliator, a compromiser, etc. Those terms indicate someone who is bringing divergent views together and moving us along. That's part of what a leader does, though not all. Yet I don't think he's even lived up to his reputation as a mediator. ..."
"... Almost three years after I voted for Obama, I still don't know what he's doing other than trying to help the financial industry: the wealthy who benefit most from it and the technocrats who run it for them. But average working people, people like myself and my daughter and my grandson, have not been helped. We are worse off than before. And millions of unemployed and underemployed are even worse off than my family is. ..."
"... So whatever else he is (and that still remains a mystery to me), President Obama is not the leader I thought I was voting for. ..."
"... I knew that Obama was a charade early on when giving a speech about the banking failures to the nation, instead of giving the narrative Mr. Westen accurately recommended on the origins of the orgy of greed that just crippled our economy and caused suffering for millions of Americans ..."
"... He should have been condemning the craven, wanton, greed of nihilistic financial gangsters who hijacked our economy. Instead he seemed to be calling for all Americans not to hate rich people. That was not the point. Americans don't hate rich people, but they should hate rich people who acquire their wealth at the expense of the well being of an entire nation through irresponsible, avaricious, and in some instances illegal practices, and legally bribe politicians to enact laws which allow them to run amok over our economy without supervision or regulation. ..."
"... I knew then that Obama was either a political lemon, in over his head, an extremely conflict averse neurotic individual with a compulsive need for some delusional ideal of neutrality in political and social relations, or a political phony beholden to the same forces that almost destroyed the country as Republicans are. ..."
When Barack Obama rose to the lectern on Inauguration Day, the nation was in tatters. Americans
were scared and angry. The economy was spinning in reverse. Three-quarters of a million people lost
their jobs that month. Many had lost their homes, and with them the only nest eggs they had. Even
the usually impervious upper middle class had seen a decade of stagnant or declining investment,
with the stock market dropping in value with no end in sight. Hope was as scarce as credit.
In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of what
they had just been through, what caused it, and how it was going to end. They needed to hear that
he understood what they were feeling, that he would track down those responsible for their pain and
suffering, and that he would restore order and safety. What they were waiting for, in broad strokes,
was a story something like this:
"I know you're scared and angry. Many of you have lost your jobs, your homes, your hope. This
was a disaster, but it was not a natural disaster. It was made by Wall Street gamblers who speculated
with your lives and futures. It was made by conservative extremists who told us that if we just eliminated
regulations and rewarded greed and recklessness, it would all work out. But it didn't work out. And
it didn't work out 80 years ago, when the same people sold our grandparents the same bill of goods,
with the same results. But we learned something from our grandparents about how to fix it, and we
will draw on their wisdom. We will restore business confidence the old-fashioned way: by putting
money back in the pockets of working Americans by putting them back to work, and by restoring integrity
to our financial markets and demanding it of those who want to run them. I can't promise that we
won't make mistakes along the way. But I can promise you that they will be honest mistakes, and that
your government has your back again." A story isn't a policy. But that simple narrative - and the
policies that would naturally have flowed from it - would have inoculated against much of what was
to come in the intervening two and a half years of failed government, idled factories and idled hands.
That story would have made clear that the president understood that the American people had given
Democrats the presidency and majorities in both houses of Congress to fix the mess the Republicans
and Wall Street had made of the country, and that this would not be a power-sharing arrangement.
It would have made clear that the problem wasn't tax-and-spend liberalism or the deficit - a deficit
that didn't exist until George W. Bush gave nearly $2 trillion in tax breaks largely to the wealthiest
Americans and squandered $1 trillion in two wars.
And perhaps most important, it would have offered a clear, compelling alternative to the dominant
narrative of the right, that our problem is not due to spending on things like the pensions of firefighters,
but to the fact that those who can afford to buy influence are rewriting the rules so they can cut
themselves progressively larger slices of the American pie while paying less of their fair share
for it.
But there was no story - and there has been none since.
In similar circumstances, Franklin D. Roosevelt offered Americans a promise to use the power of
his office to make their lives better and to keep trying until he got it right. Beginning in his
first inaugural address, and in the fireside chats that followed, he explained how the crash had
happened, and he minced no words about those who had caused it. He promised to do something no president
had done before: to use the resources of the United States to put Americans directly to work, building
the infrastructure we still rely on today. He swore to keep the people who had caused the crisis
out of the halls of power, and he made good on that promise. In a 1936 speech at Madison Square Garden,
he thundered, "Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate
as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me - and I welcome their hatred."
When Barack Obama stepped into the Oval Office, he stepped into a cycle of American history, best
exemplified by F.D.R. and his distant cousin, Teddy. After a great technological revolution or a
major economic transition, as when America changed from a nation of farmers to an urban industrial
one, there is often a period of great concentration of wealth, and with it, a concentration of power
in the wealthy. That's what we saw in 1928, and that's what we see today. At some point that power
is exercised so injudiciously, and the lives of so many become so unbearable, that a period of reform
ensues - and a charismatic reformer emerges to lead that renewal. In that sense, Teddy Roosevelt
started the cycle of reform his cousin picked up 30 years later, as he began efforts to bust the
trusts and regulate the railroads, exercise federal power over the banks and the nation's food supply,
and protect America's land and wildlife, creating the modern environmental movement.
Those were the shoes - that was the historic role - that Americans elected Barack Obama to fill.
The president is fond of referring to "the arc of history," paraphrasing the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther
King Jr.'s famous statement that "the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."
But with his deep-seated aversion to conflict and his profound failure to understand bully dynamics
- in which conciliation is always the wrong course of action, because bullies perceive it as weakness
and just punch harder the next time - he has broken that arc and has likely bent it backward for
at least a generation.
When Dr. King spoke of the great arc bending toward justice, he did not mean that we should wait
for it to bend. He exhorted others to put their full weight behind it, and he gave his life speaking
with a voice that cut through the blistering force of water cannons and the gnashing teeth of police
dogs. He preached the gospel of nonviolence, but he knew that whether a bully hid behind a club or
a poll tax, the only effective response was to face the bully down, and to make the bully show his
true and repugnant face in public.
IN contrast, when faced with the greatest economic crisis, the greatest levels of economic
inequality, and the greatest levels of corporate influence on politics since the Depression, Barack
Obama stared into the eyes of history and chose to avert his gaze. Instead of indicting the
people whose recklessness wrecked the economy, he put them in charge of it. He never explained that
decision to the public - a failure in storytelling as extraordinary as the failure in judgment behind
it. Had the president chosen to bend the arc of history, he would have told the public the story
of the destruction wrought by the dismantling of the New Deal regulations that had protected them
for more than half a century. He would have offered them a counternarrative of how to fix the problem
other than the politics of appeasement, one that emphasized creating economic demand and consumer
confidence by putting consumers back to work. He would have had to stare down those who had wrecked
the economy, and he would have had to tolerate their hatred if not welcome it. But the arc of his
temperament just didn't bend that far.
Michael August 7, 2011
Eloquently expressed and horrifically accurate, this excellent analysis articulates the frustration
that so many of us have felt watching Mr...
Bill Levine August 7, 2011
Very well put. I know that I have been going through Kübler-Ross's stages of grief ever since
the foxes (a.k.a. Geithner and Summers) were...
AnAverageAmerican August 7, 2011
"In that context, Americans needed their president to tell them a story that made sense of
what they had just been through, what caused it,...
Unfortunately, the Democratic Congress of 2008-2010, did not have the will to make the economic
and social program decisions that would have improved the economic situation for the middle-class;
and it is becoming more obvious that President Obama does not have the temperament to publicly
push for programs and policies that he wants the congress to enact.
The American people have a problem: we reelect Obama and hope for the best; or we elect a Republican
and expect the worst. There is no question that the Health Care law that was just passed would
be reversed; Medicare and Medicare would be gutted; and who knows what would happen to Social
Security. You can be sure, though, that business taxes and regulation reforms would not be in
the cards and those regulations that have been enacted would be reversed. We have traveled this
road before and we should be wise enough not to travel it again!
Brilliant analysis - and I suspect that a very large number of those who voted for President
Obama will recognize in this the thoughts that they have been trying to ignore, or have been trying
not to say out loud. Later historians can complete this analysis and attempt to explain exactly
why Mr. Obama has turned out the way he has - but right now, it may be time to ask a more relevant
and urgent question.
If it is not too late, will a challenger emerge in time before the 2012 elections, or will
we be doomed to hold our noses and endure another four years of this?
Very eloquent and exactly to the point. Like many others, I was enthralled by the rhetoric
of his story, making the leap of faith (or hope) that because he could tell his story so well,
he could tell, as you put it, "the story the American people were waiting to hear."
Disappointment has darkened into disillusion, disillusion into a species of despair. Will I
vote for Barack Obama again? What are the options?
This is the most brilliant and tragic story I have read in a long time---in fact, precisely
since I read when Ill Fares the Land by Tony Judt. When will a leader emerge with a true moral
vision for the federal government and for our country? Someone who sees government as a balance
to capitalism, and a means to achieve the social and economic justice that we (yes, we) believe
in? Will that leadership arrive before parts of America come to look like the dystopia of Johannesburg?
We (yes, we) recognise that capitalism is the most efficient way to maximise overall prosperity
and quality of life. But we also recognise that unfettered, it will ravage the environment, abuse
labor, and expand income disparity until violence or tragedy (or both) ensues.
These are the lessons we've learned since the industrial revolution, and they're the ones
that we should be drawing from the past decade. We recognise that we need a strong federal government
to check these tendencies, and to strike a stable, sustainable balance between prosperity, community,
opportunity, wealth, justice, freedom. We need a voice to fill the moral vacuum that has allowed
the Koch/Tea/Fox Party to emerge and grab power.
Americans know this---including, of course, President Obama (see his April 13 speech at
GW University). But as this article by Dr. Westen so effectively shows, Obama is incompetent to
lead us back to America's traditional position on the global economic/political spectrum.
He's brilliant and eloquent. He's achieved personal success that is inspirational. He's done some
good things as president. But he is not competent to lead us back to a state of American morality,
where government is the protector of those who work hard, and the provider of opportunity to all
Americans.
Taxes, subsidies, entitlements, laws... these are the tools we have available to achieve our
national moral vision. But the vision has been muddled (hijacked?) and that is our biggest problem.
-->
I voted for Obama. I thought then, and still think, he's a decent person, a smart person, a
person who wants to do the best he can for others. When I voted for him, I was thinking he's a
centrist who will find a way to unite our increasingly polarized and ugly politics in the USA.
Or if not unite us, at least forge a way to get some important things done despite the ugly polarization.
And I must confess, I have been disappointed. Deeply so. He has not united us. He has not forged
a way to accomplish what needs to be done. He has not been a leader.
I've heard him called a mediator, a conciliator, a compromiser, etc. Those terms indicate
someone who is bringing divergent views together and moving us along. That's part of what a leader
does, though not all. Yet I don't think he's even lived up to his reputation as a mediator.
Almost three years after I voted for Obama, I still don't know what he's doing other than
trying to help the financial industry: the wealthy who benefit most from it and the technocrats
who run it for them. But average working people, people like myself and my daughter and my grandson,
have not been helped. We are worse off than before. And millions of unemployed and underemployed
are even worse off than my family is.
So whatever else he is (and that still remains a mystery to me), President Obama is not
the leader I thought I was voting for. Which leaves me feeling confused and close to apathetic
about what to do as a voter in 2012. More of the same isn't worth voting for. Yet I don't see
anyone out there who offers the possibility of doing better.
This was an extraordinarily well written, eloquent and comprehensive indictment of the failure
of the Obama presidency.
If a credible primary challenger to Obama ever could arise, the positions and analysis in this
column would be all he or she would need to justify the Democratic party's need to seek new leadership.
I knew that Obama was a charade early on when giving a speech about the banking failures
to the nation, instead of giving the narrative Mr. Westen accurately recommended on the origins
of the orgy of greed that just crippled our economy and caused suffering for millions of Americans,
he said "we don't disparage wealth in America." I was dumbfounded.
He should have been condemning the craven, wanton, greed of nihilistic financial gangsters
who hijacked our economy. Instead he seemed to be calling for all Americans not to hate rich people.
That was not the point. Americans don't hate rich people, but they should hate rich people who
acquire their wealth at the expense of the well being of an entire nation through irresponsible,
avaricious, and in some instances illegal practices, and legally bribe politicians to enact laws
which allow them to run amok over our economy without supervision or regulation.
I knew then that Obama was either a political lemon, in over his head, an extremely conflict
averse neurotic individual with a compulsive need for some delusional ideal of neutrality in political
and social relations, or a political phony beholden to the same forces that almost destroyed the
country as Republicans are.
"... The Democratic Party as a Party (Sanders was an outlier) has nothing to do with "fair and equal
play for all". This is a party of soft neoliberals and it adheres to Washington consensus no less then
Republicans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus ..."
"... If you read the key postulates it is clear that that they essentially behaved like an occupier
in this country. In this sense "Occupy Wall street" movement should actually be called "Liberation from
Wall Street occupation" movement. ..."
"... Bill Clinton realized that he can betray working class with impunity as "they have nowhere
to go" and will vote for Democrat anyway. In this sense Bill Clinton is a godfather of the right wing
nationalism in the USA. He sowed the "Teeth's of Dragon" and now we have, what we have. ..."
You guys should wake up and smell what country you live in. Here is a good place to start.
"Campaigning for president in 1980, Ronald Reagan told stories of Cadillac-driving "welfare
queens" and "strapping young bucks" buying T-bone steaks with food stamps. In trumpeting these
tales of welfare run amok, Reagan never needed to mention race, because he was blowing a dog
whistle: sending a message about racial minorities inaudible on one level, but clearly heard
on another. In doing so, he tapped into a long political tradition that started with George
Wallace and Richard Nixon, and is more relevant than ever in the age of the Tea Party and the
first black president.
In Dog Whistle Politics, Ian Haney L?pez offers a sweeping account of how politicians and
plutocrats deploy veiled racial appeals to persuade white voters to support policies that favor
the extremely rich yet threaten their own interests. Dog whistle appeals generate middle-class
enthusiasm for political candidates who promise to crack down on crime, curb undocumented immigration,
and protect the heartland against Islamic infiltration, but ultimately vote to slash taxes
for the rich, give corporations regulatory control over industry and financial markets, and
aggressively curtail social services. White voters, convinced by powerful interests that minorities
are their true enemies, fail to see the connection between the political agendas they support
and the surging wealth inequality that takes an increasing toll on their lives. The tactic
continues at full force, with the Republican Party using racial provocations to drum up enthusiasm
for weakening unions and public pensions, defunding public schools, and opposing health care
reform.
Rejecting any simple story of malevolent and obvious racism, Haney L?pez links as never
before the two central themes that dominate American politics today: the decline of the middle
class and the Republican Party's increasing reliance on white voters. Dog Whistle Politics
will generate a lively and much-needed debate about how racial politics has destabilized the
American middle class -- white and nonwhite members alike."
Reading the above posts I am reminded that in November there was ONE Election with TWO Results:
Electoral Vote for Donald Trump by the margin of 3 formerly Democratic Voting states Michigan,
Ohio, and Pennsylvania
Popular Vote for Hillary Clinton by over 2.8 Million
The Democratic Party and its Candidates OBVIOUSLY need to get more votes in the Electoral States
that they lost in 2016, not change what they stand for, the principles of fair and equal play
for all.
And, in the 3 States that turned the Electoral Vote in Trump's favor and against Hillary, all
that is needed are 125,000 or more votes, probably fewer, and the DEMS win the Electoral vote
big too.
It is not any more complex than that.
So how does the Democratic Party get more votes in those States?
PANDER to their voters by delivering on KISS, not talking about it.
That is create living wage jobs and not taking them away as the Republican Party of 'Free Trade'
and the Clinton Democratic Party 'Free Trade' Elites did.
Understand this: It is not the responsibility of the USA, or in its best interests, to create
jobs in other nations (Mexico, Japan, China, Canada, Israel, etc.) that do not create jobs in
the USA equivalently, especially if the gain is offset by costly overseas confrontations and involvements
that would not otherwise exist.
"The Democratic Party and its Candidates OBVIOUSLY need to get more votes in the Electoral
States that they lost in 2016, not change what they stand for, the principles of fair and equal
play for all. "
The Democratic Party as a Party (Sanders was an outlier) has nothing to do with "fair and
equal play for all". This is a party of soft neoliberals and it adheres to Washington consensus
no less then Republicans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus
If you read the key postulates it is clear that that they essentially behaved like an occupier
in this country. In this sense "Occupy Wall street" movement should actually be called "Liberation
from Wall Street occupation" movement.
Bill Clinton realized that he can betray working class with impunity as "they have nowhere
to go" and will vote for Democrat anyway. In this sense Bill Clinton is a godfather of the right
wing nationalism in the USA. He sowed the "Teeth's of Dragon" and now we have, what we have.
Blast from the past. Bill Clinton position on illegal immegtation.
Notable quotes:
"... Today's Democratic Party also believes we must remain a nation of laws. We cannot tolerate illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned the very next day to commit crimes again. ..."
"... President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and illegal immigrants are turned away. We have increased the Border Patrol by over 40 percent; in El Paso, our Border Patrol agents are so close together they can see each other. Last year alone, the Clinton Administration removed thousands of illegal workers from jobs across the country. Just since January of 1995, we have arrested more than 1,700 criminal aliens and prosecuted them on federal felony charges because they returned to America after having been deported. ..."
"... However, as we work to stop illegal immigration, we call on all Americans to avoid the temptation to use this issue to divide people from each other. We deplore those who use the need to stop illegal immigration as a pretext for discrimination . And we applaud the wisdom of Republicans like Mayor Giuliani and Senator Domenici who oppose the mean-spirited and short-sighted effort of Republicans in Congress to bar the children of illegal immigrants from schools - it is wrong, and forcing children onto the streets is an invitation for them to join gangs and turn to crime. ..."
Democrats remember that we are a nation of immigrants. We recognize the extraordinary contribution
of immigrants to America throughout our history. We welcome legal immigrants to America. We support
a legal immigration policy that is pro-family, pro-work, pro-responsibility, and pro-citizenship
, and we deplore those who blame immigrants for economic and social problems.
We know that citizenship is the cornerstone of full participation in American life. We are
proud that the President launched Citizenship USA to help eligible immigrants become United States
citizens. The Immigration and Naturalization Service is streamlining procedures, cutting red tape,
and using new technology to make it easier for legal immigrants to accept the responsibilities
of citizenship and truly call America their home.
Today's Democratic Party also believes we must remain a nation of laws. We cannot tolerate
illegal immigration and we must stop it. For years before Bill Clinton became President, Washington
talked tough but failed to act. In 1992, our borders might as well not have existed. The border
was under-patrolled, and what patrols there were, were under-equipped. Drugs flowed freely. Illegal
immigration was rampant. Criminal immigrants, deported after committing crimes in America, returned
the very next day to commit crimes again.
President Clinton is making our border a place where the law is respected and drugs and
illegal immigrants are turned away. We have increased the Border Patrol by over 40 percent; in
El Paso, our Border Patrol agents are so close together they can see each other. Last year alone,
the Clinton Administration removed thousands of illegal workers from jobs across the country.
Just since January of 1995, we have arrested more than 1,700 criminal aliens and prosecuted them
on federal felony charges because they returned to America after having been deported.
However, as we work to stop illegal immigration, we call on all Americans to avoid the
temptation to use this issue to divide people from each other. We deplore those who use the need
to stop illegal immigration as a pretext for discrimination . And we applaud the wisdom of Republicans
like Mayor Giuliani and Senator Domenici who oppose the mean-spirited and short-sighted effort
of Republicans in Congress to bar the children of illegal immigrants from schools - it is wrong,
and forcing children onto the streets is an invitation for them to join gangs and turn to crime.
Democrats want to protect American jobs by increasing criminal and civil sanctions against
employers who hire illegal workers , but Republicans continue to favor inflammatory rhetoric over
real action. We will continue to enforce labor standards to protect workers in vulnerable industries.
We continue to firmly oppose welfare benefits for illegal immigrants. We believe family members
who sponsor immigrants into this country should take financial responsibility for them, and be
held legally responsible for supporting them.
This is from Daily Mail. The later is a British daily conservative, middle-market tabloid. You
are warned !
I wonder whether when the Dems --or I should say if the Dems --select an "establishment" nominee
they might consider Elizabeth Warren. She's very popular & not as far out there as Bernie. I could live
with that. B ut is considered to be a menace to the Wall Street. In realty not much, but due to this
perception chances for this happening are slim. Dems are corrupt to the core and are now the party of
Wall Street ("republicans light") , thanks to this neoliberal stooge Bill Clinton who sold the party
for 20 silver coins (sorry, millions in annual speeches). And as the neoliberals the last thing they
need is have Warren as their (temporary) leader. Warren is probably acceptable to neocons as she is
war hawk "light" do I would say that her chances are single digits.
An interesting combination would be to have her as VP to boost Hillary changes and then force Hillary
to resign. But this is a conspiracy theory.
Funny, Republicans start digging the dirt on Bill Clinton again and it looks like he enjoyed himself
not only with Monica during his time at White House. There were also unnamed receptionist, his female
jogger companions, and even Eleanor Mondale, the daughter of former US Vice President Walter Mondale.
Of course those are rumors but they are 'well substantiated rumors" (http://www.dailymail.co.uk
)
Now it is quite clear that both Clintons have a really sociopathic sense of entitlement. A lack
of concern for feelings, needs, or suffering of others; lack of remorse after hurting or mistreating
another; use of seduction, charm, glibness.' That's why "Anyone by Clinton" movement is so strong. Reportedly
around a half of Bernie supporters decided never vote for Hillary.
Notable quotes:
"... 'There is a vengeful, spiteful ugliness that some women have for other women. Hillary is just one of those women.' For the latest on Hillary and Bill Clinton visit www.dailymail.co.uk/hillary ..."
"... Their clandestine meetings typically included Bill goofing around and playing his sax while Miller, a trained singer and musician, accompanied him on her piano. He would sometimes unwind by smoking a marijuana cigarette. Miller claims that she saw Clinton produce a pouch of white powder on several occasions and snort lines off her coffee table. 'I don't do drugs and I don't smoke. But if you come into my house and say "gosh I've had a bad day" I wouldn't know how to stop you,' said Miller. ..."
"... Their affair would remain a secret for nearly a decade until she went public on the Sally Jesse Raphael show in July 1992, a day after Clinton had been formally named by the Democratic Party as its Presidential candidate. ..."
'There is a vengeful, spiteful ugliness that some women have for other women. Hillary is just
one of those women.' For the latest on Hillary and Bill Clinton visit
www.dailymail.co.uk/hillary
====
...The book promises to recall a series of unguarded conversations in which she claims Bill revealed
his wife's preference for female lovers. As far-fetched as her accusations may appear, she remains
convinced that Hillary Clinton is behind a plot to silence her ahead of the November election. But
it will also lay bare what Miller, describes as a decades-long Democrat campaign to discredit and
harass her that began when she first revealed the affair in 1992, a campaign she claims has now reached
such perverse depths that she actually fears for her life.
The twice-divorced 77-year-old took to social media in recent weeks to post an extraordinary warning
that if she dies by 'suicide' no-one should believe it. When Daily Mail Online visited Miller at
her Arkansas home she insisted she had been stalked, spied upon and plagued by anonymous phone calls
since word of her memoir leaked out.
... ... ...
It was a very different scenario in August 1983, when a 44-year-old Miller left her back door
ajar so her seven-years' younger paramour Bill could be chauffeured to the rear of the property before
slipping inside unnoticed.
The pair had met a decade earlier at parties and political functions when Miller was a senate
aide at the Arkansas State Capitol and Clinton was preparing for his unsuccessful 1974 run for the
House of Representatives.
So when she needed help getting a vintage steam train project off the ground, she sought out her
former friend, by now in his second stint as Governor. 'I left my number with his secretary,' recalled
Miller. 'He was playing golf but within three hours he'd called me. 'He said "I'm going to be leaving
here in a little while, why don't I just drop by and let's see each other for old times' sake."
'We decided because of the positioning of the condo it might be better if he didn't come by the
front door, there are some prominent people that live across by me. 'He never drove himself, it was
a state trooper or someone on his staff. He parked in the park behind my house. I had a gate on the
patio but he just had to lift the latch. 'The first night I just played the piano while he sang.
He's not noted as someone who has a trained voice but we laughed, it was just kind of fun. 'Finally
he said ''we didn't talk about what I came to talk about, so we're going to have to do this again
sometime''. I had all my notes and pictures, all my ideas, all he had to do was call his parks and
tourism gal and get her on this. Bill is not the most handsome man. But he makes you feel like you
have an incredible body and on top of all that you're beautiful. There are not many men that can
make a woman feel that way. 'But we dragged it out for about three months. And yes, we did go upstairs
where the bedrooms were.'
Their clandestine meetings typically included Bill goofing around and playing his sax while
Miller, a trained singer and musician, accompanied him on her piano. He would sometimes unwind by
smoking a marijuana cigarette. Miller claims that she saw Clinton produce a pouch of white powder
on several occasions and snort lines off her coffee table. 'I don't do drugs and I don't smoke. But
if you come into my house and say "gosh I've had a bad day" I wouldn't know how to stop you,' said
Miller.
'Bill is not the most handsome man. But he makes you feel like your breasts are the right size,
your legs are the perfect length, you have an incredible body and on top of all that you're beautiful.
There are not many men that can make a woman feel that way. 'Do I make it a point to have affairs
with married men, no. But most everyone in Arkansas assumed that their marriage was a business arrangement.
'Bill never sounded like he was in love or locked into a loyal arrangement.'
Their affair would remain a secret for nearly a decade until she went public on the Sally
Jesse Raphael show in July 1992, a day after Clinton had been formally named by the Democratic Party
as its Presidential candidate. But while the future president was a born entertainer and charismatic
companion, the sex itself failed to inspire. 'It wasn't that memorable. It was no big deal - think
about that,' chuckled Miller. 'That's probably why he didn't have any confidence as a lover. 'He
reminded me of a what a little boy would say to his momma. 'Is it OK if I put my hand there? Can
I touch you here?' I've always preferred younger men but I've never had one who asked permission.'
She claims the affair ended abruptly in late 1983 when Miller revealed her intention to stand for
mayor of her hometown, Pine Bluffs, as a Republican.
It would remain a secret for nearly a decade until she went public on the Sally Jesse Raphael
show in July 1992, a day after Clinton had been formally named by the Democratic Party as its Presidential
candidate.
.... ...
BILL'S WOMEN WHO HAUNT HILLARY
Kathleen Willey, a former White House volunteer who says Bill Clinton groped her in
an Oval Office hallway in 1993 when she came to him seeking a paid job, says she has agreed to
become a paid national spokeswoman for an anti-Clinton group being created by operative Roger
Stone
Paula Jones, the former state employee whose allegations of sexual harassment dogged
President Bill Clinton throughout his administration, was photographed appearing at a rally for
presidential candidate Donald Trump in Little Rock.
Linda Tripp, Monica Lewinsky's confidante and who worked as a White House staffer says
that Hillary Clinton not only knew about her husband's exploits, 'She made it her personal mission
to disseminate information and destroy the women with whom he dallied.'
Juanita Broaddrick, who claims that she was raped by Bill Clinton in an Arkansas hotel
38 years ago, says that she was cornered by Hillary as she was helping at a Clinton fundraiser
and was given a thinly-veiled warning to keep her mouth shut.
Maria Crider, who worked on Bill Clinton's first political campaign, said power-hungry
Hillary torpedoed the torrid affair that threatened to destroy her master plan to become president
with anonymous phone calls, fears of stalking and veiled threats.
SF94123, San Francisco, United States, 3 months ago
She probably fears her because it's all a bunch of lies.
Not_Surprised, Walton County, United Kingdom, 3 months ago
Don't believe this mess!
Barney Fife, St Paul, United States, 4 months ago
And this is news? It has been rumored for many years Hillary swings both ways. As for Billy,
that has been known, too.
mememememe, Glasgow, 4 months ago
So what? Sad old woman reliving her youth
du Vallon, Midwest, United States, 4 months ago
So this woman admits that she freely threw her cat at a married man, and now she is bragging
about it, and all the bible pounding, family values, right wing Christian fundamentalists want
us to believe that she is the caliber of woman who we should all believe. Making it worse, she
has so little regret at the hurt she caused that she is now passing around some completely unsupported
and foul whispers about the wife of the man that she dragged into bed. Then has the gall to whine
that Hillary isn't very nice to her. I should think not. She is a sodden dox of a woman with no
morals whatsoever. I have no use for her and don't believe a word she says.
peanutmom, SFBay, United States, 4 months ago
Meh. Who the Clintons get busy with, and how, is of no consequence. Hillary could do the entire
USC football team, and I wouldn't care, just so long as the job she does is done right. It was
ridiculous that Bill got impeached over a dalliance with an intern. It's not like Lewinsky interfered
with how the country was being run.
Strong, credible allegations of high-level criminal activity can bring down a government. When the
government lacks an effective, fact-based defense, other techniques must be employed. The success
of these techniques depends heavily upon a cooperative, controlled press and a mere token opposition
party.
1. Dummy up . If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.
2. Wax indignant . This is also known as the "how dare you" gambit.
3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news
blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors."
4. Knock down straw men . Deal only with the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Even better,
create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors and give them lead play when you appear to debunk
all the charges, real and fanciful alike.
5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nut," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot" and,
of course, "rumor monger." You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people
you have thus maligned.
6. Impugn motives . Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not
really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to
make money.
7. Invoke authority . Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.
8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."
9. Come half-clean . This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hang-out
route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively
harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back
position quite different from the one originally taken.
10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.
11. Reason backward , using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction,
troublesome evidence is irrelevant. For example: We have a completely free press. If they know of
evidence that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) had prior knowledge of the Oklahoma
City bombing they would have reported it. They haven't reported it, so there was no prior knowledge
by the BATF. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a
press that would report it.
12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely.
13. Change the subject . This technique includes creating and/or reporting a distraction.
"... The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and disable
their dominance. ..."
"... It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the neoliberal
turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution of income
between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments. In Europe,
the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle. ..."
"... When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features of
his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading money
center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New York Federal
Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury in the Obama Administration,
but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase and Citibank. The crisis served
to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political
power entirely into their hands as well. Simon Johnson called it a coup. ..."
"... Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980 drove
both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. ..."
"... It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences
were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified
this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility for
economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that just happened,
in a meteorological economics. ..."
"... This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could aid
the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting constraints.
..."
"... No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and draw
attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization
of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes the political
problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational clarity or
coherence. ..."
"... If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power,
Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional
critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected,
Obama isn't really trying. ..."
"... Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism, because
it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference. ..."
At the center of Great Depression politics was a political struggle over the distribution of
income, a struggle that was only decisively resolved during the War, by the Great Compression.
It was at center of farm policy where policymakers struggled to find ways to support farm incomes.
It was at the center of industrial relations politics, where rapidly expanding unions were seeking
higher industrial wages. It was at the center of banking policy, where predatory financial practices
were under attack. It was at the center of efforts to regulate electric utility rates and establish
public power projects. And, everywhere, the clear subtext was a struggle between rich and poor,
the economic royalists as FDR once called them and everyone else.
FDR, an unmistakeable patrician in manner and pedigree, was leading a not-quite-revolutionary
politics, which was nevertheless hostile to and suspicious of business elites, as a source of
economic pathology. The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek
to side-step and disable their dominance.
It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the
neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution
of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist commitments.
In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle.
In retrospect, though the New Deal did use direct employment as a means of relief to good effect
economically and politically, it never undertook anything like a Keynesian stimulus on a Keynesian
scale - at least until the War.
Where the New Deal witnessed the institution of an elaborate system of financial repression,
accomplished in large part by imposing on the financial sector an explicitly mandated structure,
with types of firms and effective limits on firm size and scope, a series of regulatory reforms
and financial crises beginning with Carter and Reagan served to wipe this structure away.
When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features
of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading
money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the New
York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury
in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan
Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top five
banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well. Simon
Johnson called it a coup.
I don't know what considerations guided Obama in choosing the size of the stimulus or its composition
(as spending and tax cuts). Larry Summers was identified at the time as a voice of caution, not
"gambling", but not much is known about his detailed reasoning in severely trimming Christina
Romer's entirely conventional calculations. (One consideration might well have been worldwide
resource shortages, which had made themselves felt in 2007-8 as an inflationary spike in commodity
prices.) I do not see a case for connecting stimulus size policy to the health care reform. At
the time the stimulus was proposed, the Administration had also been considering whether various
big banks and other financial institutions should be nationalized, forced to insolvency or otherwise
restructured as part of a regulatory reform.
Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980
drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. Accelerating
the financialization of the economy from 1999 on made New York and Washington rich, but the same
economic policies and process were devastating the Rust Belt as de-industrialization. They were
two aspects of the same complex of economic trends and policies. The rise of China as a manufacturing
center was, in critical respects, a financial operation within the context of globalized trade
that made investment in new manufacturing plant in China, as part of globalized supply chains
and global brand management, (arguably artificially) low-risk and high-profit, while reinvestment
in manufacturing in the American mid-west became unattractive, except as a game of extracting
tax subsidies or ripping off workers.
It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences
were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified
this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility
for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces" that
just happened, in a meteorological economics.
It is conceding too many good intentions to the Obama Administration to tie an inadequate stimulus
to a Rube Goldberg health care reform as the origin story for the final debacle of Democratic
neoliberal politics. There was a delicate balancing act going on, but they were not balancing
the recovery of the economy in general so much as they were balancing the recovery from insolvency
of a highly inefficient and arguably predatory financial sector, which was also not incidentally
financing the institutional core of the Democratic Party and staffing many key positions in the
Administration and in the regulatory apparatus.
This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could
aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting
constraints.
No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and
draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization
of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes
the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational
clarity or coherence.
The short version of my thinking on the Obama stimulus is this: Keynesian stimulus spending is
a free lunch; it doesn't really matter what you spend money on up to a very generous point, so
it seems ready-made for legislative log-rolling. If Obama could not get a very big stimulus
indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen
spending on pork barrel projects is popular and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again,
if the stimulus is small and the Democratic Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really
trying.
Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism,
because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference.
Great comment. Simply great. Hat tip to the author !
Notable quotes:
"… The New Deal did not seek to overthrow the plutocracy, but it did seek to side-step and
disable their dominance. …"
"… It seems to me that while neoliberalism on the right was much the same old same old, the
neoliberal turn on the left was marked by a measured abandonment of this struggle over the distribution
of income between the classes. In the U.S., the Democrats gradually abandoned their populist
commitments. In Europe, the labour and socialist parties gradually abandoned class struggle. …"
"… When Obama came in, in 2008 amid the unfolding GFC, one of the most remarkable features
of his economic team was the extent to which it conceded control of policy entirely to the leading
money center banks. Geithner and Bernanke continued in power with Geithner moving from the
New York Federal Reserve (where he served as I recall under a Chair from Goldman Sachs) to Treasury
in the Obama Administration, but Geithner's Treasury was staffed from Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan
Chase and Citibank. The crisis served to concentrate banking assets in the hands of the top
five banks, but it seemed also to transfer political power entirely into their hands as well.
Simon Johnson called it a coup. … "
"… Here's the thing: the globalization and financialization of the economy from roughly 1980
drove both increasingly extreme distribution of income and de-industrialization. …"
"… It was characteristic of neoliberalism that the policy, policy intention and policy consequences
were hidden behind a rhetoric of markets and technological inevitability. Matt Stoller has identified
this as the statecraft of neoliberalism: the elimination of political agency and responsibility
for economic performance and outcomes. Globalization and financialization were just "forces"
that just happened, in a meteorological economics. …"
"… This was not your grandfather's Democratic Party and it was a Democratic Party that could
aid the working class and the Rust Belt only within fairly severe and sometimes sharply conflicting
constraints. …"
"… No one in the Democratic Party had much institutional incentive to connect the dots, and
draw attention to the acute conflicts over the distribution of income and wealth involved in financialization
of the economy (including financialization as a driver of health care costs). And, that makes
the political problem that much harder, because there are no resources for rhetorical and informational
clarity or coherence. …"
"… If Obama could not get a very big stimulus indeed thru a Democratic Congress long out of
power, Obama wasn't really trying. And, well-chosen spending on pork barrel projects is popular
and gets Congressional critters re-elected. So, again, if the stimulus is small and the Democratic
Congress doesn't get re-elected, Obama isn't really trying. …"
"… Again, it comes down to: by 2008, the Democratic Party is not a fit vehicle for populism,
because it has become a neoliberal vehicle for giant banks. Turns out that makes a policy difference.
…"
"... Along with some neoliberal young guns in the press (like Michael Kinsley, Joe Klein, and Sidney Blumenthal), Clinton was the first to notice that the drugs/sex/rock-'n'-roll hippies of the late '60s and early '70s had become the concerned suburban parents of the '80s and early '90s. ..."
"... Bill Clinton's number-one priority in 1992 was to create a media contrast between his energetic, handsome, Elvis-like self and 68-year-old, grandfatherly, Eastern-elitist Bush Senior. ..."
"... But could Tricky Dick pull off staring the camera soulfully right in the eyes and telling Americans that "I feel yer pain?" the way Bill Clinton famously did (to a gay AIDS activist, no less) in 1992? Just try to imagine Mondale, Dukakis, or Cuomo going on The Arsenio Hall Show in sunglasses and saxophone-jamming "Heartbreak Hotel" with a bunch of twentysomething black and Latino studio musicians. Or Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter telling a young woman whether they wore "boxers or briefs" on MTV Live . With every savvy new media move, Bill Clinton was redefining what it was to run for president in the modern era. ..."
"... seeing a white Southern candidate for president playing rock and jazz on an urban black man's young-skewing late-night show was a positively thrilling moment for voters of color, particularly young ones. ..."
"... Bill Clinton wanted to "ROCK the Vote!" And he did. Clinton won young voters in 1992 by over 12 points, and by an almost 20-point margin in 1996. ..."
"... Indeed, Bill Clinton was the first president (or candidate for president) who could truly be called sexy since his idol JFK had died in 1963. Clinton "was alive from the waist down," approved feminist icon Erica Jong. His closest comparison, handsome and youthful Colorado Sen. Gary Hart, had seen his 1980s presidential ambitions crushed when it was revealed he had a longtime mistress, Donna Rice. But even on that score, Clinton changed the game. ..."
"... In early 1992, with the occurrence of several "bimbo eruptions"-the leaking of his affairs with longtime companions like Gennifer Flowers and Marla Crider-many people thought that Bill Clinton's campaign would be over before it had even begun. Instead, 17 years before the premiere of The Good Wife, Hillary went on 60 Minutes and famously stood by her man, transforming the narrative from one involving a cheating husband to one about an intact marriage that could survive anything. ..."
"... Clinton's campaign and administration also coincided with a perfect storm of more hyped-up true-crime and scandal-driven media offerings than had even been imaginable before. ..."
"... This tabloid metastasis began to infect even the most prestigious bastions of "serious" journalism. In the ACT UP era of AIDS activism, radical queer journos like Michelangelo Signorile and Armistead Maupin began "outing" closeted Hollywood or political icons like Rock Hudson, Raymond Burr, Anthony Perkins, Richard Chamberlain, Ed Koch, and Merv Griffin-as well as any new sports, music, or political stars they had reason to suspect. ..."
"... Above all else, the Clinton presidency also saw the birth of the 24/7 spin cycle, what was then and now rightly called the "permanent campaign." No other president from the Great Society to Barack Obama attempted so many domestic-policy game changes as Bill Clinton did in his frenzied first term. ..."
"... When Bill Clinton ran for reelection in fall 1996, with a recovering economy, unemployment cut in half from its 1992–94 levels, a shrinking deficit, and lower crime rates and class sizes-against a 73-year-old "unelectable throwback to the past" (as Arianna Huffington once described Bob Dole) and 66-year-old returning gadfly Ross Perot-well, let's just say you didn't have to be a member of the Psychic Friends Network to guess the outcome. ..."
"... This meant that neither the Clinton administration nor the American public would ever get a minute's peace. We had now entered the era of politics as gladiator sport. ..."
"... While Bill and Hillary Clinton suffered the most from the scandal-of-the-month-club atmosphere of '90s media, many Republican politicians also needed an extra big box of Band-Aids, and would only need more. ..."
"... When all was said and done, Clinton still lost the popular vote and his failure to take note cost his his party control of the Congress. It is hope that The Don doesn't make the same mistake. ..."
During the
past 12 months, the most-watched reality-show competition has been Who Wants to Succeed Barack
Obama? And one of the biggest concerns of our media pundits has been the danger of "normalizing"
the often-violent and tasteless rantings of Donald Trump. We must constantly remind our readers,
the pundits proclaim, of just how sui generis , just how different and threatening and unprecedented
this non-politician, this tabloid superstar, this reality-TV king is as a candidate for the highest
and most serious office in the land.
Well, as it turns out, not quite .
The narrative through-line that Donald Trump used to beat his rivals was written almost 25 years
earlier. It was a made-for-TV miniseries starring an "undignified," barrier-breaking candidate who
shunned old media gatekeepers, who forever blurred the line between light entertainment and hard
news, who catered to groups of voters being ignored by the establishment, and who made shameless
emotional appeals.
And the media's normalization of what was in 1992 a game-changing, even shocking approach to running
for the presidency (and governing thereafter) did more to pave the way for the Trumpocalypse than
almost anything else.
♦♦♦
When Bill Clinton first ran for president in 1991 and '92, the Democratic Party was coming off
of three consecutive pounding defeats. The economy was finally souring (with the first wave of
Roger and Me post-industrialization, plus a 2008-like real estate collapse on both coasts following
the S&L failures of 1989 and '90), accompanied by record-breaking, crack-inspired, drive-by-shooting
crime. Yet most older and seasoned Democrats still assumed that sitting President George H.W. Bush
was a shoo-in for reelection that year. The Berlin Wall had finally been torn down in November of
1989. And with that, plus victory in Operation Desert Storm, by early 1991 Bush's approval ratings
had touched the 90 percent mark. Not even St. Ronnie's had soared that high.
When New York governor and Democratic icon Mario Cuomo famously decided in December of 1991 to
go back to Albany to dither over a state budget rather than launch his campaign for the most powerful
office in the world, the message was clear: no Democrat stood a real chance of beating Bush that
year. But a nervy young small-state Southern governor named Bill Clinton and his "radical feminist"
wife Hillary hadn't gotten the memo.
Along with some neoliberal young guns in the press (like Michael Kinsley, Joe Klein, and Sidney
Blumenthal), Clinton was the first to notice that the drugs/sex/rock-'n'-roll hippies of the late
'60s and early '70s had become the concerned suburban parents of the '80s and early '90s. And the
"Generation Jones" middle children between the baby boomers and their Gen-X offspring-the Alex P. Keatons and Bud Foxes-just wanted to get rich and make money in the first place. Despite fielding
a nearly 70-year-old icon from Old Hollywood in 1980, the same candidate again in 1984, and a nearly
65-year-old WWII veteran in 1988, the Republicans actually won younger voters those years.
And why shouldn't they have won the youth, whose only alternatives were dreary, gray-haired, out-of-touch
fiftysomethings like Cuomo, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis?
Bill Clinton's number-one priority in 1992 was to create a media contrast between his energetic,
handsome, Elvis-like self and 68-year-old, grandfatherly, Eastern-elitist Bush Senior. Of all major
political candidates from either party in 1992, only Bill and Hillary Clinton cut a convincing figure
of the baby boomers' journey from hippie to yuppie. Not then-Vice President Dan Quayle, a conservative
Christian who loyally served in the Vietnam National Guard; not self-righteous borderline silent-generationers
like Newt Gingrich, Joe Lieberman, Pat Buchanan, or Dick Cheney; and not reactionary Southern Strategists
like Lee Atwater, Tom DeLay, Trent Lott, and Karl Rove. And absolutely not tired, didactic,
haranguing New Deal leftovers like Mondale, Dukakis, and Cuomo.
When Richard Nixon went on Laugh-In in 1968 for one "quickie" guest shot (saying "Sock
it to ME??"), it made world headlines. Back then, world leaders simply didn't "do" variety or celebrity
game shows, or even most talk shows. But could Tricky Dick pull off staring the camera soulfully
right in the eyes and telling Americans that "I feel yer pain?" the way Bill Clinton famously did
(to a gay AIDS activist, no less) in 1992? Just try to imagine Mondale, Dukakis, or Cuomo going on
The Arsenio Hall Show in sunglasses and saxophone-jamming "Heartbreak Hotel" with a bunch
of twentysomething black and Latino studio musicians. Or Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter telling a young
woman whether they wore "boxers or briefs" on MTV Live . With every savvy new media move,
Bill Clinton was redefining what it was to run for president in the modern era.
Instead of trying to carve up the same tired political pie, Bill Clinton had decided to bake an
entirely new pie altogether. As cheesy as it might seem in today's era of Shonda, Tyler, Oprah, Spike,
and Barack, in 1992, seeing a white Southern candidate for president playing rock and jazz on an
urban black man's young-skewing late-night show was a positively thrilling moment for voters of color,
particularly young ones.
More than one minority commentator said it was as if Clinton was saying
he was "one of us" -- it was so outside the political grammar of any of the old, 1950s-style candidates
we'd had up until then. No wonder Maya Angelou and Toni Morrison took notice of Clinton, whom they
would later christen (before anyone had heard of Obama) the "first black president." And these were
blatant shout-outs to America's youth that no candidate had made from either side since George McGovern
in 1972. As MTV said itself, Bill Clinton wanted to "ROCK the Vote!" And he did. Clinton won young
voters in 1992 by over 12 points, and by an almost 20-point margin in 1996.
Indeed, Bill Clinton was the first president (or candidate for president) who could truly be called
sexy since his idol JFK had died in 1963. Clinton "was alive from the waist down," approved feminist
icon Erica Jong. His closest comparison, handsome and youthful Colorado Sen. Gary Hart, had seen
his 1980s presidential ambitions crushed when it was revealed he had a longtime mistress, Donna Rice.
But even on that score, Clinton changed the game.
In early 1992, with the occurrence of several "bimbo eruptions"-the leaking of his affairs with
longtime companions like Gennifer Flowers and Marla Crider-many people thought that Bill Clinton's
campaign would be over before it had even begun. Instead, 17 years before the premiere of The
Good Wife, Hillary went on 60 Minutes and famously stood by her man, transforming the
narrative from one involving a cheating husband to one about an intact marriage that could survive
anything.
The Republicans, meanwhile, were now bending over so far to satisfy a frustrated religious right-seen
in campaigns against women's-libby TV heroines like Murphy Brown and Roseanne, Pat Buchanan's infamous
"culture war" speech at the '92 Republican convention, and people telling Hillary she should have
given up her law practice to "submit unto" her husband and "bake cookies" -- that Clinton could now
rope-a-dope the sordid revelations about his swinging sex life into assets rather than liabilities,
especially among educated professional voters. He wasn't going to go around pouring hellfire and
brimstone on "liberated" women or divorced dads, after all.
♦♦♦
Clinton's campaign and administration also coincided with a perfect storm of more hyped-up true-crime
and scandal-driven media offerings than had even been imaginable before. In 1985, only two TV "newsmagazines"
existed in primetime: CBS's league-leading 60 Minutes and ABC's Barbara Walters/Hugh Downs
stalwart, 20/20. From 1988 to '94, they were suddenly joined by the likes of 48 Hours
, PrimeTime Live , Turning Point , West 57th , Person to Person With
Connie Chung , Top Cops , Street Stories , and Dateline NBC -the last of
which would run not once a week, but three times a week, by 1999.
In the 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. "prime access" slot immediately following the Big Three's "serious" newscasts,
Entertainment Tonight was the gold standard. It would now be joined by Inside Edition
(starring future Fox News royalty Bill O'Reilly), A Current Affair , Access Hollywood
, EXTRA! , American Journal , and Hard Copy . All these ET ripoffs
premiered between 1987 and 1996, and each one of them required a new headline scandal or sensation
five nights a week, 52 weeks a year, with no reruns. Then came the daytime TV "trash talk" shows-pioneered
by Geraldo Rivera and Morton Downey Jr. in the late '80s and segueing into Ricki Lake ,
Jenny Jones , Maury , and of course The Jerry Springer Show by the Clinton administration.
This tabloid metastasis began to infect even the most prestigious bastions of "serious" journalism.
In the ACT UP era of AIDS activism, radical queer journos like Michelangelo Signorile and Armistead
Maupin began "outing" closeted Hollywood or political icons like Rock Hudson, Raymond Burr, Anthony
Perkins, Richard Chamberlain, Ed Koch, and Merv Griffin-as well as any new sports, music, or political
stars they had reason to suspect.
This kind of "journalism" used to be the exclusive province of
sleazy, Confidential magazine types and the McCarthy era. (Can you imagine Edward R. Murrow,
Ben Bradlee, or Walter Cronkite discussing tragic eating disorders, or sitcom stars who had been
molested or who got booked into rehab this week?) But now that there was a pseudo-political patina
to overlay it-of "raising awareness" of dread diseases and/or bigotry-the "right to privacy" that
had used to be the supreme bulwark protecting gay rights and abortion was now reduced to a borderline-bigoted
dog whistle. Suddenly, public figures' most private lives were considered fair game, not just by
the National Enquirer and Weekly World News , but by NBC Nightly News and the
New York Times as well .
Above all else, the Clinton presidency also saw the birth of the 24/7 spin cycle, what was then
and now rightly called the "permanent campaign." No other president from the Great Society to Barack
Obama attempted so many domestic-policy game changes as Bill Clinton did in his frenzied first term.
From 1993 to '96, there was defense of marriage, gays in the military, gun control, crime, family
and medical leave, the 1993 tax increase, and a Tea Party-style government shutdown over the holidays.
And then there were the big guns: NAFTA, welfare reform, and the first stab at national health care.
This round-the-clock activism on such inflammatory topics guaranteed that the printing presses
and TV cameras would be running overtime. Yet perhaps no Clintonomic game-change had as much long
term importance as his deregulation of the media. That, combined with the launch of not one but
two 24-hour cable networks (Fox News and MSNBC) now turned every political decision into a
long-running "crisis" and turned every campaign into a nail-biting "horse race."
When Bill Clinton ran for reelection in fall 1996, with a recovering economy, unemployment cut
in half from its 1992–94 levels, a shrinking deficit, and lower crime rates and class sizes-against
a 73-year-old "unelectable throwback to the past" (as Arianna Huffington once described Bob Dole)
and 66-year-old returning gadfly Ross Perot-well, let's just say you didn't have to be a member of
the Psychic Friends Network to guess the outcome. But the TV news shows-now a profit center rather
than a loss-leader for their networks and studios-and the magazines and newspapers (which were feeling
the first pinches of the internet) depended on hyping every last second into a pulse-pounder that
would go right down to the wire. "Tree it, bag it, defoliate the forest for it, destroy the village
for it," wrote a contemptuous Joan Didion: from now on, print and TV journalists would arm-wrestle
every fact into a suspenseful running "narrative," with any and all inconvenient truths to be left
on the cutting-room floor.
This meant that neither the Clinton administration nor the American public would ever get a minute's
peace. We had now entered the era of politics as gladiator sport. The 1987 Robert Bork and 1991 Clarence
Thomas Supreme Court hearings had ensured that every high-level judicial or cabinet appointment would
now become a Springer- style freak show. And every trumped-up scandal that could be used to
pump up the ratings and the circulation-Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, Vince Foster's suicide-was
milked for maximum echo-chamber impact.
While Bill and Hillary Clinton suffered the most from the scandal-of-the-month-club atmosphere
of '90s media, many Republican politicians also needed an extra big box of Band-Aids, and would only
need more. As Oliver Darcy wrote in his Business Insider feature
"Donald Trump Broke the Conservative Media," the "roots of the conservative news media-industrial
complex came in the 1990s, with the rise of three key forces: Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, and Matt Drudge."
(He might have also included high-profile bestsellers like Ann Coulter's anti-Clinton High Crimes
and Misdemeanors .) To appease this ravenous, Internet-powered red-meat machine, "a Republican
would have to take a hardline conservative position on nearly every issue ," said Darcy. If
a Republican were "to hold conservative positions on 90% of the issues, the conservative press would
focus on the 10% where there was disagreement." Ten years before Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann,
the roots of the Tea Party were being fertilized with the blood of the sacrificial RINOs of the Republican
Revolutionary 1990s.
The final piece of the puzzle came in June of 1994, when O.J. Simpson dropped by his ex-wife Nicole's
condo for the last time. Perhaps the most famous African-American male alive at the time (besides
Michael Jackson, who certainly had more than his own share of problems), the "Juice" was accused
of viciously murdering his blonde wife and the handsome young white dude who may or may not have
been her lover. It was as if the entire case had been designed by a central-casting office of ugly
racial stereotypes.
With the memories of 1988's Willie Horton ad, 1991's Rodney King beating, and the 1992 LA riots
still fresh, this whodunit touched on every racial and gendered raw nerve in the book. The case drew
higher ratings and sold more papers and magazines than any other story in 1994–95-the equal of the
November 1994 "Republican Revolution" and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and far surpassing any
other economic, gang, or foreign-policy situation that year, including even the Bosnian genocide.
Whether you were Time magazine or a supermarket tabloid, there was simply no way to avoid
covering it, even if you wanted to. It was one of the first stories to be tabloid trash and hard
news in equal parts, but it wouldn't be the last.
♦♦♦
When Bill Clinton looked the world's TV cameras in the eye, pointed his finger, and said "I did
not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky," only for Miss Lewinsky to bring her stained
dress out of the closet, what would have ordinarily been a sleazy back-of-the-book sex scandal became
a top-rated constitutional crisis. During the summer and fall of 1998, it was all Monica, all the
time, with serious journalists slavering over the political pornography that was the Starr report
and pundits writing reams of dime-store psychology on the soapy twists and turns of Bill and Hillary's
marriage.
Noting Bill Clinton's record popularity with African-American (and Latino) voters, Toni Morrison
branded the impeachment as a coded racial attack on people of color, comparing the attack on Clinton's
"unpoliced sexuality" to a black man being frisked and body-searched by racist cops. Embarrassed
teachers and grandparents had to explain to curious kids why adults were laughing like middle-schoolers
in a locker room whenever the word "cigar" was uttered, and whether or not the role model in chief
had ever "worn" somebody's dress. Standup comics never had it so good. World events like Osama bin
Laden's bombings of two American embassies went on the back burner. And tellingly, Osama chose to
appear on a prime-time TV newsmagazine, 20/20 , to announce his "fatwa" and "jihad" against
America in the spring of 1998.
The fallout from Hurricane Monica was even more important than the 1998–99 impeachment effort
itself. If being "alive from the waist down" and exuding "unpoliced sexuality" was now the gold standard
for being president, then how would a seemingly "on the spectrum," uncharismatic, Mondale-Dukakis-Cuomo
policy wonk-like Clinton's own vice president, Al Gore-fare?
Just before his big nominating speech at the 2000 Democratic Convention, Gore grabbed his wife
Tipper and bent her over into an open-mouthed tongue kiss on live TV-a Big Brother or Behind
the Music moment if ever there was one, to demonstrate that his marriage was alive and well (unlike
the famously open Clinton marriage), and that he wasn't quite as robotic as he seemed. (Ironically,
it was Al and Tipper who would separate a decade later, while Bill and Hillary's relationship seems
stronger than ever.) Adding another dose of backstabbing House of Cards- style drama, Gore
went out of his way to insult Bill and Hillary to their faces in his nomination speech, angrily proclaiming
that his election would not be "a reward for past performance" under Bill and Hill, and that he was
running as his "own man!" And instead of choosing a pro-Clinton progressive Democrat (like Barbara
Boxer, Russ Feingold, Paul Wellstone, Barbara Mikulski, Carl Levin, or Chuck Schumer, who were all
available that year), Gore chose William F. Buckley's favorite Democrat-conservative Clinton critic
"Joe-mentum" Lieberman-as his vice-presidential nominee. Aaron Sorkin couldn't have written it better
for sweeps month. Why, you'd think an immunity idol was at stake.
While Al Gore ran as far as his legs could take him from Clinton, his archrival, Texas governor
(and presidential son) George W. Bush plagiarized the winning media playbook Clinton had used against
Poppy in 1992. Candidate Bush played the media like Clinton's saxophone. Bush fed them gourmet food
and designer water on the buses and planes, hung out with them in the back benches, and gave them
affectionate nicknames like "Dulce" and "Panchito." He even mouthed a playful "I love you, man!"
to an openly gay young reporter covering him.
Al Gore, meanwhile, treated the press like an angry Judge Judy. Gore 2000 staffer Carter Eskew
told Vanity Fair 's Evgenia Peretz in 2007 that he used a "whip and a chair" with the media.
When Gore finally deigned to go on MTV, instead of taking the opportunity to knock some starch out
of his image and present a friendly face to Generation X, he chauvinistically picked a fight with
a dreadlocked African-American, angrily whitesplaining to the young man about the immorality and
sinfulness of gangsta rap and hip-hop culture.
Despite being credited by Steve Jobs, Vinton Cerf, and even Newt Gingrich as having (from a legal
and government-funding point of view) "invented the Internet," the famously stiff Gore was at a loss
for how to handle the brave new media world he now found himself trapped in. In spite (or perhaps
because) of his own earlier training as a journalist, Gore couldn't believe just how far the profession
had fallen. Despite being the progressive candidate, he clearly craved a return to the old-fashioned,
"dignified" Don Draper era of political campaigns.
And if Al Gore hated the media, then the feeling was mutual. Openly lesbian feminist Camille Paglia
said that Gore's "Little Lord Fauntleroy" entitlement and snobbery were so outrageous they "bordered
on the epicene." Maureen Dowd said that Gore acted like a straight-up "loser." "Positively Nixonian
in his naked longing," wrote the brilliant liberal critic John Powers in his 2004 recap Sore Winners
, Gore had a sense of entitlement "the size of a cruise liner" and "fairly reeked of insider
privilege." Kennedy/Obama Democrat Chris Matthews thought Gore was someone who would probably "lick
the bathroom floor to be president," and Matthews said flat-out that he was voting for Bush in 2000.
Lefty celebs like Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Eddie Vedder, and Michael Moore lent their star power
… to campaign for Ralph Nader.
The mirror finally cracked during Gore's first two debates with Bush, when a stressed-out Gore
got up in Bush's face and began eye-rolling, sighing, and shaking his head on camera when Bush spoke.
Gore's body language evoked Alexis Colby or Cruella de Vil. White working-class voters (including
many women) were revolted. Whether Gore won on the issues was forgotten, or more likely beside the
point.
The atmosphere only got crazier after the election was held and the five-week-long recount battle
began. The Wicked Witch of the West flew over the Florida supreme court, advising Democrats to "Surrender,
Gore-thy!" while a grown man dressed as a big baby (symbolizing Gore) threw a temper tantrum outside
of a news conference. Black voters went to the barricades with tape over their mouths, to symbolize
their voices having been silenced. Control of Florida's electoral votes bounced between fundamentalist
Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris (complete with her Tonya Harding-like makeup and hair
sense) and then-Gov. Jeb Bush, to the lower trial courts, to the overwhelmingly Democratic and partisan
Florida supreme court. Each one ruled and then overruled the other so often it was like watching
setups and punchlines fly on Seinfeld and Everybody Loves Raymond. The election had
now been reduced to the atmosphere of Survivor and American Idol .
And contrary to the Reagan-era belief that it was senior citizens who controlled elections-those
AARP members, WWII and Korea veterans, and retired grandmothers who always showed up to do their
civic duty with plenty of time on their hands-Election 2000 proved once and for all that just like
prime-time TV and the movies, politics was all about the 18–34 demographic. Seniors voted roughly
50/50 for Bush and Gore (even Florida's famed New York Jewish seniors voted nearly one-third for
Bush, and that was after accounting for the controversy over Pat Buchanan and the infamous "butterfly
ballot"). But fatefully, first- and second-time young voters also broke evenly for Bush and Gore,
in a 47-47 tie (with Nader winning the rest), a break from the youth advantage that delivered the
White House to Clinton in 1992 and '96 and would return to ensure Barack Obama's triumphs in 2008
and 2012. If Gore had won young voters by 20 or 30 points like Clinton and Obama, not only Florida
but likely Nevada and New Hampshire-and maybe even Ohio-would have been in the bag for him.
In other words, Gore was now on a fast track to losing this election because he had almost lost
hip, diverse young people. It was a mistake no Democrat would ever want to make again. Just look
at the threat the overwhelmingly millennial "Bernie Bros" posed to what was supposed to be Hillary
Clinton's coronation.
Like the judge on a reality show, or those big 11 o'clock climaxes on Law & Order , on
December 12, 2000, the Supreme Court gave America the final decision, siding with Bush over Gore.
Cue the dark camera filters and the Hans Zimmer underscore.
♦♦♦
"Don't it always seem to go, you don't know what you got till it's gone?" said Joni Mitchell in
her signature song, Big Yellow Taxi. Twenty years after Joni sang, the Bill Clinton years
proved to be the era when (as Ezra Klein rightly recalled in in 2007) "the media just lost its mind
for eight years, went crazy with class hatred and status envy, groupthink and scandal-mongering."
It was the time when Washington, DC, movers and shakers like Sally Quinn and David Gergen began referring
to Washington as "This Town" like some kind of Sue Mengers, Lin Bolen, or Julia Phillips power-woman
in 1970s New Hollywood protecting her turf from wannabes and outsiders. It was when the Iron Curtain
between trash talk and serious news, between talk-radio ranting and highbrow gatekeeping, was torn
down. And it was when politicians truly became TV personalities, colorful supporting characters in
the latest Whatevergate, the next scandal before Scandal. It was the decade when the real
world turned into The Real World. We didn't know what we had until it was gone.
Looking back, the reality TV-ization of politics that billionaire businessman Donald Trump capitalized
on and rode to victory seems not only natural but inevitable. How can Donald Trump himself not be
"normalized" as a presidential candidate when the mainstream media, and in particular the media-savvy
husband of Trump's general-election opponent, spent a full quarter-century normalizing tabloidism,
reality-TV techniques, and media-whoring, showing that the royal road to 1600 Pennsylvania was paved
by Letterman and Leno, Stewart and SNL, MTV and Maureen Dowd? Really, is having the star of The
Apprentice as Mister President that far a leap?
It is a delicious irony indeed that the wife of the man who did more to postmodernize the presidency
than any other politician before him lost the White House to a candidate who took note of all the
media tricks and treats the Clintons largely invented and blew them up to their unnatural extreme.
But the lesson of both the Clinton-era beginnings of the postmodern presidency and Donald Trump's
current commando raid on respectability centers on one immovable fact. Whether you're right wing
or left, black or white, old or young, it all comes down to one thing. As the late Marshall McLuhan
might have put it, had he lived another decade or two, It's the media, stupid.
Telly Davidson is the author of a new book on the politics and pop culture of the '90s, Culture War . He has written on culture for
FrumForum , All About Jazz , FilmStew , and Guitar Player , and worked
the Emmy-nominated PBS series Pioneers of Television.
Glib, yes, but true? Is superficiality the key, or have events finally been driven by an underlying
reality? Ironically, this is the election where the circumstances of millions of actual middle
American lives broke through the glam manufacture and demanded redress from the celebitchy Davos
privileged political class.
In a WST op-ed, Peggy Noonan points out that, the hoopla notwithstandin, among Clinton, Johnson
and Stein, about 52% of the popular vote went against Trump. It is useful to keep this in mind
because in '92 between Bush Sr. and Perot, 57 % of the popular vote went AGAINST Bill Clinton.
Clinton for all his vaunted political skills, didn't pay heed. Thereafter, bang went Hillary Health
Care! Bang went the US Congress in '94 with the Republican Party winning back not only the Senate
but the House (the latter for the first time since 1954).
When all was said and done, Clinton still lost the popular vote and his failure to take note
cost his his party control of the Congress. It is hope that The Don doesn't make the same mistake.
Lost control of the Senate
Lost control of the House of Representatives
Lost control of dozens of state legislatures and Governorships.
The Republicans control 36 States of America - One more and they could in theory amend the Constitution.
In Wisconsin (notionally Democrat) the Legislature and Governor are both Republican controlled.
And Clinton didn't even campaign there when it was pretty obvious the State was not trending towards
her.
"... Prioritizing foreign over domestic policy, Jackson's former aides Richard Perle , Douglas Feith , and Elliott Abrams - along with some fellow travelers like Paul Wolfowitz - eventually shifted their allegiance to the right-wing Republican Ronald Reagan. They formed an important pro-Israel, "peace through strength" nucleus within the new president's foreign policy team. ..."
John Feffer Director, Foreign Policy
In Focus and Editor, LobeLog Much has been made of the swing in political allegiances of neoconservatives
in favor of Hillary Clinton.
As a group, Washington's neocons are generally terrified of Trump's unpredictability and his flirtation
with the alt-right. They also support Clinton's more assertive foreign policy (not to mention her
closer relationship to Israel). Perhaps, too, after eight long years in the wilderness, they're daydreaming
of an appointment or two in a Clinton administration.
This group of previously staunch Republicans, who believe in using American military power to
promote democracy, build nations, and secure U.S. interests abroad, have defected in surprising numbers.
Washington Post columnist
Robert Kagan , the Wall Street Journal 's
Bret Stephens , and the
Foreign
Policy Initiative 's
James Kirchick have all endorsed Clinton. Other prominent neocons like The National Review
's William Kristol
, the Wall Street Journal 's
Max Boot , and SAIS's
Eliot Cohen have rejected
Trump but not quite taken the leap to supporting Clinton.
A not particularly large or well-defined group, neoconservatives have attracted a disproportionate
amount of attention in this election. For the Trump camp, these Republican defectors merely prove
that the elite is out to get their candidate, thus reinforcing his outsider credentials (never mind
that Trump initially
wooed neocons like Kristol).
For the left , the neocons are flocking to support a bird of their feather, at least when it
comes to foreign policy, which reflects badly on Clinton. The mainstream media, meanwhile, is attracted
to the man-bites-dog aspect of the story (news flash: members of the vast right-wing conspiracy support
Clinton!).
As we come to the end of the election campaign, which has been more a clash of personalities than
of ideologies, the neocon defections offer a much more interesting storyline. As the Republican Party
potentially coalesces around a more populist center, the neocons are the canary in the coal mine.
Their squawking suggests that the American political scene is about to suffer a cataclysm. What will
that mean for U.S. foreign policy?
A History of Defection
The neoconservative movement began within the Democratic Party. Henry "Scoop" Jackson, a Democrat
from Washington State, carved out a new position in the party with his liberal domestic policies
and hardline Cold War stance. He was a strong booster of civil rights and environmental legislation.
At the same time, he favored military build-up and a stronger relationship with Israel. He was also
dismayed with the Nixon administration's détente with the Soviet Union.
Prioritizing foreign over domestic policy, Jackson's former aides
Richard Perle
, Douglas Feith
, and Elliott
Abrams - along with some fellow travelers like
Paul Wolfowitz
- eventually shifted their allegiance to the right-wing Republican Ronald Reagan. They formed
an important pro-Israel, "peace through strength" nucleus within the new president's foreign policy
team.
At the end of the Reagan era, their commitment to such policies as regime change in the Middle
East, confrontation with Russia, and opposition to multilateral institutions like the United Nations
brought them into conflict with realists in the George H.W. Bush administration. So many of them
defected once again to support Bill Clinton.
Writes
Jim Lobe:
A small but not insignificant number of them, repelled by George H.W. Bush's realpolitik, and
more specifically his Middle East policy and pressure on then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir to
join the Madrid peace conference after the first Gulf War, deserted the party in 1992 and publicly
endorsed Bill Clinton. Richard Schifter, Morris Amitay of the Jewish Institute for National Security
Affairs, Angier Biddle Duke, Rita Freedman of the Social Democrats USA, neocon union leaders John
Joyce and Al Shanker, Penn Kemble of the Institute for Religion and Democracy, James Woolsey,
Marty Peretz of The New Republic, and Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise Institute all
signed a much-noted ad in The New York Times in August 1992 endorsing Clinton's candidacy. Their
hopes of thus being rewarded with top positions in a Clinton administration were crushed.
The flirtation with Clinton's Democratic Party was short-lived. Woolsey, Schifter, and Kemble
received appointments in the Clinton administration, but the neocons in general were unhappy with
their limited influence, Clinton's (albeit inconsistent) multilateralism, and the administration's
reluctance to intervene militarily in Rwanda, Somalia, and Bosnia. Disenchantment turned to anger
and then to organizing. In 1997, many of the same people who worked for Scoop Jackson and embraced
Ronald Reagan put together
the Project for the New American Century in an effort to preserve and expand America's post-Cold
War unilateral power.
A handful of votes in Florida in 2000 and the attacks on September 11 the following year combined
to give the neocons a second chance at transforming U.S. foreign policy. Dick Cheney became perhaps
the most powerful vice president in modern American history, with Scooter Libby as his national security
adviser. Donald Rumsfeld became secretary of defense, with Paul Wolfowitz as his deputy and Feith
as head of the policy office. Elliott Abrams joined the National Security Council, and so on. Under
their guidance, George W. Bush abandoned all pretense of charting a more modest foreign policy and
went on a militarist bender.
The foreign policy disasters of the Bush era should have killed the careers of everyone involved.
Unfortunately, there are plenty of think tanks and universities that value access over intelligence
(or ethics) - and even the most incompetent and craven administration officials after leaving office
retain their contacts (and their arrogance).
Those who worry that the neocons will be rewarded for their third major defection - to Reagan,
to Bill Clinton, and now to Hillary Clinton - should probably focus elsewhere. After all, the Democratic
nominee this year doesn't have to go all the way over to the far right for advice on how to construct
a more muscular foreign policy. Plenty of mainstream think tanks - from
the Center for a New American Security on the center-right to the leftish
Center for American Progress - are offering their advice on how to "restore balance" in how the
United States relates to the world. Many of these positions - how to push back against Russia, take
a harder line against Iran, and ratchet up pressure on Assad in Syria - are not very different from
neocon talking points.
But the defections do herald a possible sea change in party alignment. And that will influence
the trajectory of U.S. foreign policy.
The Walking Dead
The Republican Party has been hemorrhaging for nearly a decade. The Tea Party dispatched many
party centrists - Jim Leach, Richard Lugar - who once could achieve a measure of bipartisanship in
Congress. The overwhelming whiteness of the party, even before the ascendance of Trump, made it very
difficult to recruit African Americans and Latinos in large numbers. And now Trump has driven away
many of the professionals who have served in past Republican administrations, including the small
clique of neoconservatives.
What remains is enough to win state and local elections in certain areas of the country. But it's
not enough to win nationally. Going forward, with the further demographic shift away from white voters,
this Republican base will get older and smaller. Moreover, on foreign policy, the Trumpistas are
leading the party in a
nationalist,
apocalyptic direction that challenges the party leadership (in emphasis if not in content).
It's enough to throw dedicated Republicans into despair. Avik Roy, who was an advisor to the presidential
campaigns of Marco Rubio, Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry,
told
This American Life :
I think the Republican Party is a lost cause. I don't think the Republican Party is capable
of fixing itself, because the people who are most passionate about voting Republican today are
the Trump voters. And what politician is going to want to throw those voters away to attract some
unknown coalition of the future?
One of his Republican compatriots, Rob Long, had this to say on the podcast about how anti-Trump
survivors who stick with the party will navigate the post-election landscape:
It'll be like The Walking Dead, right? We're going to try to come up with bands of people and
walk across the country. And let's not get ourselves killed or eaten and hook up with people we
think are not insane or horrible or in some way murderous.
Coming out of this week's elections, here's my guess of what will happen. The Republican Party
will continue to be torn apart by three factions: a dwindling number of moderates like Susan Collins
(R-ME), right-wing fiscal conservatives like Paul Ryan (R-WI), and burn-the-house-down Trumpsters
like Jeff Sessions (R-AL). Foreign policy won't be much of an issue for the party because it will
be shut out of the White House for 12 years running and will focus instead on primarily domestic
questions. Perhaps the latter two categories will find a way to repair their breach; perhaps the
party will split in two; perhaps Trump supporters will engineer a hostile takeover.
The Democratic Party, meanwhile, may suffer as a result of its success. After all, how can a single
party play host to both Bernie Sanders and
Robert Kagan ?
How can the party promote both guns and butter? How can Hillary Clinton preserve Obama's diplomatic
successes - the Iran deal, the Cuba détente, the efforts to contain climate change - and be more
assertive militarily? Whatever unity the party managed during the elections will quickly fall apart
when it comes to governing.
In one sense, Clinton may well resurrect the neocon legacy by embracing a more or less progressive
domestic policy (which would satisfy the Sanderistas) and a more hawkish foreign policy (which would
satisfy all the foreign policy mandarins from both parties who supported her candidacy).
At the same time, a new political axis is emerging: internationalists vs. insularists, with the
former gathering together in the Democratic Party and the latter seeking shelter in a leaky Republican
Party. But this categorization conceals the tensions within each project. Internationalists include
both fans of the UN and proponents of unilateral U.S. military engagement overseas. Insularists,
who have not turned their back on the world quite as thoroughly as isolationists, include both xenophobic
nationalists and those who want to spend war dollars at home.
The trick of it for progressives is to somehow steal back the Democratic Party from the aggressive
globalists and recapture those Trump voters who are tired of supporting war and wealthy transnational
corporations. Or, perhaps in the wake of the Republican Party's collapse, progressives could create
a new party that challenges Clinton and the neocons.
One thing is for certain, however. With a highly unpopular president about to take office and
one of the major political parties on life support, the current political moment is highly unstable.
Something truly remarkable could emerge. Or voters in 2020 might face something even more monstrous
than what has haunted this election cycle.
@138 The woman is wrong. Chelsea Clinton was not paid $600 k from the Clinton Foundation.
Chelsea Clinton was paid $600 k per year from 2011 by NBC for 'work' as a special correspondent,
whilst also pocketing $300 k per year plus stock options as a 'board member' of IAC. Chelsea's
speaking fees were a mere $65 k per.
The NYT offers a more severe critique of the IAC board deal readable by clicking through
the links. There will be those who see nothing improper about a fifth-estate firm paying a 31
year-old graduate student $600 k, or awarding her a board seat and stock options at $300k. Others
may disagree, and perhaps with some good reason.
The defeat of the democratic candidate by a rodeo clown is a slap in the face. Contra Manta
@71 I do not believe that anything less than a slap in the face of this order would be enough
to jar the successful and well-fed out of their state of complacency and indifference to the plight
of both the blacks and whites left behind by 8 years of Democratic rule, and far longer when we're
talking about urban African-Americans.
As noted, I believe the Republican candidate to be far and away the more sober, safer choice
both on domestic and foreign policy. Now we'll find out.
Thanks for the kind words to Rich, Bruce, T, bob mc, and others.
Disgusting as it is, yes, my understanding is Obama can do
exactly that. My guess is, want to or not, he probably will come under so much pressure
he will have to pass out plenty of pardons. Or maybe Lynch will give everyone involved
in the Clinton Foundation immunity to testify and then seal the testimony -- or never
bother to get any testimony. So many games.
For Obama, it might not even take all that much pressure. From about his second day
in office, from his body language, he's always looked like he was scared.
Instead of keeping his mouth shut, which he would do, being the lawyer he is,
Giuliani has been screaming for the Clintons' scalps. That's exactly what a sharp lawyer
would do if he was trying to force Obama to pardon them. If he really meant to get them
he would be agreeing with the FBI, saying there doesn't seem to be any evidence of wrong
doing, and then change his mind once (if) he's AG and it's too late for deals.
With so many lawyers, Obama, the Clintons, Lynch, Giuliani, Comey, no justice is
likely to come out of this.
@ Posted by: Ken Nari | Nov 11, 2016 2:51:53 PM | 55
I heard a podcast on Batchelor
with Charles Ortel which explained some things -- even if there are no obvious likely
criminal smoking guns -- given that foundations get away with a lot of "leniency"
because they are charities, incomplete financial statements and chartering documents, as
I recall. I was most interested in his description of the number of jurisdictions the
Foundation was operating under, some of whom, like New York were already investigating;
and others, foreign who might or might be, who also have very serious regulations,
opening the possibility that if the Feds drop their investigation, New York (with very
very strict law) might proceed, and that they might well be investigated
(prosecuted/banned??) in Europe.
The most recent leak wrt internal practices was just damning ... it sounded like a
playground of favors and sinecures ... no human resources department, no written
policies on many practices ...
This was an internal audit and OLD (2008, called "the Gibson Review") so corrective
action may have been taken, but I thought was damning enough to deter many donors (even
before Hillary's loss removed that incentive) particularly on top of the Band (2011)
memo. Unprofessional to the extreme.
It's part of my vast relief that Clinton lost and will not be in our lives 24/7/365
for the next 4 years. (I think Trump is an unprincipled horror, but that's as may be,
I'm not looking for a fight). After the mess Clinton made of Haiti (and the
accusations/recriminations) I somehow thought they'd have been more careful with their
"legacy" -- given that it was founded in 1997, 2008 is a very long time to be operating
without written procedures wrt donations, employment
". Clinton raised $154 million in September for her campaign and the party.
And people "getting the resources they needed"? Seems odd."
smells like the allegations thrown at the Clinton Foundation--insiders
directing very generous contracts to other insiders. with competence or
efficacy secondary.
How Podesta may have caused Clinton to weaken her position on Wall Street.
New Wikileak shows he pushed her to show "love" for Obama rather than criticism
of BHO's handling of reform
The next day, an OpEd under the byline of Hillary Clinton appeared at
Bloomberg News. Obama's name was mentioned four separate times in a highly
favorable light. Clinton said Obama had signed into law "important new
rules" after the 2008 financial crash; she was going to "build on the
progress we've made under President Obama"; "thanks to President Obama's
leadership" the economy is now on "sounder footing"; and the Dodd-Frank
financial reform legislation that Obama signed into law had "made important
reforms, but there's more to do."
Since Bloomberg News is heavily read by people on Wall Street, this was a
signal to them that Hillary Clinton would leave the bulk of her husband's
cash cow deregulation in place by following in the footsteps of Obama. What
Obama's administration had done in 2010 was to create the illusion of
regulating Wall Street by proposing hundreds of vaguely worded rules in the
Dodd-Frank legislation, then putting crony Wall Street regulators in charge
at the SEC and U.S. Treasury to be sure the rules were never actually
implemented in any meaningful way. (Under Dodd-Frank, the U.S. Treasury
Secretary now sits atop a new financial stability body known as the
Financial Stability Oversight Council. The crony Federal Reserve, which
failed to see the crisis coming, was given enhanced supervisory powers over
the largest Wall Street bank holding companies.) Obama even ignored one of
his own rules in Dodd-Frank. It called for Obama to appoint a Vice Chairman
for Supervision at the Federal Reserve to police Wall Street.[…]
There is another telling fact in the email. Hillary Clinton seems to have
had very little to do with actually fashioning her policies. Another Clinton
adviser, Dan Schwerin, indicates that WJC (William Jefferson Clinton, i.e.
Bill Clinton) had edited the OpEd with "further refinements from policy
team," but there is no mention that Hillary Clinton was involved in her own
OpEd that would bear her byline.
So not just by Podesta but victimized by her philandering husband one last
time? Awhile back Pat Lang suggested it was really Bill who pushed her into
running. The impeach-ee needed his legacy redeemed.
Hillary Clinton seems to have had very little to do with actually
fashioning her policies.
This is a point that has irked me ever since I waded into the Podesta
emails - how even the smallest public statement or even just a Tweet
required numerous rounds of revisions, feedback, vetting and tweaking from
the Clinton insiders.
It seemed that Clinton rarely had a fire in the belly on any particular
position. It was whatever her team determined was the most politcally
advantageous at the moment.
Maybe this is how most presidential candidates function, but it made me
see Clinton as Presidential Robot Version 2016, programmed by her team to
simulate the appearance of a person with convictions.
I'm sure she has some real convictions and I'm sure she has done real
good in the world. But maybe Assange is right - she has been consumed by
power and greed and was seduced by the possibility of more.
Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton – as senator, secretary of
state, and active partner in the Clinton Foundation – has had the privilege of
influencing major players in governments across the globe.
The result of her efforts has largely been the unfettered consolidation of
autocratic power, instability (when not total collapse) in vulnerable states, and
a global jihadist movement with its own Caliphate infiltrating some of the world's
most strategic locations.
SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER
The above map shows the nations of the world Clinton's policies have
destabilized and, below, an explanation of why each is labeled the way it is. This
is meant to be a comprehensive list, though by no means complete: there are few
nations in which an American secretary of state has no influence whatsoever.
Emboldened Autocrats
China
As secretary of state, Clinton presided over a policy known as the "
pivot
to Asia
," meant to increase American visibility in the continent and, in
particular, bring China and the United States closer together. Clinton publicly
supported the "
one-China
policy
" – China's way of imposing itself on the Republic of China (Taiwan),
Tibet, Hong Kong, and the western Xinjiang region – and encouraged China to
buy up U.S. debt
.
Following her tenure as secretary of state, Clinton expressed support for
incoming president Xi Jinping in private. In a 2013 private speech now public,
thanks to the organization WikiLeaks, Clinton
said
it was "good news" that Xi was "doing much more to try to assert his
authority" than his predecessor, Hu Jintao.
Since then, Xi has declared himself the "
core
"
leader,
comparable to Mao Zedong
;
colonized
the maritime territory of six nations in the South China Sea; used
state violence
to crack down on the nation's skyrocketing Christian
population; and engaged in multiple Communist Party purges, citing unspecified "
corruption
."
Cuba
Hillary Clinton has loudly supported President Obama's policy to "normalize"
relations with Cuba, and her associates
maintain close ties
to the Washington, D.C., community that benefits from
relations with the Castro regime. President Obama's "normalization" has
triggered a boom
in violent arbitrary arrests of political dissidents and a
new wave of refugees seeking to leave the communist dictatorship before the United
States changes its mind about treating them as political refugees.
Iran
Hillary Clinton's work to embolden the Iranian Islamic dictatorship began early
in her term as secretary of state. During Clinton's tenure, the Obama
administration all but ignored the Iranian Green Revolution, a series of protests
against then-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei.
Clinton's State Department
rejected requests for funding
from groups doing the work on the grounds of
documenting Khamenei's rampant human rights abuses against unarmed protesters.
The Obama administration's crowning achievement in securing the Shiite
Caliphate's rule came years later, of course, in the form of the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the Iran nuclear deal. While the parties signed
the deal long after her departure from State, Clinton was responsible for "naming
the negotiators for the nuclear talks and approving two major U.S. concessions to
Iran in 2011 – guaranteeing Iran the right to enrich uranium and agreeing to close
the IAEA's investigation of Iran's past nuclear weapons work,"
according to Fred Fleitz of the Center for Security Policy
.
Malaysia
Under Prime Minister Najib Razak, Malaysia has become a hotbed of
corruption
and,
increasingly,
radical
Islamic sentiment
. The Obama administration has, nonetheless, cozied up to
Kuala Lumpur, including
improving
its human rights ratings
to make it an eligible partner in the Trans-Pacific
Partnership. Among the allies Clinton world
feared
would
challenge Clinton, the presidential candidate, on Malaysia were labor leader
Richard Trumka and George Soros.
Secretary of State Clinton approached North Korea with a policy known as "
strategic
patience
," which one expert described as "sitting back and watching while
North Korea continued to build up its nuclear weapons program." North Korea has
detonated two nuclear weapons since Clinton has been out of office, in part
emboldened by "strategic patience" and in part, many argued after the fourth of
five tests,
emboldened by the Iranian nuclear deal
.
Russia
Clinton has attempted to convince the American people that her arch-rival in
the presidential election is Russian President Vladimir Putin, but long before it
was politically expedient for her to do so, Clinton was the face of President
Obama's "Russian reset" – the one that preceded the collapse of Ukraine – and
bragged privately to big-money donors of her close ties to Putin. The strongman
trusted her so much, she once boasted, that he invited her to his "
inner
sanctum
."
Turkey
In her memoir,
Hard Choices
, Clinton reserved praise from President
(then-Prime Minister) Recep Tayyip Erdogan that sounded not unlike her optimistic
profiling of Xi Jinping. Erdogan,
she said
, was "an ambitious, forceful, devout and effective politician." Of
his government, she said Erdogan was correct to seek "zero problems with
neighbors." WikiLeaks-released emails
have since revealed
that Erdogan sought to buy influence through campaign
donations to the Clintons.
During his tenure as president, Erdogan has advanced the cause of Islamism in
Turkey to unprecedented levels since the rule of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, going so
far as to allow Islamic prayers in the Hagia Sophia, an iconic Christian landmark.
He has also conducted
mass arrests of political enemies
and shut down numerous media outlets who
dare challenge his government
. Last Friday, Erdogan's government
arrested the leaders
of the People's Democratic Party (HDP) – a pro-Kurdish,
pro-Christian center-left party – in a midnight raid on dubious "terrorism"
charges.
Venezuela
Clinton served as secretary of state during the tail end of the tenure of
socialist dictator Hugo Chávez, who died shortly after she departed. Chávez
presided over a bleak time in Venezuelan history: nationalizing private
industries, cozying up to enabling autocrats in Cuba, Iran, and China, and using
violence to suppress anti-socialist opposition.
In 2009, Clinton defended negotiating with Chávez and fostering diplomacy with
him, telling a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing that the U.S.
should dismiss
Chávez's ties to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and communist China
because "we've isolated him, so he's gone elsewhere. I mean, he's a very sociable
guy."
Venezuela's economy is now in free fall as dozens of prisoners of conscience
languish in prison under Chávez's hand-picked successor, Nicolás Maduro. Maduro's
management of his own government has been so abysmal that, with Clinton gone,
President Obama has declared Venezuela
a national security threat
.
Emboldened Corruption
Algeria
The government of Algeria is involved in one of the most egregious corruption
schemes of the Clinton Foundation: offering the Clintons a $500,000 check. "The
donation reportedly coincided with an intense effort by Algeria to lobby Mrs
Clinton's State Department over US criticism of its human rights record,"
The
Telegraph
notes
.
Brazil
Earlier this year, Brazil
impeached and ousted
its socialist President Dilma Rousseff for a variety of
fiscal improprieties, including the misrepresentation of government funds to lure
investors. Triggering protests that numbered in the millions, however, was
Rousseff's deep involvement in something known as "Operation Car Wash," a
sprawling corruption scheme in which dozens of government officials took millions
in kickbacks from projects commissioned by the state-run oil company Petrobras.
As secretary of state, Clinton had longtime ties to Rousseff and
praised
"her commitment to openness, transparency," stating that "her fight
against corruption is setting a global standard" in 2012.
Haiti
The Clinton Foundation's
exploitation
of Haiti's poverty and the damage caused by a 2010 earthquake has
left many of those nation's leaders disgusted enough to speak up about the
corruption. An operation to aid earthquake victims run by the Clintons was also
found to have "
played
a role
" in an unprecedented cholera outbreak in that country.
Kazakhstan
Among the more alarming deals Clinton cut at the State Department was the
nuclear deal that handed one-fifth of America's uranium production capacity to
Russia. While Russia usurped control of the Uranium One corporation, the Clinton
Foundations coffers filled with Russian money.
In addition to Uranium One control, the
New York Times
reports
that Russia gained control of "mines in Kazakhstan that are among the
most lucrative in the world."
Morocco
A more recent WikiLeaks reveal shows that the Clinton Foundation received a $12
million donation from the King of Morocco in exchange for Hillary Clinton's
presence at a Foundation summit. At the last minute, she
did not attend
.
Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia has enjoyed longstanding ties to the Clinton family and
donated
at least $50 million to the Clinton Foundation. These ties persisted
even as Clinton
privately admitted
she had evidence that Saudi Arabia provided "clandestine
financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the
region."
United States
While the Clinton Foundation often served as a
laundry service for foreign donations
, Clinton fostered questionable ties with
plenty of domestic entities, as well. Clinton
has raked in millions
in donations from big business in America, donors to
which she privately promised "
open
borders
." Clinton's ties to Department of Justice officials in the wake of an
investigation into her use of an illicit private server for state business has
also raised many questions regarding cronyism and corruption within our own
country.
Jihadist Boom
Afghanistan
President Obama famously declared that the war in Afghanistan
was over
for American soldiers in 2014. The policies that led to that point
only exacerbated the damage a vacuum of American power in the nation wrought
following the announcement.
Under Clinton, the State Department
largely ignored
a sprawling corruption problem that left Afghanistan with few
resources to combat the Taliban or al-Qaeda. Clinton policies elsewhere in the
world also led to the development of an Islamic State presence in the nation.
Currently, U.S. officials
warn
that the Taliban is stronger than it has been since September 11, 2001.
Indonesia
One of Clinton's first stops as secretary of state was Indonesia, where she
proclaimed, "If you want to know whether Islam, democracy, modernity and women's
rights can co-exist, go to Indonesia."
At the time
(2009), her visit was met with chants of "Allahu akbar" and an
inauspicious shoe-throwing protest against her.
Since then, Clinton's foreign policy greatly contributed to the creation of the
Islamic State, a jihadist group
actively courting Indonesian recruits
. "Between 300 and 700 Indonesians are
believed to have joined the group in Syria and Iraq over the past two years," the
BBC reported in July, adding that 30 Indonesian groups had pledged allegiance to
Islamic State "Caliph" Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Iraq
Unlike Syria, the collapse of which followed violent acts of oppression by a
ruthless tyrant, Iraq's collapse is more closely tied to American foreign policy
due to the nation's longtime occupation there. An American presence on the ground
in Iraq did more to subdue jihadist elements there than any action to routinely
fleeing Iraqi military and its corrupt leadership took.
While Clinton was in office, President Obama
withdrew
most of America's troops from Iraq, leaving a power vacuum rapidly
filled by the Islamic State, al-Qaeda, and Iran-backed Shiite militias. Military
experts
have agreed
that a prolonged American presence in the country would have
contributed to stability and withdrawing left the nation vulnerable to Islamist
colonization.
Nigeria, Niger, Chad, Cameroon
The nations surrounding Lake Chad continue to struggle with the rise of Boko
Haram, a jihadist group
founded in 2002
but active throughout the 2010s in northeast Borno state,
Nigeria. Boko Haram is currently the deadliest wing of the Islamic State and
responsible for killing
an
estimated 15,000
and displacing millions. The group rose to international
prominence following the abduction of more than 200 schoolgirls from a secondary
school in the Borno region in 2014. Most of these girls remain in captivity,
"married" off to Boko Haram jihadists for use as sex slaves.
As secretary of state, Clinton
refused to designate
Boko Haram, at the time affiliated with al-Qaeda, a
Foreign Terrorist Organization. The move
severely hindered
the Nigerian government's ability to target and neutralize
the group, as they could not seek U.S. aid for the mission.
Somalia, Kenya
Clinton
traveled to Somalia
personally in 2009 t0 offer support against al-Shabaab, an
al-Qaeda affiliated terrorist group. Following that visit, al-Shabaab made its
ties to al-Qaeda public and went on two high-profile rampages against civilians in
Kenya: the
Westgate Mall massacre
in 2013 and the
Garissa University attack
of 2015. It has since then become a popular enough
jihadist group to have found itself the object of courtship of both its al-Qaeda
overlords and the Islamic State.
The United States did little in those in-between years to subdue al-Shabaab,
including a "
Yemen-like
"
drone policy to target leadership and an embarrassing
failed raid
on an al-Shabaab camp in 2013. Clinton herself merely
implored the terrorists
to allow humanitarian aid.
Collapse of State
Libya
Clinton's role
in the death of Americans, including a U.S. Ambassador, in the
September 11, 2012, siege of Benghazi is now well-known. She had a major role in
pushing for the decision to support Libya's uprising against dictator Muammar
Gadhafi, as well, however – a move President Obama followed up with little
strategy to ensure that a stable, secular government would replace Gadhafi. The
collapse of the Gadhafi dictatorship has left Libya a failed state, at first
governed by
two rival parties
, but now partially governed by the
Islamic State
,
al-Qaeda
, and a variety of Islamist tribal militias.
The Syrian Civil War began in 2011, during Clinton's stewardship of the State
Department. The Secretary reportedly
pushed President Obama
to arm Sunni Arab Syrian rebels, armed militias that
included a high number of jihadist elements, many of whom would move on to fight
for the Islamic State. The President
reportedly did not heed Clinton's advice
, though he failed to do much of
anything else, either.
In 2011, however, Clinton referred to dictator Bashar al-Assad as "
a
reformer
" by reputation, whose nascent rule was cause for optimism, casting
some doubt on how adamantly she pushed President Obama to arm the Syrian rebels.
Today, Syria remains a land mass governed piecemeal by the Islamic State,
Kurdish militias, al-Qaeda linked armed Sunni groups, and the
Iranian-Russian-Assad alliance. Assad
claimed in an interview
earlier this month that Syria is now "much better off"
than before the civil war.
Sudan/South Sudan
The creation of South Sudan, the world's youngest nation, was a direct product
of Clinton's foreign policy. Years of civil war in Sudan between the northern
Muslim population and the Christian south gave way to secession and a war between
two nations, not one. By the time Clinton visited in 2012,
the
Washington Post
referred to the refugee crisis there as one of
the worst in the world (soon to be eclipsed by the Syrian crisis).
The State Department persisted in aiding the South Sudanese government, even
continuing to provide funding after evidence surfaced that the government
employed
child soldiers
. Subsequent reports unveiled that Clinton-related firms
received money
from the South Sudanese government, as well.
Clinton's State Department support appears to have done little to
stabilize South Sudan. Report of
mass rape
at UN camps are common, and the country is
now facing a famine
.
Ukraine/Georgia
The Obama administration's tepid responses to Russian colonization of former
Soviet states have left Ukraine without its Crimea region and its eastern
provinces in collapse. In Georgia, the breakaway regions of
Abkhazia and South Ossetia
, invaded in 2008, remain under pseudo-Russian
control.
Hillary Clinton presided over a "Russian reset" policy meant to dissuade
Vladimir Putin from pillaging his neighbors. Clinton even gave her Russian
counterpart Sergei Lavrov a literal "reset button" as a gift,
leaving him baffled
. The reset succeeded in keeping Russia from obstructing
the negotiation of the Iran nuclear deal and the invasion of Libya
, but did
little to convince Putin to change his foreign policy.
Subsequent revelations showed the Clintons
taking money from both sides
of the Ukraine conflict and being careful of
making too tough a stand against Putin's aggression.
Yemen
As secretary of state, Clinton made the first visit as America's top diplomat
to Yemen since 1990. There, she told Ali Abdullah Saleh that
she
would support
a program to return al-Qaeda terrorists imprisoned at Guantánamo
Bay, Cuba, to Yemen, while also acknowledging that Yemen was a hotbed of
al-Qaeda activity. Saleh is now an ally of the Iran-backed Houthi rebels, which
have launched a civil war against current President Abd Rabbo Mansur Hadi.
Al-Qaeda is possibly the most stable entity in a nation where
80 percent
of
civilians live off of humanitarian aid,
quadrupling its presence in the nation in a year
. Yemen is a failed state torn
apart by an emboldened Iran and Saudi Arabia, both major beneficiaries of the
Clinton State Department's policies.
The Migrant Crisis
Austria, Belgium, the Balkan nations, Cyprus, Denmark, France, Germany,
Greece, Italy, Jordan, Lebanon, the Netherlands, Turkey, Sweden, the UK
The Obama administration's Syria and Libya policies (See above.), executed
while Clinton was secretary of state, have triggered a flood of
nearly five million
displaced Syrians
and
more
than one million Libyans
seeking refuge in Europe and the Middle East.
Refugees from Afghanistan, Pakistan, sub-Saharan Africa, and other volatile
regions have added to the masses seeking a new home, rejected in countries like
Russia, China, and Saudi Arabia who have criticized the West for being
unwelcoming.
Slavoj Žižek Says He'd Vote Trump: Hillary Clinton 'Is the Real Danger'
|
04 Nov 2016 | Slovenian-born philosopher and cultural theorist Slavoj Žižek said a
Hillary Clinton presidency is a greater danger to the nation than a President Donald
Trump. Žižek explained that while he is "horrified" by Trump, he believes a Trump
presidency could result in a "big awakening" that could set into motion the formation of
"new political processes." By contrast, Žižek said he sees Clinton as "the true
danger"--pointing specifically to her insincerity, her ties to the Wall Street banks,
and her dedication to the "absolute inertia" of our established political system.
"... An awful lot of people out there think we live in a one-party state-that we're ruled by what is coming to be called the "Uniparty." ..."
"... There is a dawning realization, ever more widespread among ordinary Americans, that our national politics is not Left versus Right or Republican versus Democrat; it's we the people versus the politicians. ..."
"... Donald Trump is no nut. If he were a nut, he would not have amassed the fortune he has, nor nurtured the capable and affectionate family he has. ..."
"... To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss. ..."
"... Trump has all the right instincts. And he's had the guts and courage-and, just as important, the money -to do a thing that has badly needed doing for twenty years: to smash the power of the real nuts in the GOP Establishment. ..."
A couple of remarks in
Professor Susan
McWillams' recent Modern Age piece celebrating the 25th anniversary of Christopher Lasch's
1991 book
The True and Only Heaven , which analyzed the cult of progress in its American manifestation,
have stuck in my mind. Here's the first one:
McWilliams adds a footnote to that: The 19 percent figure is from 2012, she says. Then she tells
us that in 1964, 64 percent of Americans agreed with the same statement.
Wow. You have to think that those two numbers, from 64 percent down to 19 percent in two generations,
tell us something important and disturbing about our political life.
Second McWilliams quote:
In 2016 if you type the words "Democrats and Republicans" or "Republicans and Democrats" into
Google, the algorithms predict your next words will be "are the same".
I just tried this, and she's right. These guesses are of course based on the frequency with which
complete sentences show up all over the internet. An awful lot of people out there think we live
in a one-party state-that we're ruled by what is
coming to be called the "Uniparty."
There is a dawning realization, ever more widespread among ordinary Americans, that our national
politics is not Left versus Right or Republican versus Democrat; it's we the people
versus the politicians.
Which leads me to a different lady commentator: Peggy Noonan, in her October 20th Wall Street
Journal column.
The title of Peggy's piece was:
Imagine
a Sane Donald Trump . [
Alternate link ]Its gravamen:
Donald Trump has shown up the Republican Party Establishment as totally out of touch with their base,
which is good; but that he's bat-poop crazy, which is bad. If a sane Donald Trump had done
the good thing, the showing-up, we'd be on course to a major beneficial correction in our national
politics.
It's a good clever piece. A couple of months ago on Radio Derb I offered up one and a half cheers
for Peggy, who gets a lot right in spite of being a longtime Establishment Insider. So it
was here. Sample of what she got right last week:
Mr. Trump's great historical role was to reveal to the Republican Party what half of its
own base really thinks about the big issues. The party's leaders didn't know! They were shocked,
so much that they indulged in sheer denial and made believe it wasn't happening.
The party's leaders accept more or less open borders and like big trade deals. Half the base
does not! It is longtime GOP doctrine to cut entitlement spending. Half the base doesn't want
to, not right now! Republican leaders have what might be called assertive foreign-policy impulses.
When Mr. Trump insulted George W. Bush and nation-building and said he'd opposed the Iraq invasion,
the crowds, taking him at his word, cheered. He was, as they say, declaring that he didn't want
to invade the world and invite the world. Not only did half the base cheer him, at least half
the remaining half joined in when the primaries ended.
End of pause. OK, so Peggy got some things right there. She got a lot wrong, though
Start with the notion that Trump is crazy. He's a nut, she says, five times. His brain is "a TV
funhouse."
Well, Trump has some colorful quirks of personality, to be sure, as we all do. But he's no nut.
A nut can't be as successful in business as Trump has been.
I spent 32 years as an employee or contractor, mostly in private businesses but for two years
in a government department. Private businesses are intensely rational, as human affairs go-much more
rational than government departments. The price of irrationality in business is immediate and plainly
financial. Sanity-wise, Trump is a better bet than most people in high government positions.
Sure, politicians talk a good rational game. They present as sober and thoughtful on the Sunday
morning shows.
Look at the stuff they believe, though. Was it rational to respond to the collapse of the U.S.S.R.
by moving NATO right up to Russia's borders? Was it rational to expect that post-Saddam Iraq would
turn into a constitutional democracy? Was it rational to order insurance companies to sell healthcare
policies to people who are already sick? Was the Vietnam War a rational enterprise? Was it rational
to respond to the 9/11 attacks by massively increasing Muslim immigration?
Make your own list.
Donald Trump displays good healthy patriotic instincts. I'll take that, with the personality quirks
and all, over some earnest, careful, sober-sided guy whose head contains fantasies of putting the
world to rights, or flooding our country with unassimilable foreigners.
I'd add the point, made by many commentators, that belongs under the general heading: "You don't
have to be crazy to work here, but it helps." If Donald Trump was not so very different from run-of-the-mill
politicians-which I suspect is a big part of what Peggy means by calling him a nut-would he have
entered into the political adventure he's on?
Thor Heyerdahl sailed across the Pacific on a hand-built wooden raft to prove a point, which
is not the kind of thing your average ethnographer would do. Was he crazy? No, he wasn't. It was
only that some feature of his personality drove him to use that way to prove the point he
hoped to prove.
And then there is Peggy's assertion that the Republican Party's leaders didn't know that half
the party's base were at odds with them.
Did they really not? Didn't they get a clue when the GOP lost in 2012, mainly because millions
of Republican voters didn't turn out for Mitt Romney? Didn't they, come to think of it, get the glimmering
of a clue back in 1996, when Pat Buchanan won the New Hampshire primary?
Pat Buchanan is in fact a living counter-argument to Peggy's thesis-the "sane Donald Trump" that
she claims would win the hearts of GOP managers. Pat is Trump without the personality quirks. How
has the Republican Party treated him ?
Our own
Brad Griffin , here at VDARE.com on October 24th, offered a couple more "sane Donald Trumps":
Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee. How did they fare with the GOP Establishment?
Donald Trump is no nut. If he were a nut, he would not have amassed the fortune he
has, nor nurtured the capable and affectionate family he has. Probably he's less well-informed
about the world than the average pol. I doubt he could tell you what
the capital of Burkina Faso is. That's secondary, though. A President has people to look up that
stuff for him. The question that's been asked more than any other about Donald Trump is not, pace
Peggy Noonan, "Is he nuts?" but, "
Is he conservative? "
I'm sure he is. But my definition of "conservative" is temperamental, not political. My touchstone
here is the sketch of the conservative temperament given to us by the English political philosopher
Michael Oakeshott :
To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried
to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the
near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present
laughter to utopian bliss.
That fits Trump better than it fits any liberal you can think of-better also than many senior
Republicans.
For example, it was one of George W. Bush's senior associates-probably Karl Rove-who scoffed at opponents
of Bush's delusional foreign policy as "the reality-based community." It would be hard to think of
a more un -Oakeshottian turn of phrase.
Trump has all the right instincts. And he's had the guts and courage-and, just as important,
the money -to do a thing that has badly needed doing for twenty years: to smash the power
of the real nuts in the GOP Establishment.
I thank him for that, and look forward to his Presidency.
"... I'll be interested to see how much Hillary tries to "work with Republicans" when it comes to foreign or domestic policy, as she's promising on the campaign trail. ..."
"... In a recent interview Biden was talking about how his "friends" in the Senate like McCain, Lindsy Graham, etc. - the sane ones who hate Trump - have to come out in support of the Republican plan to block Clinton from nominating a Supreme Court judge, because of if they don't, the Koch brothers will primary them. ..."
"... While I agree that the Republican party has been interested in whatever argument will win elections and benefit their donor class, doesn't the Democratic Party also have a donor class? Haven't Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton had a close relationship with some business interests? Did anyone go to jail after the asset bubble? Did welfare reform work or simply shift the problem out of view? How complicit are the Democrats in the great risk shift? ..."
"... I would think the scorched earth politics of the neoliberals required Democrats to shift to the right if they ever hoped to win an election, again. That is what it has looked like to me. The American equivalent of New Labor in Britain. So, we have a more moderate business-interest group of Democrats and a radical business-interest group of Republicans during the past 40 years. I think Kevin Phillips has made this argument. ..."
"... Our grand experimental shift back to classical theory involved supply side tax cuts, deregulation based on the magic of new finance theory, and monetarist pro-financial monetary policy. All of which gave us the masquerade of a great moderation that ended in the mother of all asset bubbles. While we shredded the safety net. ..."
"... Now the population is learning the arguments about free trade magically lifting all boats up into the capitalist paradise has blown up. We've shifted the risk onto the working population and they couldn't bear it. ..."
"... Economists lied to the American people about trade and continue to lie about the issue day in and day out. Brainwashing kids with a silly model called comparative advantage. ..."
This is all true but Krugman always fails to tell the other side of the story.
I'll be interested to see how much Hillary tries to "work with Republicans" when it comes
to foreign or domestic policy, as she's promising on the campaign trail.
The centrists always do this to push through centrist, neoliberal "solutions" which anger the
left.
In a recent interview Biden was talking about how his "friends" in the Senate like McCain,
Lindsy Graham, etc. - the sane ones who hate Trump - have to come out in support of the Republican
plan to block Clinton from nominating a Supreme Court judge, because of if they don't, the Koch
brothers will primary them.
Let's hope Hillary does something about campaign finance reform and Citizen United and takes
a harder line against obstructionist Republicans.
While I agree that the Republican party has been interested in whatever argument will win
elections and benefit their donor class, doesn't the Democratic Party also have a donor class?
Haven't Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton had a close relationship with some business
interests? Did anyone go to jail after the asset bubble? Did welfare reform work or simply shift
the problem out of view? How complicit are the Democrats in the great risk shift?
I would think the scorched earth politics of the neoliberals required Democrats to shift
to the right if they ever hoped to win an election, again. That is what it has looked like to
me. The American equivalent of New Labor in Britain. So, we have a more moderate business-interest
group of Democrats and a radical business-interest group of Republicans during the past 40 years.
I think Kevin Phillips has made this argument.
Our grand experimental shift back to classical theory involved supply side tax cuts, deregulation
based on the magic of new finance theory, and monetarist pro-financial monetary policy. All of
which gave us the masquerade of a great moderation that ended in the mother of all asset bubbles.
While we shredded the safety net.
Now the population is learning the arguments about free trade magically lifting all boats
up into the capitalist paradise has blown up. We've shifted the risk onto the working population
and they couldn't bear it.
Perhaps the less partisan take-way would be - is it possible for any political candidate to
get elected in this environment without bowing to the proper interests? How close did Bernie get?
And, how do we fix it without first admitting that the policies of both political parties have
not really addressed the social adjustments necessary to capture the benefits of globalization?
We need an evolution of both political parties - not just the Republicans. If we don't get it,
we can expect the Trump argument to take even deeper root.
Economists lied to the American people about trade and continue to lie about the issue day
in and day out. Brainwashing kids with a silly model called comparative advantage. East Asian
economists including Ha Joon Chang among others debunked comparative advantage and Ricardianism
long ago.
Manufacturing is everything. It is all that matters. We needed tariffs yesterday. Without them
the country is lost.
Great interview. Very worthwhile to listen in full...
Notable quotes:
"... you're in the age of globalism, where a select few uber rich control everything and no one can do anything about it. ..."
"... She is every bit as banal and myopic as tRump. It is not about merit----it is about surrogates and political clans supported by gangster capitalists. ..."
Michael Hudson just sits there and details the exact situation and the real truth, as he
has been doing for a long time now. Remember this video in six months.
HarryObrian > NilbogResident
No, you're in the age of globalism, where a select few uber rich control everything and
no one can do anything about it. Everyone was warned about this over 30 years ago but
there wasn't enough exposure to the facts for enough people to care or do anything about it.
Now that the facts and reality have hit you have all these lazy alarmists like Hudson who prey
on the fear of a few who really can't do anything about it but who haven't realized it yet. Oh
well, whine on.
sufferingsuccatash > NilbogResident
Hillary is not a qualified leader either. She is every bit as banal and myopic as tRump.
It is not about merit----it is about surrogates and political clans supported by gangster
capitalists.
0040 • a day ago
Another great video from Mr Hudson. Von Clausewitz's axiom that "War is politics by other
means" has never been made clearer.
NormDP
Hudson is right on. Trump is the lesser of two evils. Under Trump, checks and balances will
remain strong and active. Under Hillary, they will disappear.
Glen Ford says Hillary Grand Bargain on the way (should she win).
But in the interim, Clinton will have a unique opportunity to cut grand austerity deals with all
the "big elements" of Simpson-Bowles, to renege on her corporate trade promises, and to wage war
with great gusto in the name of a "united" country. Ever since the Democratic National Convention
it has been clear that the Clintonites are encouraged to consider everyone outside of their grand
circle to be suspect, subversive, or depraved. Their inclusive rhetoric is really an invocation of
a ruling class consensus, now that Trump has supposedly brought the ruling class together under one
banner. In Hillary's tent, the boardrooms are always in session.
Two sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI's investigations told
Fox News Wednesday that a probe of the Clinton Foundation is likely to lead to an indictment.
Fox News's Bret Baier said Wednesday that the FBI probe into a possible pay-to-play scheme between
Democratic presidential nominee and the Clinton Foundation
has been going on for over a year. Sources told the news network that the investigation, which is
conducted by the White Collar Crime division of the FBI, is a "very high priority."
One source further
stated that the bureau collected "a lot of" evidence, adding that "there is an avalanche of new information
coming every day." Baier also said that the Clinton Foundation probe is more expansive than previously
thought, and that many individuals have been interviewed several times throughout the course of the
investigation. Sources said that they are "actively and aggressively pursuing this case" and that
investigations are likely to continue. Baier added that when he pressed the sources about the details
of both probes, they told him that they are likely to lead to an indictment. Additionally, Baier
reported that according to Fox News's sources, Clinton's private email server had been breached by
at least five foreign intelligence hackers. FBI Director James Comey said in July that he could not
say definitively whether her server had been breached.
It's looking increasingly like there is an ongoing mutiny underway within the FBI as the
Wall Street Journal is reporting that, according to "officials at multiple agencies", FBI agents
felt they had adequate evidence, including "secret recordings of a suspect talking about the Clinton
Foundation" , to pursue an investigation of the Clinton Foundation but were repeatedly obstructed
by officials at the Department of Justice.
Secret recordings of a suspect talking about the Clinton Foundation fueled an internal battle
between FBI agents who wanted to pursue the case and corruption prosecutors who viewed the statements
as worthless hearsay, people familiar with the matter said.
The roots of the dispute lie in a disagreement over the strength of the case, these people
said, which broadly centered on whether Clinton Foundation contributors received favorable treatment
from the State Department under Hillary Clinton.
Senior officials in the Justice Department and the FBI didn't think much of the evidence, while
investigators believed they had promising leads their bosses wouldn't let them pursue , they said.
Despite clear signals from the Justice Department to abandon the Clinton Foundation inquiries,
many FBI agents refused to stand down. Then, earlier this year in February 2016, the FBI presented
initial evidence at a meeting with Leslie Caldwell, the head of the DOJ's criminal division, after
which agents were delivered a clear message that "we're done here." But, as the WSJ points out, DOJ
became increasing frustrated with FBI agents that were " disregarding or disobeying their instructions"
which subsequently prompted an emphatic "stand down" message from the DOJ to "all the offices involved."
As 2015 came to a close, the FBI and Justice Department had a general understanding that neither
side would take major action on Clinton Foundation matters without meeting and discussing it first.
In February, a meeting was held in Washington among FBI officials, public-integrity prosecutors
and Leslie Caldwell, the head of the Justice Department's criminal division. Prosecutors from
the Eastern District of New York-Mr. Capers' office-didn't attend, these people said.
The public-integrity prosecutors weren't impressed with the FBI presentation, people familiar
with the discussion said. "The message was, 'We're done here,' " a person familiar with the matter
said.
Justice Department officials became increasingly frustrated that the agents seemed to be disregarding
or disobeying their instructions.
Following the February meeting, officials at Justice Department headquarters sent a message
to all the offices involved to " stand down ,'' a person familiar with the matter said.
The FBI had secretly recorded conversations of a suspect in a public-corruption case talking
about alleged deals the Clintons made , these people said. The agents listening to the recordings
couldn't tell from the conversations if what the suspect was describing was accurate, but it was,
they thought, worth checking out.
In an
interview with House magazine, Lord Richards of Herstmonceux – the former Chief of the Defence
staff – said Mr. Trump is "wise enough to get good people round him and probably knows that he's
got to listen to them and therefore I think we should not automatically think it will be less safe".
He added: "It's non-state actors like Isis that are the biggest threat to our security. If
countries and states could coalesce better to deal with these people – and I think Trump's instinct
is to go down that route – then I think there's the case for saying that the world certainly won't
be any less safe.
"It's that lack of understanding and empathy with each other as big power players that is a
risk to us all at the moment.
"Therefore I think he would reinvigorate big power relationships, which might make the world
ironically safer."
During the interview Lord Richards also discussed the somewhat controversial view that the
West should partner with Russia and Bashar al-Assad to take back the Syrian city of Aleppo.
He said: "If the humanitarian situation in Syria is our major concern, which it should be –
millions of lives have been ruined, hundreds of thousands have been killed – I believe there is
a strong case for allowing Assad to get in there and take the city back.
"The opposition groups – many of whom are not friends of ours, they're extremists – are now
intermingled with the original good opposition groups, are fighting from amongst the people. The
only quick way of solving it is to allow Assad to win. There's no way the opposition groups are
going to win."
Lord Richards added: "We want the humanitarian horror of Aleppo to come to a rapid halt. The
best and quickest way of doing that is to encourage the opposition groups to leave. The Russians
are undoubtedly using their weapons indiscriminately. If they're going to attack those groups
then there is inevitably going to be civilian casualties.
"The alternative is for the West to declare a no-fly zone and that means you've got to be prepared
to go to war with Russia ultimately. I see no appetite for that and nor, frankly, do I see much
sense in it. It sticks in my throat to say it because I have no love for Assad.
"The fact is, the only way to get it to stop now is to allow Assad to win and win quickly and
then turn on Isis with the Russians."
Fox News Channel's Bret Baier reports the latest news about the Clinton Foundation
investigation from two sources inside the FBI. He reveals five important new pieces of
information in these two short clips:
By virtually every measurement, the United States is in deep crisis, as both a society and as the
headquarters of global capitalism. We can roughly measure the severity of some aspects of the crisis
with the tools of economic analysis. Such an analysis is quite useful in explaining why Washington
is so eager to risk war with Russia and China, whether in Syria or the South China Sea or along the
ever expanding borders of NATO. To put it simply, the U.S. and western Europe become smaller, in
terms of their economic influence, with every passing day, and cannot possibly maintain their political
dominance in the world except by military force, coercion and terror. Those are the only cards the
imperialists have left to play. The ruling circles in the U.S. are aware that time is not on their
side, and it makes them crazy -- or crazier than usual.
The ruling class's own analysts tell them that the center of the world economy is moving inexorably
to the East and the South; that this trend will continue for the foreseeable future; and that the
U.S. is already number two by some economic measures -- and dropping. The Lords of Capital know there
is no future for them in a world where the dollar is not supreme and where Wall Street's stocks,
bonds and derivatives are not backed by the full weight of unchallenged empire. Put another way,
U.S. imperialism is at an inflection point, with all the indicators pointing downward and no hope
of reversing the trend by peaceful means.
Now, that's actually not such a bad prognosis for the United States, as a country. The U.S. is
a big country, with an abundance of human and natural resources, and would do just fine in a world
among equals. But, the fate of the Lords of Capital is tied to the ongoing existence of empire. They
create nothing, but seek to monetize and turn a profit on everything. They cannot succeed in trade
unless it is rigged, and have placed bets in their casinos that are nominally seven times more valuable
than the total economic activity of planet Earth. In short, the Lords of Capital are creatures of
U.S. imperial dominance; they go out of business when the empire does.
Beat the Clock
The rulers are looking class death in the face -- and it terrifies them. And when the Lords of
Capital become frightened, they order their servants in politics and the war industries and the vast
national security networks to take care of the problem, by any means necessary. That means militarily
encircling Russia and China; arming and mobilizing tens of thousands of jihadist terrorists in Syria,
in an attempt to repeat the regime change in Libya; waging a war of economic sanctions and low-level
armed aggression against Iran; occupying most of the African continent through subversion of African
militaries; escalating subversion in Latin America; and spying on everyone on earth with a digital
connection. All this, to stop the clock that is ticking on U.S. and European world economic dominance.
Left political analysts that I greatly respect argue that Hillary Clinton and the mob she will
come in with in January will pull back from apocalyptic confrontation with Russia in Syria -- that
they're not really that crazy. But, I'm not at all convinced. The ruling class isn't just imagining
that their days are numbered; it's really true. And rulers do get crazy when their class is standing
at death's door.
For Black Agenda Radio, I'm Glen Ford. On the web, go to BlackAgendaReport.com.
"... In the latest update from Fox's Bret Baier , we learn that the Clinton Foundation investigation has now taken a "very high priority," perhaps courtesy of new documents revealed by Wikileaks which expressed not only a collusive element between Teneo, the Clinton Foundation and the "charitable foundation's" donors, which included the use of funds for personal gain, but also revealed deep reservations by people within the foundation about ongoing conflicts of interest. ..."
"... FBI agents are "actively and aggressively pursuing this case," and will be going back and interviewing the same people again, some for the third time, Baier's sources said. Agents also are going through what Clinton and top aides have said in previous interviews as well as the FBI 302 documents, which agents use to report interviews they conduct, to make sure notes line up, according to sources. ..."
"... As expected, the Clinton Foundation denied everything, and Foundation spokesman, Craig Minassian, told Fox news a statement: "We're not aware of any investigation into the Foundation by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, or any United States Attorney's Office and we have not received a subpoena from any of those agencies." ..."
"... Now that details of the infighting between the DOJ and FBI regarding the Foundation probe have been made public, Loretta Lynch may have no choice but to launch an official probe, including subpoeans. ..."
"... The information follows a report over the weekend by The Wall Street Journal that four FBI field offices have been collecting information about the foundation. The probes – in addition to the revived email investigation – have fueled renewed warnings from Republicans that if Clinton is elected next week, she could take office under a cloud of investigations. ..."
"... Separately, Fox News reports that authorities also are virtually certain, i.e., "there is about a 99 percent chance", that up to five foreign intelligence agencies may have accessed and taken emails from Hillary Clinton's private server, two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations told Fox News. If so, it would suggest that the original FBI probe - which found no evidence of breach - was either incomplete or tampered with. ..."
"... In other words, Anthony Weiner may be ultimately responsible not only for the downfall of Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy, but also the collapse of the entire Clinton Foundation... which incidentally is just what Donald Trump warned could happen over a year ago. ..."
Now that thanks to first the
WSJ, and then
Fox News, the public is aware that a probe into the Clinton Foundation is not only a hot topic
for both the FBI and the DOJ (and has managed to split the law enforcement organizations along ideological
party lines), but is also actively ongoing despite the DOJ's attempts to squash it.
In the latest update from
Fox's Bret Baier, we learn that the Clinton Foundation investigation has now taken a "very high
priority," perhaps courtesy of new documents revealed by Wikileaks which expressed not only a collusive
element between Teneo, the Clinton Foundation and the "charitable foundation's" donors, which included
the use of funds for personal gain, but also revealed deep reservations by people within the foundation
about ongoing conflicts of interest.
As Baier also notes, the Clinton Foundation probe has been proceeding for more than a year, led
by the White-Collar Crime division.
Fox adds that even before the WikiLeaks dumps of alleged emails linked to the Clinton campaign,
FBI agents had collected a great deal of evidence, and FBI agents have interviewed and re-interviewed
multiple people regarding the case.
"There is an avalanche of new information coming in every day," one source told
Fox News, adding some of the new information is coming from the WikiLeaks documents and new emails.
FBI agents are "actively and aggressively pursuing this case," and will be going back and
interviewing the same people again, some for the third time, Baier's sources said. Agents also
are going through what Clinton and top aides have said in previous interviews as well as the FBI
302 documents, which agents use to report interviews they conduct, to make sure notes line up,
according to sources.
As expected, the Clinton Foundation denied everything, and Foundation spokesman, Craig Minassian,
told Fox news a statement: "We're not aware of any investigation into the Foundation by the
Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, or any United States Attorney's Office and
we have not received a subpoena from any of those agencies."
Now that details of the infighting between the DOJ and FBI regarding the Foundation probe have
been made public, Loretta Lynch may have no choice but to launch an official probe, including subpoeans.
The information follows a report over the weekend by The Wall Street Journal that four
FBI field offices have been collecting information about the foundation. The probes – in
addition to the revived email investigation – have fueled renewed warnings from Republicans that
if Clinton is elected next week, she could take office under a cloud of investigations.
"This is not just going to go away … if she ends up winning the election," Rep. Ron DeSantis,
R-Fla., told Fox News' "America's Newsroom" earlier this week.
Donald Trump has referenced this scenario, repeatedly saying on the stump this past week that
her election could trigger a "crisis."
Separately, Fox News reports that authorities also are virtually certain, i.e., "there is about
a 99 percent chance", that up to five foreign intelligence agencies may have accessed and
taken emails from Hillary Clinton's private server, two separate sources with intimate knowledge
of the FBI investigations told Fox News. If so, it would suggest that the original FBI probe - which
found no evidence of breach - was either incomplete or tampered with.
The revelation led House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Michael McCaul to describe Clinton's
handling of her email system during her tenure as secretary of state as "treason."
"She exposed [information] to our enemies," McCaul said on "Fox & Friends" Thursday morning. "Our
adversaries have this very sensitive information. … In my opinion, quite frankly, it's treason."
McCaul, R-Texas, said that FBI Director James Comey told him previously that foreign adversaries
likely had gotten into her server. When Comey publicly discussed the Clinton email case back in
July, he also said that while there was no evidence hostile actors breached the server, it was
"possible" they had gained access.
Clinton herself later pushed back, saying the director was merely "speculating."
But sources told Fox News that Comey should have said at the time there is an "almost certainty"
that several foreign intelligence agencies hacked into the server.
The claims come as Comey's FBI not only revisits the email investigation following the discovery
of additional emails on the laptop of ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner – the estranged husband of Clinton aide
Huma Abedin – but is proceeding in its investigation of the Clinton Foundation.
In other words, Anthony Weiner may be ultimately responsible not only for the downfall of Hillary
Clinton's presidential candidacy, but also the collapse of the entire Clinton Foundation... which
incidentally is just what Donald Trump warned could happen over a year ago.
A summary of Baier's latest reporting is in the clip below...
The FBI has unexpectedly published papers from an over ten-year-old investigation of former president
Bill Clinton's controversial pardon of a financier, reports
NTB.
The case against Clinton was dismissed without charges in 2005, and several Democrats therefore question
why the 129-page report of the investigation is published right now, a few days before the election,
in which Bill Clinton's wife Hillary Clinton is trying to become president.
The rage against the FBI is already great in the Democratic Party after the federal police last week
announced they will investigate new emails relating to Hillary Clinton.
Financier Marc Rich was indicted for tax fraud and lived in exile in Switzerland when Bill Clinton
pardoned him on his last day as president on January 20, 2001. Several reacted to the pardon, especially
since Rich's ex-wife was a major donor to the Democratic Party.
The FBI started to investigate the pardon the year after.
"... So no mention of the Department of Justice tipping off the Clinton campaign Guardian? Surely that it a pretty damning new revelation. Corrupt to the core. No of course not, ignoring wikileaks and shilling more of the same old wall to wall Anti Trump scaremongering. ..."
"... We get it, Trump is a jerk. Hillary Clinton is systemically corrupt. ..."
"... And here I was thinking the Guardian was progressive… but you'll stoop to anything to get your chosen corporatist candidate over the line eh? ..."
"... Obama changed his tone. The Dems are in desperate mode. Kinda nice to see them on the defense. However they will never change their globalist agenda to sell off the rest of middle class. ..."
"... Trump against the entire establishment with unlimited funds. They sent out their top politicians/celebrities in full force and still can't flip Florida. If he wins with only popular support it will be the best upset in modern history. ..."
"... Obama has destroyed the nation with his identity politics, his lies, his elitist BS, his lack of awareness of the constitution, his constant pronouncing of guilt or innocence from the WH, his inviting key players in the BLM movement and the various idiot celebs like Jay-Z and Beyonce, to the WH, his arrogance, etc. ..."
"... As the above LA Times poll shows, Trump now has a monstrous 5.4% lead. His supporters are growing on a daily basis, as he continues to attract African-American supporters and Democrats in record-breaking numbers for a Republican candidate. ..."
"... Obama is a master of calling people racists without actually coming out with it. He is also a master of playing on people's fears. He has been such a disappointment. Instead of uniting the country he has kept it divided. ..."
"... The Obamas are hypocrites of the highest order,In 2007/8 they said the Clintons were toxic and Hillary should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. The Obamas cronyism for the powerful and elite makes my blood boil ..."
"... The Obamas swept into the White House on a dream ticket provided in the main by the black vote, With the first 2 yrs of hobnobbing with the rich, powerful and famous he was slow to do a thing for the voter and all of 8 yrs on he still hasn't and we all know he never will ? ..."
"... The condescending Obamas are now out rallying for the very same woman they denounced 8 yrs earlier. They are in essence expecting the voter to forget everything that went on before and vote the impeached X President and his caustic wife ..."
"... Sure... He's all that. But he said he doesn't want a nuclear war with Russia. Hillary on the other hand is really keen on the idea. All her MIC backers agree. ..."
"... And clinton has the official endorsement of all the republican neocons who wrote and implemented the project for the new American century which embarked your country on a series of illegal wars in the middle east, millions of people dead, and created international terrorism. Oh and your national debt rose to trillions and your country's Infrastructure is falling apart and you have absolutely nothing tangible to show for it. Good luck with Hillary guys. ..."
"... "But it was Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, who quote 'paid tribute' to Ronald Reagan's economic and foreign policy. She championed NAFTA - even though it has cost South Carolina thousands of jobs. And worst of all, it was Hillary Clinton who voted for George Bush's war in Iraq. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton. She'll say anything, and change nothing. It's time to turn the page. ..."
"... Shouldn't it be illegal, for Obama, a government official, to attempt to influence the election? The Guardian already reported that Obama has been campaigning more than any sitting president before him. ..."
"... And besides, is that what he does on taxpayers' dime? Shouldn't he in general be addressing important issues of the country? ..."
Massive multi billion dollar corporate entities and
financial conglomerates who have a vested self interest in
the election will throw everything they have got into the
system. No effort too extreme, nothing out of bounds.
65jangle 6h ago
So no mention of the Department of Justice tipping off the Clinton campaign Guardian?
Surely that it a pretty damning new revelation. Corrupt to the core. No of course not, ignoring
wikileaks and shilling more of the same old wall to wall Anti Trump scaremongering.
We get it, Trump is a jerk. Hillary Clinton is systemically corrupt.
And here I was thinking the Guardian was progressive… but you'll stoop to anything to get your
chosen corporatist candidate over the line eh?
BlueberryCompote -> ByzantiumNovum 6h ago
The lunatic Russophobia of the US State Department makes your intervention unnecessary as Obama probably was the last bulwark against insanity.
Obama changed his tone. The Dems are in desperate mode. Kinda nice to see them on the
defense. However they will never change their globalist agenda to sell off the rest of middle class.
Trump against the entire establishment with unlimited funds. They sent out their top
politicians/celebrities in full force and still can't flip Florida. If he wins with only popular
support it will be the best upset in modern history.
aldebaranredstar 8h ago
Obama has destroyed the nation with his identity politics, his lies, his elitist BS, his
lack of awareness of the constitution, his constant pronouncing of guilt or innocence from the WH,
his inviting key players in the BLM movement and the various idiot celebs like Jay-Z and Beyonce,
to the WH, his arrogance, etc.
He has not only destroyed the Dem Party--which is weaker than it has ever been--but the entire
nation with his Executive orders that got overturned by the SCOTUS--the man is pure hell. A bad
leader is a bad leader, no matter the color. People are disgusted with his actions as POTUS and
that is the bottom line cause of the rise of DT. Obama has waged war in his own nation--not only
overseas. Peace Prize--HAHAHA.
Flugler 8h ago
Walkover;
As the above LA Times poll shows, Trump now has a monstrous 5.4% lead. His supporters are
growing on a daily basis, as he continues to attract African-American supporters and Democrats in
record-breaking numbers for a Republican candidate.
In addition to this, the polls may be horribly off, as Trump has what many are calling the
"monster vote" waiting in the wings. This is in reference to the stunning amount of previously
unregistered voters who have never voted in their life but plan on showing up to the polls to
support Donald Trump, as internal polling is showing.
Further supporting how strong his momentum is across all categories is the fact that Donald
Trump now has the majority of support across ALL age categories. A huge development, considering
that he has been struggling with young voters throughout much of his campaign.
rocjoc43rd 8h ago
Obama is a master of calling people racists without actually coming out with it. He is
also a master of playing on people's fears. He has been such a disappointment. Instead of uniting
the country he has kept it divided. I wonder if he is keeping the country safe while he
spends the next week campaigning for his replacement.
mandyjeancole 8h ago
The Obamas are hypocrites of the highest order,In 2007/8 they said the Clintons were toxic
and Hillary should not be allowed anywhere near the White House. The Obamas cronyism for the
powerful and elite makes my blood boil
The Obamas swept into the White House on a dream ticket provided in the main by the black
vote, With the first 2 yrs of hobnobbing with the rich, powerful and famous he was slow to do a
thing for the voter and all of 8 yrs on he still hasn't and we all know he never will ?
The
condescending Obamas are now out rallying for the very same woman they denounced 8 yrs
earlier. They are in essence expecting the voter to forget everything that went on before and vote
the impeached X President and his caustic wife another bite of the proverbial cherry, Donald
Trumps somewhat blundering campaign has been mired in his apparent misogyny and he has come in
for the most horrendous criticism by the world's press while Mrs. Clintons lies and, deceit up
until now were considered acceptable for a 30 yr veteran of politics.
Mr. Trump maybe an
all-American dreamer, he may not always come across as the most coherent, but he loves his Country. and he wants what's best for it.....If America is looking for mistakes made look no
further than Europe, The powers that be.. have made the most catastrophic decisions that have in
turn left the once proud cultures of Europe in the grip of Islamic fundamentalist whose barbaric
in doctoring wants to take us back a 1000 yrs. Give Mr. Trump 4 yrs.. its not too long..He just
might surprise you. MJC
Meep_Meep 8h ago
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump decried Democratic rival Hillary Clinton as
"the candidate of yesterday," calling himself and his supporters "the movement of the future."
Yeah...the future!
DeAngelOfPi -> Brighton181 8h ago
Sure... He's all that. But he said he doesn't want a nuclear war with Russia. Hillary on
the other hand is really keen on the idea. All her MIC backers agree.
SoloLoMejor -> PostTrotskyite 9h ago
And clinton has the official endorsement of all the republican neocons who wrote and
implemented the project for the new American century which embarked your country on a series of
illegal wars in the middle east, millions of people dead, and created international terrorism. Oh
and your national debt rose to trillions and your country's Infrastructure is falling apart and
you have absolutely nothing tangible to show for it. Good luck with Hillary guys.
RememberRemember 9h ago
2016 Obama, perhaps you would like a word with 2008 Obama.
Obama: "I'm Barack Obama, running for president and I approve this message."
Announcer: "It's what's wrong with politics today. Hillary Clinton will say anything to get
elected. Now she's making false attacks on Barack Obama.
"The Washington Post says Clinton isn't telling the truth. Obama 'did not say that he liked
the ideas of Republicans.' In fact, Obama's led the fight to raise the minimum wage, close
corporate tax loopholes and cut taxes for the middle class.
"But it was Hillary Clinton, in an interview with Tom Brokaw, who quote 'paid tribute' to
Ronald Reagan's economic and foreign policy. She championed NAFTA - even though it has cost
South Carolina thousands of jobs. And worst of all, it was Hillary Clinton who voted for
George Bush's war in Iraq.
"Hillary Clinton. She'll say anything, and change nothing. It's time to turn the page.
Paid for by Obama for America."
calderonparalapaz 9h ago
A Hillary ad should be about Clinton Inc as the american dream. Thanks Teneo!
"Until the Friday blockbuster news that the FBI was reopening its probe into the Hillary email
server, the biggest overhang facing the Clinton Campaign was the escalating scandal involving the
Clinton Foundation, Doug Band's consultancy firm Teneo, and Bill Clinton who as a result of a
leaked memo emerged was generously compensated for potential political favors by prominent
corporate clients using Teneo as a pass-thru vehicle for purchasing influence.
In a section of the memo entitled "Leveraging Teneo For The Foundation," Band spelled out all of
the donations he solicited from Teneo "clients" for the Clinton Foundation. In all, there are
roughly $14mm of donations listed with the largest contributors being Coca-Cola, Barclays, The
Rockefeller Foundation and Laureate International Universities. Some of these are shown below
(the full details can be found in "Leaked Memo Exposes Shady Dealings Between Clinton Foundation
Donors And Bill's "For-Profit" Activities")"
the more the media hush up on Huma Abedin, the more there is to know. it was her & criminally
accused Weiner's PC which (in a folder innocuously labelled) had 650,000 emails. Abedin comments
"she did not now how the 650,000 emails got there" (sic). the US media continues to cover up this
aspect of the Trio story: Abedin-Clinton-Weiner... the fact that Weiner is buddy with Israel's
Netanyahu simply adds to this intertwined messy cover-up.
BoSelecta 9h ago
The Clintonite corruption spreads in to the Justice Department:
Shouldn't it be illegal, for Obama, a government official, to attempt to influence the
election? The Guardian already reported that Obama has been campaigning more than any sitting
president before him.
And besides, is that what he does on taxpayers' dime? Shouldn't he in general be
addressing important issues of the country?
ALostIguana -> vr13vr 9h ago
Hatch Act explicitly excludes the President and Vice-President. They can take part in
political campaigning. Most other members of the executive are constrained by the Hatch Act.
"... FBI agents have interviewed and re-interviewed multiple people on the foundation case, which is looking into possible pay for play interaction between then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation. The FBI's White Collar Crime Division is handling the investigation. ..."
"... Even before the WikiLeaks dumps of alleged emails linked to the Clinton campaign, FBI agents had collected a great deal of evidence, law enforcement sources tell Fox News. ..."
"... "There is an avalanche of new information coming in every day," one source told Fox News, who added some of the new information is coming from the WikiLeaks documents and new emails. ..."
A second FBI investigation involving Hillary Clinton is ongoing. The investigation to uncover
corruption by the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton, is given high priority and now runs parallel
with the reopened FBI case of her using a private email server to avoid the Federal Records Act.
The FBI's investigation into the Clinton Foundation that has been going on for more than a year
has now taken a "very high priority," separate sources with intimate knowledge of the probe tell
Fox News .
FBI agents have interviewed and re-interviewed multiple people on the foundation case, which
is looking into possible pay for play interaction between then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
and the Clinton Foundation. The FBI's White Collar Crime Division is handling the investigation.
Even before the WikiLeaks dumps of alleged emails linked to the Clinton campaign, FBI agents
had collected a great deal of evidence, law enforcement sources tell Fox News.
"There is an avalanche of new information coming in every day," one source told Fox News,
who added some of the new information is coming from the WikiLeaks documents and new emails.
FBI agents are "actively and aggressively pursuing this case," and will be going back and interviewing
the same people again, some for the third time, sources said.
Agents are also going through what Clinton and top aides have said in previous interviews and
the FBI 302, documents agents use to report interviews they conduct, to make sure notes line up,
according to sources.
All of this loses sight of how much the framing effects have skewed this entire discussion.
Bush's signature use of military force and the defining initiative of his presidency-the invasion
of Iraq-was an unusually extreme act as measured either by past U.S. foreign policy or standards
of international conduct that the United States expects of others.
One of the many flaws in the idea that the U.S. should seek a "middle ground" between Bush and
Obama is that it treats their respective records as offering equally damaging and extreme alternatives.
Of course, the cost to the U.S. from the two presidencies is drastically different. Bush's legacy
was to launch wars that have cost trillions of dollars and thousands of American lives, while Obama's
has been his failure to extricate the U.S. from them at a significant but much reduced cost. Obama
has certainly made some very serious and even indefensible mistakes (supporting the war on Yemen
being among the worst), but in terms of the damage done to U.S. interests the costs have been much
lower.
To believe that the U.S. needs to "moderate" between Bush's disasters and Obama's failures
is to believe that the U.S. needs a foreign policy that will be even more costly in American lives
and money than the one we have right now.
That is not only not a "moderate" position to take, but it is also a highly ideological one
that insists on the necessity of U.S. "leadership" no matter how much it costs us.
The 'middle ground" that Clinton offers is no middle ground at all, but rather represents moving
the U.S. in the direction of one of the worst foreign policy records in our history. Obama's great
foreign policy failure was that he could not or would not move the U.S. away from the disastrous
policies of the Bush era, and under Clinton there won't even be the pretense that the U.S. should
try to do this.
Jill Stein to win over the hearts of some progressives and jump start her far-left "
people-powered
" movement.
"This is Jill Stein's moment," said longtime Democratic pollster and Fox News contributor Pat
Caddell.
"There are many Clinton voters who would rather vote their conscience than vote for a major party.
According to the latest Breitbart/Gravis poll, when given the choice of whether you should vote for
a major party candidate or vote your conscience, 44% of Clinton voters said you should vote your
conscience," Caddell explained.
Even before the FBI director's dramatic announcement on Friday, the ABC News/Washington Post
tracking poll
indicated that "loosely affiliated or reluctant Clinton supporters"- which includes white women
and young voters under the age of 30- seem to be floating off and "look less likely to vote."
Caddell explained that the polling data suggests "there are many people who are ambivalent
about Clinton who don't want to vote for Trump. Given these new revelations from WikiLeaks and the
re-intensity of the concern regarding the corruption of her emails, these ambivalent voters need
a place to go and Jill Stein-being not only a progressive woman, but an honest progressive woman-is
the obvious choice for so many of these voters, particularly for those who supported Bernie Sanders."
Indeed, nearly 60 percent of voters- including 43 percent of Democrats- believe America needs
a third major political party,
according to a Gallup poll released late last month.
As one former Bernie Sanders supporter told Breitbart News, "It's come to this: voting for
Hillary Clinton is voting for the lesser of two evils. But voting for the lesser of two evils is
still voting for evil, and I'm tired of voting for evil. That's why I'm voting for Jill Stein.
"
This sentiment has been echoed by Stein herself who has argued, "it's time to reject the lesser
of two evils and stand up for the greater good."
Stein seems ready to capitalize on the FBI's announcement as well as the steady stream of WikiLeaks
revelations that have exposed, what Stein has characterized as, the Clinton camp's "hostility" to
progressives.
"The FBI has re-opened the Clinton investigation. Will the American people rise up and vote for
honest change?" Stein asked on Friday, via Twitter.
... ... ...
Clinton's strained relationship with progressives has been well documented and could
present Stein– who has demonstrated a remarkable ability to articulately prosecute the progressive
case against Clinton– with an opening, especially as polling reveals a significant chunk of Clinton
voters believe voting their conscience ought to trump voting for a major political party.
As Politico reported in a piece
titled "WikiLeaks poisons Hillary's relationship with left" :
Some of the left's most influential voices and groups are taking offense at the way they
and their causes were discussed behind their backs by Clinton and some of her closest advisers
in the emails, which swipe liberal heroes and causes as "puritanical," "pompous", "naive", "radical"
and "dumb," calling some "freaks," who need to "get a life." […] among progressive operatives,
goodwill for Clinton - and confidence in key advisers featured in the emails including John Podesta,
Neera Tanden and Jake Sullivan - is eroding…
Even before the FBI's announcement, many noted that it was becoming increasingly difficult
to view a vote for Clinton as anything other than a vote to continue the worst aspects of political
corruption.
As columnist Kim Strassel recently
wrote , the
one thing in this election of which one can be certain is that "a Hillary Clinton presidency will
be built, from the ground up, on self-dealing, crony favors, and an utter disregard for the law."
As such, "anyone who pulls the lever for Mrs. Clinton takes responsibility for setting up the
nation for all the blatant corruption that will follow," Strassel
concludes
. "She just doesn't have a whole lot of integrity,"
said far-left progressive Cornel West.
West
endorsed Stein over Clinton explaining Stein is "the only progressive woman in the race."
"The Clinton train- [of] Wall Street, security surveillance, militaristic- is not going in
the same direction I'm going," West
told Bill Maher earlier this year.
She's a neoliberal… [I] believe neoliberalism is a disaster when it comes to poor people
and when it comes to people in other parts of the world dealing with U.S. foreign policy and militarism.
Oh, absolutely. Ask the people in Libya about that. Ask the people in the West Bank about that.
West has separately
explained that Clinton's "militarism makes the world a less safe place" and that her globalist
agenda created the "right-wing populism" that has fueled Trump's rise.
Clinton policies of the 1990s generated inequality, mass incarceration, privatization of schools
and Wall Street domination. There is also a sense that the Clinton policies helped produce the
right-wing populism that we're seeing now in the country. And we think she's going to come to
the rescue? That's not going to happen.
"It's too easy to view him [Trump] as an isolated individual and bash him," West
told Maher. "He's speaking to the pain in the country because white, working class brothers have
been overlooked by globalization, by these trade deals"– trade deals which Stein also opposes.
Stein has railed against the passage of TPP, which she and her party have described as "NAFTA
on steroids" that would "enrich wealthy corporations by exporting jobs and pushing down wages." They
have argued that the deal essentially amounts to a "global corporate coup" that "would give corporations
more power than nations" by letting them "challenge our laws".
Stein is
against the "massive expanding wars," "the meltdown of the climate," "the massive Wall Street
bailouts," and "the offshoring of our jobs."
Pointing to Clinton's "dangerous and immoral" militarism, Stein has
warned that "a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for war" and has explained how under a Clinton
presidency, "we could very quickly slide into nuclear war" or could start an air-war with Russia.
"No matter how her staff tries to rebrand her" Clinton is "not a progressive," Stein has
said -rather Clinton is a "corporatist hawk" that "
surrounds
herself with people who are hostile progressives" such as Debbie Wasserman Schultz "after she sabotaged
Bernie [Sanders]." Stein has warned progressives that the role of corporate Democrats like Clinton
is to "prevent progressives from defying corporate rule."
Stein has made a point to
highlight the fact that "we're now seeing many Republican leaders join Hillary Clinton in a neoliberal
uni-party that will fuel right-wing extremism," by continuing to push its "neoliberal agenda [of]
globalization, privatization, deregulation, [and] austerity for the rest of us."
In contrast to Clinton's corporatist "uni-party", Stein and her party have explained that their
campaign represents a "people's party with a populist progressive agenda" that-unlike Democrats and
Republicans- is not "funded by big corporate interests including Wall St. Banks, fossil fuel giants,
& war profiteer."
Stein is a Harvard Medical School graduate, a mother to two sons, and a practicing physician,
who became an environmental-health activist and organizer in the late 1990s. As the Green Party's
2012 presidential candidate, Stein already holds the record for the most votes ever received by a
female candidate for president in a general election.
In Jill Stein, her party writes, "progressives have a peace candidate not beholden to the billionaire
class."
"... It appears there was rift between the FBI and the DOJ with how to move forward with the investigation. Agents in the Washington office were directed to focus on a separate issue relating to the actions of former Virginia Governor and Clinton Foundation Board Member Terry McAuliffe. Agents inside the FBI believed they could build a stronger case if the investigation of McAuliffe and the foundation were combined. ..."
"... FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe seemed to be caught in the middle of the fight between DOJ officials who appeared to want to slow down or shut down the investigation and FBI agents who were eager to pour more resources into the investigation. ..."
"... The story gets more complicated when you factor in that McCabe's wife, Dr. Jill McCabe had received a $467,500 campaign contribution in 2015 for a state senate race from McAuliffe . ..."
"... CNN also reported that multiple field offices were "in agreement a public corruption investigation should be launched" with Clinton Foundation officials as a target. The cable news network reported the investigation would have looked at "conflicts of interest by foreign donors and official acts by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State. ..."
FBI investigators from across the country have been following leads into reports of bribery
involving the Clinton Foundation. Multiple field offices have been involved in the investigation.
A report in Sunday's Wall Street Journal (WSJ) by Devlin Barrett revealed that agents assigned
to the New York field office have been carrying the bulk of the work in investigating the Clinton
Foundations. They have received assistance from the FBI field office in Little Rock according to
"people familiar with the matter, the WSJ reported. Other offices, including Los Angeles and
Washington, D.C., have been collecting evidence to regarding "financial crimes or influence-peddling."
As far back as February 2016, FBI agents made presentation to the Department of Justice (DOJ),
the WSJ's sources stated. "The meeting didn't go well," they wrote. While some sources said
the FBI's evidence was not strong enough, others believed the DOJ had no intention from the start
of going any further. Barrett wrote that the DOJ officials were "stern, icy and dismissive of the
case."
Barrett wrote, "'That was one of the weirdest meetings I've ever been to,' one participant told
others afterward, according to people familiar with the matter."
It appears there was rift between the FBI and the DOJ with how to move forward with the investigation.
Agents in the Washington office were directed to focus on a separate issue relating to the actions
of former Virginia Governor and Clinton Foundation Board Member Terry McAuliffe. Agents inside the
FBI believed they could build a stronger case if the investigation of McAuliffe and the foundation
were combined.
FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe seemed to be caught in the middle of the fight between DOJ officials
who appeared to want to slow down or shut down the investigation and FBI agents who were eager to
pour more resources into the investigation.
Barrett wrote, "'Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?'
Mr. McCabe asked, according to people familiar with the conversation. After a pause, the official
replied, 'Of course not,' these people said."
Some of the WSJ sources told Barrett that a "stand down" order had been given to the FBI
agents by McCabe. Others denied that no such order was given.
Preet Bharara, an assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, appears to have
taken in interest in moving forward from the DOJ side, the Daily Caller's Richard Pollock
reported in August.
Pollock wrote:
The New York-based probe is being led by Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District
of New York. Bharara's prosecutorial aggressiveness has resulted in a large number of convictions
of banks, hedge funds and Wall Street insiders.
He said prosecutorial support could come from multiple U.S. Attorneys Offices and stated this
was a major departure from other "centralized FBI investigations."
CNN also reported that multiple field offices were "in agreement a public corruption investigation
should be launched" with Clinton Foundation officials as a target. The cable news network reported
the investigation would have looked at "conflicts of interest by foreign donors and official acts
by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.
"... "The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation," he said. "That's the problem. They never had a grand jury empanelled, and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled, I'm sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that." ..."
"... Kallstrom blamed the FBI leadership under FBI Director James Comey as the reason the investigation was held back, but not the rest of the bureau. ..."
"... "The agents are furious with what's going on, I know that for a fact," he said. ..."
A former FBI official said Sunday that Bill and Hillary Clinton are part of a "crime family"
and added that top officials impeded the investigation into Clinton's email server while she was
secretary of state.
Former assistant FBI director James Kallstrom praised Donald Trump before he offered a take down
of the Clintons in a radio interview with John Catsimatidis,
The Hill reported.
"The Clintons, that's a crime family, basically," Kallstrom said. "It's like organized crime.
I mean the Clinton Foundation is a cesspool."
Kallstrom, best known for spearheading the investigation into the explosion of TWA flight 800
in the late '90s, called Clinton a "pathological liar" and blamed Attorney General Loretta Lynch
for botching the Clinton email server investigation.
"The problem here is this investigation was never a real investigation," he said. "That's the
problem. They never had a grand jury empanelled, and the reason they never had a grand jury empanelled,
I'm sure, is Loretta Lynch would not go along with that."
"God forbid we put someone like that in the White House," he added of Clinton.
Kallstrom blamed the FBI leadership under FBI Director James Comey as the reason the investigation
was held back, but not the rest of the bureau.
"The agents are furious with what's going on, I know that for a fact," he said.
Saturday on CNN while discussing the FBI reopening the investigation into Democratic presidential
nominee Hillary Clinton's use of a private unsecured email server during her tenure as secretary
of state, former Assistant Director of the FBI Thomas Fuentes said, "The FBI has an intensive investigation
ongoing into the Clinton Foundation."
He added, "The FBI made the determination that the investigation would go forward as a comprehensive
unified case and be coordinated, so that investigation is ongoing and Huma Abedin and her role and
activities concerning secretary of state in the nature of the foundation and possible pay to play,
that's still being looked at and now."
What is wrong with Bill Clinton? He just doesn't look right these days. Is he just stoned, or
is whatever is left of the rapist's brain drying up? Check out Bill Clinton yesterday in Arizona
where they forced Gabby Giffords to stumble through a speech for Hillary Clinton. Something about
BJ just doesn't seem right.
Something isn't right with Bill Clinton. Did he pick up some sort of disease from one of his
trips to Jeffrey Epstein's Pedo Island? He looked like he was about to pass out. You ALMOST want
to feel sorry for the old fogey, but I don't. dance...dancetotheradio
•
7 months ago
Never met a skirt he didn't hike in the Crooked Wagg'in Finger Days of Yore. Firing blanks..
he won't have wedlock problems of Pal Webster Hubbell.
Nor will a poor little baby suffer with the horrible affliction. 2 out of 3, It's more positive,
than negative. Bill has Great Health Care...He'll be Fine.
Rank Name Donations
1 Tom Steyer $38 million
2 Donald Sussman $23.4 million
3 Miriam & Sheldon Adelson $21.5 million
4 Robert Mercer $20.2 million
5 Michael Bloomberg $20.1 million
6 Fred Eychaner $20 million
7 Paul Singer $17.3 million
8 George Soros $16.5 million
9 Maurice "Hank" Greenberg $15.1 million
10 Elizabeth & Richard Uihlein $14 million
"... After weeks of revealing information behind the Clinton Foundation and their self-motivated fundraising tactics, there is no other word to describe the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. She's engaged in behavior that is disqualifying to be a candidate for the highest office, and yet dozens of American legislators, leaders and even media outlets have endorsed her candidacy. ..."
"... She's swindled countries out of donations, she's swindled corporate America with her lofty promises and she's swindled the American people – over and over and over again. ..."
"... So why now, after the knowledge that top-tier corporations and other wealthy supporters paid to meet with both the former president and the now Democratic presidential nominee should we believe that she would change her behavior to act in the best interest of the country? In fact, one could argue that this information is a window into how Clinton would rule the land. She'd have an eye out for only herself and her family, while leaving the American people - who so desperately want a change - with the same old Clinton-first approach. ..."
"... Beyond her blatant disregard for the American public, Clinton's cavalier approach to national security has come into question from a myriad of angles. From the secret server in her home basement that received hundreds of confidential email communications, to the lack of response she paid to the Congress when asked about the issue, to the suggestion that she made promises to the FBI that would cause them to "look the other way" when ruling on the secret email server. And then how about the millions of dollars the Clinton Foundation took from countries that are of disrepute, not to mention those that show little concern for women's rights. ..."
It was 25 years ago that Martin Scorsese delighted audiences with his movie rendition of the Jim
Thompson novel, "The Grifters."
The story is an ingenious tale of deception and betrayal. By definition a grifter is someone who
has made money dishonestly, in a swindle or a confidence game.
After weeks of revealing information behind the Clinton Foundation and their self-motivated fundraising
tactics, there is no other word to describe the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.
She's engaged in behavior that is disqualifying to be a candidate for the highest office, and yet
dozens of American legislators, leaders and even media outlets have endorsed her candidacy.
She's swindled countries out of donations, she's swindled corporate America with her lofty promises
and she's swindled the American people – over and over and over again.
So why now, after the knowledge that top-tier corporations and other wealthy supporters paid to
meet with both the former president and the now Democratic presidential nominee should we believe
that she would change her behavior to act in the best interest of the country? In fact, one could
argue that this information is a window into how Clinton would rule the land. She'd have an eye out
for only herself and her family, while leaving the American people - who so desperately want a change
- with the same old Clinton-first approach.
Beyond her blatant disregard for the American public, Clinton's cavalier approach to national
security has come into question from a myriad of angles. From the secret server in her home basement
that received hundreds of confidential email communications, to the lack of response she paid to
the Congress when asked about the issue, to the suggestion that she made promises to the FBI that
would cause them to "look the other way" when ruling on the secret email server. And then how about
the millions of dollars the Clinton Foundation took from countries that are of disrepute, not to
mention those that show little concern for women's rights.
The most recent set of Clinton emails that have come to light are of such great concern to national
security that the FBI has announced they will conduct a new investigation of Clinton's emails. This
is just ELEVEN days before the country goes to the polls and decides on our next president.
Where has the leadership gone in this country? Since when do reputable news outlets stand behind
candidates who have proven themselves over and over to be out for themselves and dangerous, even?
It used to be that newspapers and legislators and leaders who speak from a platform would find themselves
offering wisdom. Wisdom about which candidate was best for the job – based on the facts. Instead
we find ourselves sifting through the list of endorsements for Clinton with little or no mention
of her disregard for the law, her lack of concern for those she serves, and the careless nature in
which she has proven herself to lead.
Now that the newspapers know better and have written about the truth in their own words, how can
the media and elected officials stand by their decision to endorse her? They need to rescind their
endorsement. That includes President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama.
In a quote from his book Thompson describes one of the characters, "Anyone who deprived her of
something she wanted, deserved what he got."
Sounds all too familiar to the Democratic nominee for grifter-in-chief. If she's not changed by
now, who is to say she'd be any different when she was the most powerful elected official in the
United States. Once a grifter, always a grifter.
Sharon Day is the Republican National Committee Co-Chair.
"... Wow, they clearly state Bill Clinton uses golfing to establish communication with donors ..."
"... "People with knowledge of the call in both camps said it was one of many that Clinton and Trump have had over the years, whether about golf or donations to the Clinton Foundation. But the call in May was considered especially sensitive, coming soon after Hillary Rodham Clinton had declared her own presidential run the month before." - source ..."
"... In total, The Wall Street Journal reports, two dozen companies and groups, plus the Abu Dhabi government, gave Bill more than $8 million for speeches, even as they were hoping for favorable treatment from Hillary's bureaucracy. And 15 of them also gave at least $5 million total to the foundation. ..."
"... Can someone help me see the shadiness, what am I missing? unless the "foundation donors require significant maintenance to keep them engaged and supportive of the foundation" means they are giving them political favors then it just looks like the clinton foundation is accepting donations and that is it. ..."
"... so pro-clinton sources have been propping up the Clinton Foundation for years as the pinnacle of charity while not really being able to explain where all the money goes; ..."
"... This shows that they require 20 million a year to operate with 8 employees. It shows they have to raid the Clinton Global Initiative for $6M to $11M every year to cover that budget hole... ..."
"... This is useful information that is probably not reflected on tax returns. Most importantly it shows that when Bill was offered a shady $8 million dollar over 2 year deal that would appear to be a conflict of interest while Hillary was Sect of State, Podesta and Band suggested hiding the money as payment for speeches. This boosts the accusation that the speeches are payments for quid pro quo. ..."
"... Does any of it contradict the MOU she signed when appointed Sec State? https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/34993 ..."
He also said they were talking about golf when he called Donald trump last year before trump decided
to run.
"People with knowledge of the call in both camps said it was one of many that Clinton
and Trump have had over the years, whether about golf or donations to the Clinton Foundation.
But the call in May was considered especially sensitive, coming soon after Hillary Rodham Clinton
had declared her own presidential run the month before." -
source
Question-Are we to assume that any OTHER speaking engagements that WJC did were not because of
the foundation, but from when his wife was SOS?
In total, The Wall Street Journal reports, two dozen companies and groups, plus the
Abu Dhabi government, gave Bill more than $8 million for speeches, even as they were hoping
for favorable treatment from Hillary's bureaucracy. And 15 of them also gave at least $5 million
total to the foundation.
Can someone help me see the shadiness, what am I missing? unless the "foundation donors require
significant maintenance to keep them engaged and supportive of the foundation" means they are
giving them political favors then it just looks like the clinton foundation is accepting donations
and that is it.
so pro-clinton sources have been propping up the Clinton Foundation for years as the pinnacle
of charity while not really being able to explain where all the money goes; because it sure
doesn't seem to be going to Haiti or many other charities.
This shows that they require 20 million a year to operate with 8 employees. It shows they
have to raid the Clinton Global Initiative for $6M to $11M every year to cover that budget hole...
so this gives credence to the suspicion that the CF is hiding money somewhere (laundering money
to Clintons and friends). Also this document shows how teneo made Bill Clinton " more than $50
million in for-profit activity we have personally helped to secure for President Clinton to date
or the $66 million in future contracts" as of 2011.
This is useful information that is probably not reflected on tax returns. Most importantly
it shows that when Bill was offered a shady $8 million dollar over 2 year deal that would appear
to be a conflict of interest while Hillary was Sect of State, Podesta and Band suggested hiding
the money as payment for speeches. This boosts the accusation that the speeches are payments for
quid pro quo.
"... Remember back when President Bill Clinton got into all that trouble molesting the young intern in his Oral Office? Remember the first thing the lying, conniving, dissembling commander-in-cheek did? ..."
"... In the latest batch of leaked emails, one top Democratic operative is still grappling with "WJC Issues." "How is what Bill Clinton did different from what Bill Cosby did?" Ron Klain asks in a list of questions worth posing to Mrs. Clinton. "You said every woman should be believed. Why not the women who accused him?" And, perhaps the best: "Will you apologize to the women who were wrongly smeared by your husband and his allies?" ..."
"... Never apologize. Never admit. And always keep lying. ..."
"... That is the very heart of the ethos of Hillary Clinton's campaign. Lie about everything. Lie all the time. ..."
"... Lie about emails. Lie about servers. Lie about national security. Lie about who knew what when. Lie about spilling classified secrets. Lie about dead soldiers. ..."
...l each batch of stolen emails is worse than the last.
Hillary Clinton is a liar. She has terrible instincts. She doesn't believe in anything. Her head
is broken. She doesn't know why she should be president. She is pathological. And she is psychotic.
Just ask everybody who works for her. Just ask campaign chairman John Podesta. Just ask the people
working the hardest to get her elected president.
I mean, in her most rabid streak of attacks on Donald Trump's alleged unfitness for office, Mrs.
Clinton doesn't call him "psychotic."
Psychotic! That is what her campaign chairman called her.
Remember back when President Bill Clinton got into all that trouble molesting the young intern
in his Oral Office? Remember the first thing the lying, conniving, dissembling commander-in-cheek
did?
Take a poll. And he found out that he could skate by on even this - even this! But first - the
poll told him - he had to stall for time. He had to lie about it for as long as he possibly could
before coming clean.
And that was exactly what he did. And he survived.
And good thing he survived so he could go on to haunt America another 15 years later.
In the latest batch of leaked emails, one top Democratic operative is still grappling with "WJC
Issues." "How is what Bill Clinton did different from what Bill Cosby did?" Ron Klain asks in a list of
questions worth posing to Mrs. Clinton. "You said every woman should be believed. Why not the women who accused him?" And, perhaps the best: "Will you apologize to the women who were wrongly smeared by your husband
and his allies?"
Answer: Not likely.
Never apologize. Never admit. And always keep lying.
That is the very heart of the ethos of Hillary Clinton's campaign. Lie about everything. Lie all
the time.
Lie about emails. Lie about servers. Lie about national security. Lie about who knew what when.
Lie about spilling classified secrets. Lie about dead soldiers.
Exhaust the people with lies. And then, very flippantly, after months or years of lying, say whatever
you have to say to make the press go away.
"I am sorry you were confused."
"I have already said I wish I had done it differently."
"What difference, at this point, does it make?"
It is all so shameless and dirty and befuddling that it would make Niccolo Machiavelli blush.
As
an old SDS-er, I found it hard to see Tom Hayden go. However meandering his path, he was at the heart
of radical history in the 60s, an erstwhile companion, if not always a comrade, on the route of every
boomer lefty.
One of his finer moments for me, which I've never seen mentioned (including among this week's
encomia) since he wrote it, was his 2006
article
, published on CounterPunch with an introduction by Alexander Cockburn, in which he apologized
for a "descent into moral ambiguity and realpolitick that still haunts me today." It would be respectful
of Hayden's admirers and critics, on the occasion of his passing, to remember which of his actions
"haunted" him the most.
The title of the article says it clearly: "I Was Israel's Dupe." In the essay, Hayden apologizes
for his support of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, which was for him that "descent into
moral ambiguity" More importantly, he explains why he did it, in a detailed narrative that everyone
should read.
Hayden sold out, as he tells it, because, in order to run as a Democratic candidate for the California
State Assembly, he had get the approval of the influential Democratic congressman Howard Berman.
Berman is a guy who, when he became Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was proud to
tell the
Forward that he took the job because of his "interest in the Jewish state" and that: "Even before
I was a Democrat, I was a Zionist."
Hayden had to meet with Howard's brother Michael, who, acting as "the gatekeeper protecting
Los Angeles' Westside for Israel's political interests," told Hayden: "I represent the Israeli Defense
Forces"-a sentence that could serve as the motto of most American congress critters today. The "Berman-Waxman
machine," Hayden was told, would deign to "rent" him the Assembly seat on the "one condition: that
I always be a 'good friend of Israel.'"
But American congressmen were not the only "gatekeepers" through whose hands Hayden had to pass
before being allowed to run for Congress. Other "certifiers" included "the elites, beginning with
rabbis and heads of the multiple mainstream Jewish organizations, the American-Israel Political
Action Committee (AIPAC), [and].. Israeli ambassadors, counsels general and other officials."
In fact, Hayden had to, in his words, be "declared 'kosher' by the ultimate source, the region's
representative of the state of Israel," Benjamin Navon, Israel's Counsul-general in Los Angeles.
In other words, in this article Hayden was describing, in an unusually concrete way, how the
state of Israel, through its state officials and their compliant American partners, was effectively
managing-exercising veto power over Democratic Party candidates, at the very least-American elections
down to the level of State Assembly . In any constituency "attuned to the question of Israel,
even in local and state elections," Hayden knew he "had to be certified 'kosher,' not once but over
and over again."
This experience prompted Hayden to express a "fear that the 'Israeli lobby' is working overtime
to influence American public opinion on behalf of Israel's military effort to 'roll back the clock'
and 'change the map' of the region." Hayden warned of the "trepidation and confusion among rank-and-file
voters and activists, and the paralysis of politicians, especially Democrats," over support of Israel.
He vowed to "not make the same mistake again," and said: "Most important, Americans must not be timid
in speaking up, as I was 25 years ago."
Whatever else he did-and he was never particularly radical about Palestine-this article was a
genuinely honest and unusual intervention, and it deserves a lot more notice-as a moment in Tom Hayden's
history and that of the American left-than it has got. Looking back and regretfully acknowledging
that one had been duped and morally compromised by what seemed the least troublesome path 25 years
earlier, saying "I woulda, shoulda, coulda done the right thing," is a haunting moment for anyone.
Doing it in a way that exposes in detail how a foreign country constantly manipulates American elections
over decades is worthy of everyone's notice.
I doubt Hillary and her Democratic supporters will have anything to say about this "interference
"in American elections, even local and state. But I do hope many of those who are touched by the
loss of Tom Hayden heed these words from him, and don't wait another 25 years to overcome their "fear
and confusion" about saying and doing the right thing regarding the crimes of Israel, troublesome
as that might be.
"... Any analysis that starts with the assumption reactionaries still has a great deal to its agenda to achieve, such as promoting regressive taxation; privatization of Social Security; limiting Medicare; privatization of education; expansion of the police state; using the military to support the dollar, banking, world markets, etc., rather than Corey Robin's belief that "the Right" has won is in my view an improvement on the OP. ..."
"... In the end, Putin will be done in by his oligarchs, despite the care he has taken to give them their share if they just refrain from wrecking everything with their excesses. Again, no need for NGOs. ..."
This is a very good analyses. But I am less pessimistic: the blowback against neoliberal globalization
is real and it is difficult to swipe it under the carpet.
There are some signs of the "revolutionary situation" in the USA in a sense that the neoliberal
elite lost control and their propaganda loss effectiveness, despite dusting off the "Red scare"
trick with "Reds in each computer" instead of "Reds under each bed". With Putin as a very convenient
bogeyman.
As somebody here said Trump might be a reaction of secular stagnation, kind of trump card put
into play by some part of the elite, because with continued secular stagnation, the social stability
in the USA is under real threat.
But the problem is that Hillary with her failing health is our of her prime and with a bunch
of neocons in key positions in her administration, she really represents a huge threat to world
peace. She might not last long as the level of stress inherent in POTUS job make it a killing
ground for anybody with advanced stage of Parkinson or similar degenerative neurological disease.
But that might make her more impulsive and more aggressive (and she always tried to outdo male
politicians in jingoism, real John McCain is the red pantsuit).
All-in-all it looks like she in not a solution for neoliberal elite problems, she is a part
of the problem
Adventurism of the US neoliberal elite, and especially possible aggressive moves in Syria by
Hillary regime ("no fly zone"), makes military alliance of Russia and China very likely (with
Pakistan, Iran and India as possible future members). So Hillary might really work like a powerful
China lobbyist, because the alliance with Russia will be on China terms.
Regime change via color revolution in either country requires at dense network of subservient
to the Western interests and financed via shadow channels MSM (including TV channels), strong
network of NGO and ability to distribute cash to selected members of the fifth column of neoliberal
globalization. All those condition were made more difficult in Russia and impossible in mainland
China. In Russia the US adventurism in Ukraine and the regime change of February 2014 (creation
of neo-fascist regime nicknamed by some "Kaganat of Nuland" (Asia Times
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-100315.html
)) essentially killed the neoliberal fifth column in Russia and IMHO it no longer represent
a viable political force.
Also Russians probably learned well lesson of unsuccessful attempt of regime change by interfering
into Russian Presidential election process attempted by Hillary and Obama in 2011-2012. I would
like to see the US MSM reaction if Russian ambassador invited Sanders and Trump into the embassy
and promised full and unconditional support for their effort to remove criminal Obama regime,
mired in corruption and subservient to Wall Street interests, the regime that produced misery
for so many American workers, lower middle class and older Americans ;-)
Ambassador McFaul soon left the country, NED was banned and screws were tightened enough to
make next attempt exceedingly difficult. Although everything can happen I would discount the possibility
of the next "White Revolution" in Russia. So called "Putin regime" survived the period of low
oil prices and with oil prices over $60 in 2017 Russian economy might be able to grow several
percent a year. At the same time the US "post-Obama" regime might well face the winds of returning
higher oil prices and their negative influence of economy growth and unemployment.
In China recent troubles in Hong Cong were also a perfect training ground for "anti color revolution"
measures and the next attempt would much more difficult, unless China experience economic destabilization
due to some bubble burst.
That means that excessive military adventurism inherent in the future Hillary regime might
speed up loss by the USA military dominance and re-alignment of some states beyond Philippines.
Angela Merkel regime also might not survive the next election and that event might change "pro-Atlantic"
balance in Europe.
Although the list in definitely not complete, we can see that there are distinct setbacks for
attempts of further neoliberalization beyond Brexit and TPP troubles.
So there are some countervailing forces in action and my impression that the Triumphal march
of neoliberalism with the USA as the hegemon of the new neoliberal order is either over, or soon
will be over. In certain regions of the globe the USA foreign policy is in trouble (Syria, Ukraine)
and while you can do anything using bayonets, you can't sit on them.
So while still there is no viable alternative to neoliberalism as a social system, the ideology
itself is discredited and like communism after 1945 lost its hold of hearts and minds of the USA
population. I would say that in the USA neoliberalism entered Zombie stage.
My hope is that reasonable voices in foreign policy prevail, and the disgust of unions members
toward DemoRats (Neoliberal Democrats) could play the decisive role in coming elections. As bad
as Trump is for domestic policy, it represent some hope as for foreign policy unless co-opted
by Republican establishment.
#70 But the problem is that Hillary with her failing health is our of her prime and with a bunch
of neocons in key positions in her administration, she really represents a huge threat to world
peace. She might not last long as the level of stress inherent in POTUS job make it a killing
ground for anybody with advanced stage of Parkinson or similar degenerative neurological disease.
But that might kale her more impulsive and more aggressive (and she always tried to outdo her
male politicians in jingoism, real John McCain is the red pantsuit).
Does the new CT moderation regime have any expectations about the veracity of claims made by
commenters? Because I think it would be useful in cases like this.
Yes, it was late and I was tired, or I wouldn't have said something so foolish. Still, the
point is that after centuries of constant war, Europe went 70 years without territorial conquest.
That strikes me as a significant achievement, and one whose breach should not be taken lightly.
phenomenal cat @64
So democratic structures have to be robust and transparent before we care about them? I'd give
a pretty high value to an independent press and contested elections. Those have been slowly crushed
in Russia. The results for transparency have not been great. Personally, I don't believe that
Ukraine is governed by fascists, or that Ukraine shot down that jetliner, but I'm sure a lot of
Russians do.
Russian leaders have always complained about "encirclement," but we don't have to believe them.
Do you really believe Russia's afraid of an attack from Estonia? Clearly what Putin wants is to
restore as much of the old Soviet empire as possible. Do you think the independence of the Baltic
states would be more secure or less secure if they weren't members of NATO? (Hint: compare to
Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova.)
' .makes military alliance of Russia and China very likely '
Any analysis which arrives at this conclusion is profoundly ignorant.
Meta-comment: Is it permitted to say that a moderation scheme which objects to engels as a
troll, while permitting this tripe from likbez has taken a wrong turn somewhere. Seriously, some
explanation called for.
Does the new CT moderation regime have any expectations about the veracity of claims made
by commenters? Because I think it would be useful in cases like this.
I would like to apologize about the number of typos, but I stand by statements made. Your implicit
assumption that I am lying was not specific, so let's concentrate on three claims made:
1. "Hillary has serious neurological disease for at least four years", 2. "Obama and Hillary tried to stage color revolution in Russia in 2011-2012 interfering in Russian
Presidential elections" 3. "Hillary Clinton is a neocon, a warmonger similar to John McCain"
1. Hillary Health : Whether she suffers from Parkinson disease or not in unclear, but signs
of some serious neurological disease are observable since 2012 (for four years). Parkinson is just
the most plausible hypothesis based on symptoms observed. Those symptoms suggests that she is at
Stage 2 of the disease due to an excellent treatment she gets:
http://www.viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/news/100312.htm
The average time taken to progress from Stage 1 (mild) to Stage 2 (mild but various symptoms)
was 1 year 8 months. The average time taken to progress from Stage 2 to Stage 3 (typical) was
7 years and 3 months. From Stage 3 to Stage 4 (severe) took 2 years. From Stage 4 to Stage 5 (incapacitated)
took 2 years and 2 months. So the stage with typical symptoms lasts the longest. Those factors
associated with faster progression were older age at diagnosis, and longer disease duration. Gender
and ethnicity were not associated with the rate of Parkinson's Disease progression.
These figures are only averages. Progression is not inevitable. Some people with Parkinson's
Disease have either : stayed the same for decades, reduced their symptoms, rid their symptoms,
or worsened at a rapid rate. For more current news go to Parkinson's Disease News.
Concern about Hillary health were voiced in many publications and signs of her neurological disease
are undisputable:
3. The opinion that Hillary as a neocon is supported by facts from all her career , but
especially during her tenure as the Secretary of State. She voted for Iraq war and was instrumental
in unleashing Libya war and Syria war. The amount of evidence can't be ignored:
If you have more specific concerns please voice them and I will try to support my statements with
references and known facts.
stevenjohnson 10.26.16 at 1:50 pm
likbez @70 Any analysis that starts with the assumption reactionaries still has a great
deal to its agenda to achieve, such as promoting regressive taxation; privatization of Social
Security; limiting Medicare; privatization of education; expansion of the police state; using
the military to support the dollar, banking, world markets, etc., rather than Corey Robin's
belief that "the Right" has won is in my view an improvement on the OP. But whether mine
is actually a deep analysis seems doubtful even to me.
But the OP is really limiting itself solely to domestic politics, and in that context the
resistance to "neoliberal globalization," (Why not use the term "imperialism?") is more or
less irrelevant. The OP seems to have some essentialist notion of the "Right" as openly aimed
at restoring the past, ignoring the content of policies. Reaction would be something blatant
like restoring censorship of TV and movies, instead of IP laws that favor giant
telecommunications companies, or abolition of divorce, instead of discriminatory enforcement
of child protection laws that break up poor families. This
cultural/psychological/moralizing/spiritual approach seems to me to be fundamentally a
diversion from a useful understanding.
There may be some sort of confused notions about popular morals and tastes clearly evolving
in a more leftish direction. Free love was never a conservative principle for instance, yet
many of its tenets are now those of the majority of the population. Personally I can only
observe that there's nothing quite like the usefulness of laws and law enforcement,
supplemented by the occasional illicit violence, to change social attitudes. The great model
of course is the de facto extermination of the Left by "McCarthyism." No doubt the
disappearance of the left targeted by "McCarthyism" is perceived to be a purification of the
real left. It is customary for the acceptable "left" to agree with the McCarthys that
communism lost its appeal to the people, rather than being driven out by mass repression. As
to populism, such reactionary goals as the abolition of public education are notoriously sold
as service to the people against the hifalutin' snobs, starting of course with lazy ass
teachers. It seems to me entirely mistaken to see the populist reactionaries as out of
ammunition because the old forms of race-baiting aren't working so well.
By the way, there already is a Chinese bourgeoisie, in Taiwan, Singapore, the Philippines,
Malaysia, Indonesia, Hong Kong, as well as elements in SEZs in China proper and select circles
in various financial capitals. Restoration of capitalism in China has run into the difficulty
that capitalism isn't holding up its end. President Xi Jinping is finding it difficult for
capitalism to keep the mainland economy growing at a sufficiently rapid rate to keep the
working class pacific, much less generate the so-called middle class whose stock market
portfolios will bind them to the new ruling class forever. These are the sources for a
revolution in China, not NGOs or a color revolution. In the end, Putin will be done in by
his oligarchs, despite the care he has taken to give them their share if they just refrain
from wrecking everything with their excesses. Again, no need for NGOs.
Val @72 I remember that there were only rare, vague hints about Reagan, not factual
evidence. So unless you are committed to the proposition his Alzheimer's disease only set in
January 21, 1992, demanding factual evidence about the mental and physical health of our
elective divinities seems unduly restrictive I think.
Layman @79 The Shanghai Cooperation Organization alone makes an analysis that a military
alliance between Russia and China reasonable enough. Even if incorrect in the end, it is not
"profoundly ignorant."
Meta-comment: Engels post was perceived as mocking, which was its offense. As for "trolling,"
that's an internet thing...
"... There are some signs of the "revolutionary situation" in the USA in a sense that the neoliberal elite lost control and their propaganda loss effectiveness, despite dusting off the "Red scare" trick with "Reds in each computer" instead of "Reds under each bed". With Putin as a very convenient bogeyman. ..."
"... But it looks like newly formed shadow "Committee for Saving [neo]Liberal Order" (with participation of three latter agencies, just read the recent "Red scare" memorandum ( https://www.dni.gov/index.php/newsroom/press-releases/215-press-releases-2016/1423-joint-dhs-odni-election-security-statement ) want Hillary to be the POTUS. ..."
1. An ABC news poll says that Clinton has 50% of somebody (the electorate, likely voters?)
supporting her rabidly reactionary rhetoric. She demonizes Putin, imputes treason to a major party
candidate in a way hitherto seen only in Birch Society attacks on Eisenhower, shrieks that it
is utterly impossible to even hint that the current electoral system has no real legitimacy.
The only real criticisms acceptable in the face of her reactionary screeds are hints that
she is a traitor for Clinton Foundation cash and that she is lax on security . (The claim
that Clinton is pro-war are regressions to the Obama primary campaign in 2008. Since he promptly
proved the irrelevance of an anti-war rhetoric, the observations that Clinton has none are equally
irrelevant.)
2. The high levels of indecision suggest that a Trump defeat may well leave the Republican
establishment more or less as it was. Depending on turnout, which even at this late date is highly
uncertain, it is entirely possible the Republicans will maintain control of the Senate. At this
point it is probable they will keep the House. In any event, Clinton has openly committed to
a bipartisan a campaign against the Trump hijacking of the Republican party.
3. Consider the longevity of reactionary leaderships in the major parties. The Democratic
Leadership Council approach has dominated its party for decades. The Republican party projects
like ALEC, the Federalist Society, the Mighty Wurlitzer, the designated superstar talk personality
(no, shifting from Limbaugh to Beck is not a sea change,) everywhere you look behind the scenes
you see the same faces. What new faces appear turn out (like Obama) to be employees of the same
old political establishments. Alleged exceptions like Sanders and Warren are notable primarily
for their lack of commitment.
4. There are bold thinkers willing to imagine the conservative future. Think Jason Brennan
and his book Against Democracy. Even worse, the real strength of the conservatives lies in the
bottom line, not in polemics. Tragically, it's when the bottom line is written in read that it
shrieks the loudest, with the most conviction and the most urgent desire for the masters to unite
against the rest of us.
5. California politics has set the pace once again, demonstrating the absolute irrelevance
of a "Left" defined as a spiritual posture. The annihilation of an ugly materialist Left by "McCarthyism"
has purified the souls of the righetous, leaving socialism/communism unthinkable. California leftism
is entirely safe for capitalism, imperialism and a free market of ideas where the refined consumers
of ideas can have their gated neighborhoods of ideas.
6. The majority support for a more tolerant society makes no difference in policy. Being nicer
is not politics.
There is a fundamental reason for despair, the failures of the right to win the Holy Grail
of a functional capitalist society. Despite their successes in destroying organized labor (with
the help of counter-revolutionary "leftists" to be sure,) in limiting women's rights, in blunting
the real world effects of desegregation, the short-run prospects of capital are disquieting. And
the long run prospects, insofar as these people can see past the quarterly statement, are even
more frightening. Urged by their fears, the system will be ever more destabilized by desperate
adventures. The replacement of Social Security of course will be high on the agenda. The absolutely
vital need for ever more control over the world, including regime change in Russia and China,
has driven foreign policy in direct support of the dollar and banking since at least Bush 41.
But in the end, it is not the madness of the owners that is the cause for despair, but the
absolute indifference of the spiritual leftists who have joined in the rabidly reactionary campaign
against Clinton from the right. (You would have thought it rather difficult to criticize Clinton
from the right, but never underestimate the exigencies of struggle against totalitarianism.) Win
or lose, this campaign has endorsed reaction, top to bottom. On the upside, the likelihood of
a Clinton impeachment offers much value for your entertainment dollar.
likbez 10.26.16 at 1:10 am
stevenjohnson
@58
This is a very good analyses. But I am less pessimistic: the blowback against neoliberal globalization
is real and it is difficult to swipe it under the carpet.
There are some signs of the "revolutionary situation" in the USA in a sense that the neoliberal
elite lost control and their propaganda loss effectiveness, despite dusting off the "Red scare"
trick with "Reds in each computer" instead of "Reds under each bed". With Putin as a very convenient
bogeyman.
As somebody here said Trump might be a reaction to secular stagnation, kind of trump card put
into play by some part of the elite, because with continued secular stagnation, the social stability
in the USA is under a real threat.
But the problem is that Hillary with her failing health is our of her prime and with a bunch
of neocons in key positions in her administration, she really represents a huge threat to world
peace. She might not last long as the level of stress inherent in POTUS job make it a killing
ground for anybody with advanced stage of Parkinson or similar degenerative neurological disease.
But that might kale her more impulsive and more aggressive (and she always tried to outdo her
male politicians in jingoism, real John McCain is the red pantsuit).
All-in-all it looks like she in not a solution of neoliberal elite problems, she is a part
of the problem
Adventurism of the US neoliberal elite, and especially possible aggressive moves in Syria by
Hillary regime ("no fly zone"), makes military alliance of Russia and China very likely (with
Pakistan, Iran and India as possible future members). So Hillary might really work like a powerful
China lobbyist, because the alliance with Russia will be on China terms.
Regime change via color revolution in either country requires at dense network of subservient
to the Western interests and financed via shadow channels MSM (including TV channels), NGO and
ability to distribute cash to selection members of fifth column of neoliberalism. All those condition
were made more difficult in Russia and impossible in mainland China. In Russia the US adventurism
in Ukraine and the regime change of February 2014 (creation of neo-fascist regime nicknamed by
some "Kaganat of Nuland" (Asia times
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/CEN-01-100315.html
) essentially killed the neoliberal fifth column in Russia and IMHO it no longer represent
a viable political force.
Also Russians probably learned well lesson of unsuccessful attempt of regime change by interfering
into Russian Presidential election process attempted by Hillary and Obama in 2011-2012. I would
like to see the US MSM reaction if Russian ambassador invited Sanders and Trump into the embassy
and promised full and unconditional support for their effort to remove criminal Obama regime,
mired in corruption and subservient to Wall Street interest, the regime that produced misery for
so many American workers, lower middle class and older Americans ;-)
Ambassador McFaul soon left the country, NED was banned and screws were tightened enough to
make next attempt exceedingly difficult. Although everything can happen I would discount the possibility
of the next "While Revolution" in Russia. So called "Putin regime" survived the period of low
oil prices and with oil prices over $60 in 2017 Russian economy might be able to grow several
percent a year. At the same time the US "post-Obama" regime might well face the winds of returning
higher oil prices and their negative influence of economy growth and unemployment.
In China recent troubles in Hong Cong were also a perfect training ground for "anti color revolution"
measures and the next attempt would much more difficult, unless China experience economic destabilization
due to some bubble burst.
that means that excessive military adventurism inherent in the future Hillary regime might
speed up loss by the USA military dominance and re-alignment of some states beyond Philippines.
Angela Merkel regime also might not survive the next election and change "pro-Atlantic" balance
in Europe.
Although the list in definitely not complete, we can see that there are distinct setbacks for
attempts of further neoliberalization - Brexit and TPP troubles.
So there are some countervailing forces in action and my impression that the Triumphal march
of neoliberalism with the USA as a hegemon of the new neoliberal order is either over or soon
will be over. In certain regions of the globe the USA foreign policy is in trouble (Syria, Ukraine)
and while you can do anything using bayonets, you can't sit on them.
So while still there is no viable alternative to neoliberalism as social system, the ideology
itself is discredited and like communism after 1945 lost its hold of hearts and minds of the USA
population. I would say that in the USA neoliberalism entered Zombie stage.
My hope is that reasonable voices in foreign policy prevail, and the disgust of unions members
toward DemoRats (Neoliberal Democrats) could play the decisive role in coming elections. As bad
as Trump is for domestic policy, it represent some hope as for foreign policy unless co-opted
by Republican establishment.
likbez :
October 24, 2016 at 12:00 PM
My impression is that that key issue is as following: a vote
for Hillary is a vote for the War Party and is incompatible
with democratic principles.
She is way too militant, and is not that different in this
respect from Senator McCain. That creates a real danger of
unleashing the war with Russia.
Trump with all his warts gives us a chance to get some
kind of détente with Russia.
Just a hunch: a lot of this hoo-hah will simmer down after
the election.
But yeah, I'm really bummed that we are going
to be seeing a return of a lot of the same creeps who gave us
the foreign policy of the 90's that went belly up in 2001-03.
Just a reminder: I called attention several times to this
article in 2014 and 2015:
The Next Act of the Neocons
Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton?
By JACOB HEILBRUNN
WASHINGTON - AFTER nearly a decade in the political
wilderness, the neoconservative movement is back, using the
turmoil in Iraq and Ukraine to claim that it is President
Obama, not the movement's interventionist foreign policy that
dominated early George W. Bush-era Washington, that bears
responsibility for the current round of global crises.
Even as they castigate Mr. Obama, the neocons may be
preparing a more brazen feat: aligning themselves with
Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign,
in a bid to return to the driver's seat of American foreign
policy.
To be sure, the careers and reputations of the older
generation of neocons - Paul D. Wolfowitz, L. Paul Bremer
III, Douglas J. Feith, Richard N. Perle - are permanently
buried in the sands of Iraq. And not all of them are eager to
switch parties: In April, William Kristol, the editor of The
Weekly Standard, said that as president Mrs. Clinton would
"be a dutiful chaperone of further American decline."
But others appear to envisage a different direction - one
that might allow them to restore the neocon brand, at a time
when their erstwhile home in the Republican Party is turning
away from its traditional interventionist foreign policy.
It's not as outlandish as it may sound. Consider the
historian Robert Kagan, the author of a recent, roundly
praised article in The New Republic that amounted to a
neo-neocon manifesto. He has not only avoided the vitriolic
tone that has afflicted some of his intellectual brethren but
also co-founded an influential bipartisan advisory group
during Mrs. Clinton's time at the State Department.
Mr. Kagan has also been careful to avoid landing at
standard-issue neocon think tanks like the American
Enterprise Institute; instead, he's a senior fellow at the
Brookings Institution, that citadel of liberalism headed by
Strobe Talbott, who was deputy secretary of state under
President Bill Clinton and is considered a strong candidate
to become secretary of state in a new Democratic
administration. (Mr. Talbott called the Kagan article
"magisterial," in what amounts to a public baptism into the
liberal establishment.)
Perhaps most significantly, Mr. Kagan and others have
insisted on maintaining the link between modern
neoconservatism and its roots in muscular Cold War
liberalism. Among other things, he has frequently praised
Harry S. Truman's secretary of state, Dean Acheson, drawing a
line from him straight to the neocons' favorite president:
"It was not Eisenhower or Kennedy or Nixon but Reagan whose
policies most resembled those of Acheson and Truman."
Other neocons have followed Mr. Kagan's careful centrism
and respect for Mrs. Clinton. Max Boot, a senior fellow at
the Council on Foreign Relations,noted in The New Republic
this year that "it is clear that in administration councils
she was a principled voice for a strong stand on
controversial issues, whether supporting the Afghan surge or
the intervention in Libya."
And the thing is, these neocons have a point. Mrs. Clinton
voted for the Iraq war; supported sending arms to Syrian
rebels; likened Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, to
Adolf Hitler...
This former associate of Dick Cheney managed to completely
destroy pretty nice European county, unleashing the horror of
real starvation on the population.
Ukraine now is essentially Central African country in the
middle of the Europe. Retirees often live on less then $1 a
day. most adults (and lucky retirees) on less then $3 a day.
$6 a day is considered a high salary. At the same time
"oligarchs" drive on Maybachs, and personal jets.
Sex tourism is rampant. Probably the only "profession"
that prospered since "Maydan".
Young people try to get university education and emigrate
to any county that would accept them (repeating the story of
Baltic countries and Poland).
Now this a typical IMF debt slave with no chances to get
out of the hole.
Politically this is now a protectorate of the USA with the
USA ambassador as the real, de-facto ruler of the country.
Much like Kosovo is.
Standard of living dropped approximately three times since
2014.
"If the country continues on its present course, Odessa's
reformist governor Mikheil Saakashvili has noted
sarcastically, Ukraine will not reach the level of GDP it had
under former president Viktor Yanukovych for another fifteen
years"
"In Kiev, which is by far the wealthiest city in Ukraine,
payment arrears for electricity have risen by 32 percent
since the beginning of this year."
The Next Act of the Neocons
Are Neocons Getting Ready to Ally With Hillary Clinton?
By JACOB HEILBRUNN
WASHINGTON - AFTER nearly a decade in the political wilderness, the neoconservative movement
is back, using the turmoil in Iraq and Ukraine to claim that it is President Obama, not the movement's
interventionist foreign policy that dominated early George W. Bush-era Washington, that bears
responsibility for the current round of global crises.
Even as they castigate Mr. Obama, the neocons may be preparing a more brazen feat: aligning
themselves with Hillary Rodham Clinton and her nascent presidential campaign, in a bid to return
to the driver's seat of American foreign policy.
To be sure, the careers and reputations of the older generation of neocons - Paul D. Wolfowitz,
L. Paul Bremer III, Douglas J. Feith, Richard N. Perle - are permanently buried in the sands of
Iraq. And not all of them are eager to switch parties: In April, William Kristol, the editor of
The Weekly Standard, said that as president Mrs. Clinton would "be a dutiful chaperone of further
American decline."
But others appear to envisage a different direction - one that might allow them to restore
the neocon brand, at a time when their erstwhile home in the Republican Party is turning away
from its traditional interventionist foreign policy.
It's not as outlandish as it may sound.
Consider the historian Robert Kagan, the author
of a recent, roundly praised article in The New Republic that amounted to a neo-neocon manifesto.
He has not only avoided the vitriolic tone that has afflicted some of his intellectual brethren
but also co-founded an influential bipartisan advisory group during Mrs. Clinton's time at the
State Department.
Mr. Kagan has also been careful to avoid landing at standard-issue neocon think tanks like
the American Enterprise Institute; instead, he's a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution,
that citadel of liberalism headed by Strobe Talbott, who was deputy secretary of state under President
Bill Clinton and is considered a strong candidate to become secretary of state in a new Democratic
administration. (Mr. Talbott called the Kagan article "magisterial," in what amounts to a public
baptism into the liberal establishment.)
Perhaps most significantly, Mr. Kagan and others have insisted on maintaining the link between
modern neoconservatism and its roots in muscular Cold War liberalism. Among other things, he has
frequently praised Harry S. Truman's secretary of state, Dean Acheson, drawing a line from him
straight to the neocons' favorite president: "It was not Eisenhower or Kennedy or Nixon but Reagan
whose policies most resembled those of Acheson and Truman."
Other neocons have followed Mr. Kagan's careful centrism and respect for Mrs. Clinton. Max
Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted in The New Republic this year
that "it is clear that in administration councils she was a principled voice for a strong stand
on controversial issues, whether supporting the Afghan surge or the intervention in Libya."
And the thing is, these neocons have a point. Mrs. Clinton voted for the Iraq war; supported
sending arms to Syrian rebels; likened Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, to Adolf Hitler...
Anne and I have seen this for a while.
Nothing new Strobe Talbott was closeted [neocon], and
brought Mrs Kagan aka Victoria Nuland in to State in 1993.
Bill bearded the bear breaking Kosovo and Bosinia out of Serbia... The down payment for
Kyiv in 2012 was in 1996.
This former associate of Dick Cheney managed to completely destroy pretty nice European county,
unleashing the horror of real starvation on the population.
Ukraine now is essentially Central African country in the middle of the Europe. Retirees often
live on less then $1 a day. most adults (and lucky retirees) on less then $3 a day. $6 a day is
considered a high salary. At the same time "oligarchs" drive on Maybachs, and personal jets.
Sex tourism is rampant. Probably the only "profession" that prospered since "Maydan".
Young people try to get university education and emigrate to any county that would accept them
(repeating the story of Baltic countries and Poland).
Now this a typical IMF debt slave with no chances to get our the hole.
Politically this is now a protectorate of the USA with the USA ambassador as the real, de-facto
ruler of the county. Much like Kosovo is.
Standard of living dropped approximately three times since 2014.
"If the country continues on its present course, Odessa's reformist governor Mikheil
Saakashvili has noted sarcastically, Ukraine will not reach the level of GDP it had under former
president Viktor Yanukovych for another fifteen years"
"In Kiev, which is by far the wealthiest city in Ukraine, payment arrears for electricity
have risen by 32 percent since the beginning of this year."
"... It has recently turned out that Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk, a vocal proponent of Ukraine's European integration, made huge contributions to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton was the US Secretary of State. Although the foundation swore off donations from foreign governments while Mrs. Clinton was serving as a state official, it continued accepting money from private donors. Many of them had certain ties to their national governments like Viktor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian businessman and ex-parliamentarian. ..."
"... Viktor Pinchuk has always been one of the most vocal proponents of Ukraine's European integration. In 2004 Pinchuk founded the Yalta European Strategy (YES) platform in Kiev. YES is led by the board including ex-president of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski and former NATO Secretary General Javier Solana. According to the website of the platform, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice, Kofi Annan, Radoslaw Sikorski, Vitaliy Klitschko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Petro Poroshenko and other prominent figures have participated in annual meetings of YES since 2004. ..."
"... Experts note that after the coup, the Ukrainian leadership has actually become Washington's puppet government. Several foreign citizens, including American civilian Natalie Jaresko, Lithuanian investment banker Aivaras Abromavicius and Georgia-born Alexander Kvitashvili have assumed high posts in the Ukrainian government. It should be noted that Natalie Jaresko, Ukraine's Financial Minister, have previously worked in the US State Department and has also been linked to oligarch Viktor Pinchuk. ..."
A sinister atmosphere surrounds the Clinton Foundation's role in Ukrainian military coup of February
2014, experts point out.
It has recently turned out that Ukrainian oligarch Viktor Pinchuk, a vocal proponent of Ukraine's
European integration, made huge contributions to the Clinton Foundation, while Hillary Clinton was
the US Secretary of State. Although the foundation swore off donations from foreign governments while
Mrs. Clinton was serving as a state official, it continued accepting money from private donors. Many
of them had certain ties to their national governments like Viktor Pinchuk, a Ukrainian businessman
and ex-parliamentarian.
Remarkably, among individual donors contributing to the Clinton Foundation in the period between
1999 and 2014, Ukrainian sponsors took first place in the list, providing the charity with almost
$10 million and pushing England and Saudi Arabia to second and third places respectively.
It is worth mentioning that the Viktor Pinchuk Foundation alone transferred at least $8.6 million
to the Clinton charity between 2009 and 2013. Pinchuk, who acquired his fortune from a pipe-making
business, served twice as a parliamentarian in Ukraine's Verkhovna Rada and was married to the daughter
of ex-president of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma.
Although the Clinton's charity denies that the donations were somehow connected with political
matters, experts doubt that international private sponsors received no political support in return.
In 2008 Pinchuk pledged to make a five-year $29 million contribution to the Clinton Global Initiative
in order to fund a program aimed at training future Ukrainian leaders and "modernizers." Remarkably,
several alumni of these courses are current members of Ukrainian parliament. Because of the global
financial crisis, the Pinchuk Foundation sent only $1.8 million.
Experts note that during Mrs. Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, Viktor Pinchuk was introduced
to some influential American lobbyists. Curiously enough, he tried to use his powerful "friends"
to pressure Ukraine's then-President Viktor Yanukovych to free Yulia Tymoshenko, who served a jail
term.
Viktor Pinchuk has always been one of the most vocal proponents of Ukraine's European integration.
In 2004 Pinchuk founded the Yalta European Strategy (YES) platform in Kiev. YES is led by the board
including ex-president of Poland Aleksander Kwasniewski and former NATO Secretary General Javier
Solana. According to the website of the platform, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Condoleezza Rice,
Kofi Annan, Radoslaw Sikorski, Vitaliy Klitschko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, Petro Poroshenko and other prominent
figures have participated in annual meetings of YES since 2004.
No one would argue that proponents of Ukraine's pro-Western course played the main role in organizing
the coup of February 2014 in Kiev. Furthermore, the exceptional role of the United States in ousting
then-president Viktor Yanukovich has also been recognized by political analysts, participants of
Euromaidan and even by Barack Obama, the US President.
Experts note that after the coup, the Ukrainian leadership has actually become Washington's puppet
government. Several foreign citizens, including American civilian Natalie Jaresko, Lithuanian investment
banker Aivaras Abromavicius and Georgia-born Alexander Kvitashvili have assumed high posts in the
Ukrainian government. It should be noted that Natalie Jaresko, Ukraine's Financial Minister, have
previously worked in the US State Department and has also been linked to oligarch Viktor Pinchuk.
So far, experts note, the recent "game of thrones" in Ukraine has been apparently instigated by
a few powerful clans of the US and Ukraine, who are evidently benefitting from the ongoing turmoil.
In this light the Clinton Foundation looks like something more than just a charity: in today's world
of fraudulent oligopoly we are facing with global cronyism, experts point out, warning against its
devastating consequences.
They are the same neocon creeps... They forgot nothing and learn nothing.
Notable quotes:
"... My impression is that that key issue is as following: a vote for Hillary is a vote for the War Party and is incompatible with democratic principles. ..."
"... Trump with all his warts gives us a chance to get some kind of détente with Russia. ..."
"... In other words no real Democrat can vote for Hillary. ..."
"... Why do you think "wet kiss with neocons" is compatible with democratic principles ? ..."
"... I'm really bummed that we are going to be seeing a return of a lot of the same creeps who gave us the foreign policy of the 90's that went belly up in 2001-03. ..."
"... But most of the liberal bloggers obediently kept their mouths shut about it. ..."
Just a hunch: a lot of this hoo-hah will simmer down after the election.
But yeah, I'm really bummed that we are going to be seeing a return of a lot of the same
creeps who gave us the foreign policy of the 90's that went belly up in 2001-03.
Just a reminder: I called attention several times to this article in 2014 and 2015:
"... The Democratic nominee in the final debate reiterated her bellicose stance towards Syria. Combined with her 2003 vote for war in Iraq, and her central role in getting the U.S. into the 2011 war in Libya, Clinton could become the most hawkish candidate elected president in most Americans' lifetimes. ..."
"... Enforcing a no-fly zone is "basically an act of war," Michael Knights, a no-fly-zone expert at the Washington Institute told me in the run up to the Libyan war. ..."
"... "Hillary's War," was the Washington Post's headline for a flattering feature on the Secretary of State's central role in driving the U.S. to intervene in Libya's civil war in 2011. ..."
"... Clinton staff, published emails have shown, worked hard to get Clinton credit for the war. Clinton's confidante at the State Department Jake Sullivan drafted a memo on her "leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country's Libya policy from start to finish." ..."
"... Hillary's war was illegal-because the administration never obtained congressional authorization for it-and it was also disastrous. "Libya is in a state of meltdown," John Lee Anderson wrote in the Atlantic last summer. ..."
"... Yet somehow, through three general election debates, she never got a single question on Libya. Consider that: a former Secretary of State touted a war as a central achievement of hers, is running on her foreign-policy chops, and she is escaping accountability for that disastrous war. ..."
"... Clinton, of course, also voted for the Iraq War in 2003. She says now she thinks that war was a mistake because it destabilized region. But somehow she doesn't apply that supposed lesson to Libya or to Syria. ..."
"... The pattern is clear: Hillary Clinton is consistently and maybe blindly pro-war. She is now the clear frontrunner to become our next president. The antiwar movement that flourished under President George W. Bush has disappeared under President Obama . Will it revive under Hillary? Will Republicans have the power or the desire to check her ambitious interventionism. ..."
Hillary Clinton
can change her views in an instant on trade, guns, gay marriage, and all sorts of issues, but
she's consistent in this: she wants war.
The Democratic nominee in the final debate reiterated her bellicose stance towards Syria. Combined
with her 2003 vote for war in Iraq, and her central role in getting the U.S. into the 2011 war in
Libya, Clinton could become the most hawkish candidate elected president in most Americans' lifetimes.
"I am going to continue to push for a no-fly zone and safe havens within Syria," Clinton said
Wednesday night. Totally separate from the fight against ISIS, Clinton's "no-fly zones and safe havens"
are U.S. military intervention in the bloody and many-sided conflict between Syria's brutal government,
terrorist groups, and rebel groups.
Enforcing a no-fly zone is "basically an act of war," Michael Knights, a no-fly-zone expert at
the Washington Institute told me in the run up to the Libyan war. Air Force Gen. Paul Selva, vice
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified before the Senate that a no-fly zone created "the
potential of a direct conflict with the Syrian integrated air defense system or Syrian forces or,
by corollary, a confrontation with the Russians."
Defense Secretary Ash Carter testified in the same hearing that "safe zones" would require significant
U.S. boots on the ground.
So while Hillary says she doesn't want war with Russia or Syria, or boots on the ground in Syria,
she pushes policies that the Pentagon says risk war and require boots on the ground.
Hillary showed that same cavalier attitude toward war earlier this decade, laughingly
declaring "we came, we
saw, he died." This was her version of George W. Bush's "Mission Accomplished" moment, and Libya
was her smaller - and less legal - version of Bush's Iraq War.
"Hillary's War," was the Washington Post's headline for a flattering feature on the Secretary
of State's central role in driving the U.S. to intervene in Libya's civil war in 2011.
Clinton staff, published emails have shown, worked hard to get Clinton credit for the war.
Clinton's confidante at the State Department Jake Sullivan drafted a memo on her "leadership/ownership/stewardship
of this country's Libya policy from start to finish."
Sullivan listed, point-by-point, how Clinton helped bring about and shape the war. Before Obama's
attack on Moammar Gadhafi, "she [was] a leading voice for strong UNSC action and a NATO civilian
B5 protection mission," the memo explained.
Hillary's war was illegal-because the administration never obtained congressional authorization
for it-and it was also disastrous. "Libya is in a state of meltdown," John Lee Anderson wrote in
the Atlantic last summer.
ISIS has spread, no stable government has arisen, and the chaos has led to refugee and terrorism
crises.
Clinton nevertheless calls her war "smart power at its best," declaring during the primary season,
"I think President
Obama made the right decision at the time."
Yet somehow, through three general election debates, she never got a single question on Libya.
Consider that: a former Secretary of State touted a war as a central achievement of hers, is running
on her foreign-policy chops, and she is escaping accountability for that disastrous war.
Clinton, of course, also voted for the Iraq War in 2003. She says now she thinks that war
was a mistake because it destabilized region. But somehow she doesn't apply that supposed lesson
to Libya or to Syria.
The pattern is clear:
Hillary Clinton
is consistently and maybe blindly pro-war. She is now the clear frontrunner to become our next
president. The antiwar movement that flourished under President George W. Bush has disappeared under
President Obama
. Will it revive under Hillary? Will Republicans have the power or the desire to check her ambitious
interventionism.
If Hillary wins big and sweeps in a Senate majority with her, we could be in for four more years
of even more war.
Timothy P. Carney, the Washington Examiner's senior political columnist, can be contacted at
[email protected]. His column appears
Tuesday and Thursday nights on washingtonexaminer.com.
Qatar, like most Muslim countries, treats women as second-class citizens, but
champion-of-women Hillary never lets a little thing like that stop her from doing business. (See:
"On favors.") And a far greater threat than murderous Muslims adhering to a fanatical 7th-century
religious ideology lurks right here at home - those pesky Roman Catholics and their silly
2,000-year-old faith. (See: "On Catholics.")
Lloyd Blankfein is all in for HRC, so we know what sort of
economy we will get.
The Clinton administration will have a
tough balance, throwing enough crumbs to the left to keep
them happy while giving payback for the speaking fees.
Before Anne demands that you identify who this is - let me
help. Lloyd Craig Blankfein is an American business
executive. He is the CEO and Chairman of Goldman Sachs.
Now
was that so hard? As for "we know what sort of economy we
will get". No Rusty - we do not know WTF you mean by this. So
get to it as man splain this to us.
Since both major parties are owned by plutocrats, we get a
choice between quicker or slower misery. And since Hillary is
in bed with the neocons, we also get the probability of major
conflagration or US oppression of the globe.
If a
progressive/populist revolt doesn't change the current path
we are all screwed.
"... "We have not run this campaign as a campaign against the GOP with the big broad brush - we've run it against Donald Trump," Kaine told the Associated Press. "We're going to get a lot of Republican votes, and that will also be part of, right out of the gate, the way to bring folks back together." ..."
"... In an interview, Kaine said Saturday that he and Hillary Clinton have already discussed how to work with Republicans if they win the presidential election against Trump and his running-mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, in a little more than two weeks. He said that tackling economic anxieties, finding common policy ground with the GOP, and perhaps bringing Republicans into the administration would be elements of unity, though he added that he and Clinton did not discuss cabinet positions, the AP reported. ..."
"... So the plan isn't to try and turn the Senate blue? What kind of work can a Clinton/Kaine administration "get done" with a GOP congress? My first guess would be giving big business something they want in "exchange" for something they want like a repatriation tax holiday to gently suggest corporations bring some of the money they have overseas back to the US and using a small portion of that money to pay for infrastructure spending business associations like the US COC have been advocating for years. ..."
"... It's not like the Dems have a chance of taking congress or at least the Senate so why do anything that might annoy the GOP. Since the GOP are usually so reasonable and the slightest suggestion Dems may want to take over Congress would be the straw that broke the camel's back and turn the generally reasonable GOP into a well oiled "no" machine. ..."
Sen. Tim Kaine said he's already reaching out to Republicans as the Democratic
vice presidential hopeful looks for ways to repair damage done between the two parties during
th divisive race for the White House.
"We have not run this campaign as a campaign against the GOP with the big broad brush -
we've run it against Donald Trump," Kaine told the Associated Press. "We're going to get a lot
of Republican votes, and that will also be part of, right out of the gate, the way to bring folks
back together."
In an interview, Kaine said Saturday that he and Hillary Clinton have already discussed
how to work with Republicans if they win the presidential election against Trump and his running-mate,
Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, in a little more than two weeks. He said that tackling economic anxieties,
finding common policy ground with the GOP, and perhaps bringing Republicans into the administration
would be elements of unity, though he added that he and Clinton did not discuss cabinet positions,
the AP reported.
Kaine, who is in his fourth year as a senator from Virginia after serving as the state's governor,
said Clinton is stepping up efforts to help Democrats recapture Senate control, but he hasn't
made a specific pitch for a Democratic Senate. He's focusing his efforts on finding policies Republicans
and Democrats can agree on.
"I have very good relations with Republicans in the Senate," Kaine said.
"There's some people
who really want to get some good work done."
[So the plan isn't to try and turn the Senate blue? What kind of work can a Clinton/Kaine administration
"get done" with a GOP congress? My first guess would be giving big business something they want
in "exchange" for something they want like a repatriation tax holiday to gently suggest corporations
bring some of the money they have overseas back to the US and using a small portion of that money
to pay for infrastructure spending business associations like the US COC have been advocating
for years.
It's not like the Dems have a chance of taking congress or at least the Senate so why do anything
that might annoy the GOP. Since the GOP are usually so reasonable and the slightest suggestion
Dems may want to take over Congress would be the straw that broke the camel's back and turn the
generally reasonable GOP into a well oiled "no" machine.
That's explains vicious campaign by neoliberal MSM against Trump and swiping under the carpet all
criminal deeds of Clinton family. They feel the threat...
Notable quotes:
"... It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by race-obsessed lumpen. It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously the case in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives: socialism and communism. ..."
"... That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness. That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge. ..."
It should be remembered that fascism does not succeed in the real world as a crusade by
race-obsessed lumpen. It succeeds when fascists are co-opted by capitalists, as was unambiguously
the case in Nazi Germany and Italy. And big business supported fascism because it feared the alternatives:
socialism and communism.
That's because there is no more effective counter to class consciousness than race consciousness.
That's one reason why, in my opinion, socialism hasn't done a better job of catching on in the
United States. The contradictions between black and white labor formed a ready-made wedge.
The North's abhorrence at the spread of slavery into the American West before the Civil War
had more to do a desire to preserve these new realms for "free" labor-"free" in one context, from
the competition of slave labor-than egalitarian principle.[…]
There is more to Clintonism, I think, than simply playing the "identity politics" card to
screw Bernie Sanders or discombobulate the Trump campaign. "Identity politics" is near the core
of the Clintonian agenda as a bulwark against any class/populist upheaval that might threaten
her brand of billionaire-friendly liberalism.
In other words it's all part of a grand plan when the Clintonoids aren't busy debating the finer
points of her marketing and "mark"–a term normally applied to the graphic logo on a commercial product.
"... Nonsense. You would have to be so incompetent as to need a daily caregiver to be a "liberal" activist and not know Hillary Clinton despises you. ..."
"... Didn't click on the link. I presume this is just face-saving blather from inside the pen. ..."
"... It's compatible with Hillary's three-act campaign's third act of "putting the Party back together" with the solvent glue of conflation and the structural adhesive of Stronger Together ("get in mah fasces, maggots"). ..."
Some fun dish in here: WikiLeaks poisons Hillary's relationship with left. After learning
how Clinton feels about them, liberals vow to push back against her agenda and appointments.
Nonsense. You would have to be so incompetent as to need a daily caregiver to be a "liberal"
activist and not know Hillary Clinton despises you.
Didn't click on the link. I presume this is just face-saving blather from inside the pen.
Gotta pretend you're not in the pen to get more calves in there with you. If they can actually
see the wires and the prods, it takes more effort to get them down the chute.
It's a decent bit of dish, but what one gets out of the forced synonymy of "liberal" and "left"
and "progressive" depends on what priors one brings in with it, and I don't think I'll wait for
the third time around before calling it as enemy design.
It's compatible with Hillary's three-act
campaign's third act of "putting the Party back together" with the solvent glue of conflation
and the structural adhesive of Stronger Together ("get in mah fasces, maggots").
Today's aptrogram from professional political kayfabe: Amanda Marcotte → At Drama, Moan Etc.
I agree with this. All a person has to do is look at a few of her votes in the Senate to see
how right wing she is. Some examples (which I posted during the primaries - sorry for the repetition):
Her vote in favor of the insidious bankruptcy reform act:
The 2001 bill did not become law, but it was similar to the 2005 bill (S. 256) which did
become law. Hillary Clinton was not present for the 2005 vote, because her husband was having
surgery for a partially collapsed lung:
She is a Democrat only by name. In reality she is a wolf in sheep clothing -- a neoliberal (and
a neocon -- a warmonger with the distinct anti-Russian bet) that betrayed working people
and middle class long ago and pandering only to the top 1%. The while "clitonized" Democratic party
is the party of top 1% (top 10% at best). Rejection of Hillary is just rejection of Demorats
(neoliberal democrats) betrayal of working and middle classes. It remains to be seen f Wall Street
managed to push her thrith the thoat of Americal people, despite all re revultion her candidacy
evoke, her corruption and her failing health.
The soullessness of [Clinton's] campaign - all ambition and entitlement - emerges
almost poignantly in the emails, especially when aides keep asking what the campaign
is about. In one largely overlooked passage,
Clinton
complains
that her speechwriters have not given her any overall theme or
rationale. Isn't that the candidate's job? Asked
one of her aides
, Joel Benenson: "Do we have any sense from her what she believes
or wants her core message to be?"
It's that emptiness at the core that makes every policy and
position negotiable and politically calculable. Hence the
embarrassing about-face
on the Trans-Pacific Partnership after the popular winds
swung decisively against free trade.
So too with financial regulation, as in Dodd-Frank
.
As she told
a Goldman Sachs gathering, after the financial collapse there was "a
need to do something because, for political reasons . . . you can't sit idly by and
do nothing."
Of course, we knew all this. But we hadn't seen it so clearly laid out.
Illicit and illegal as is WikiLeaks, it is the camera in the sausage factory. And
what it reveals is surpassingly unpretty.
Who on the left is genuinely excited about voting for Hillary Clinton? Sure, there
are some, but
she strikes me as being a Democratic figure who's a lot like Mitt
Romney was on the Right: the perfect distillation of a kind of Establishmentarianism
within their own party.
(I hasten to say that whatever my disagreement with Romney
over policy might have been, he always struck me as a thoroughly decent person. Hillary
Clinton … not.) It is hard to think of two more different figures on the Right than Mitt
Romney and Donald Trump - temperamentally and otherwise. Yet within four years, the GOP
convulsed so much that it got Donald Trump. What Trump's triumph over the GOP
Establishment showed was its deep weakness. It just needed a strong push.
Might that be the case for the Democrats post-Clinton? Who is the Donald Trump of the
Democratic Party? Where might he come from? I don't think we can see him (or her) now,
but I have a hunch that he's out there.
I find it hard to believe that the Democrats
are not going to be immune to the same economic and cultural forces that dismantled the
GOP. I could be wrong. Her sort of conniving, careerist, technocratic liberalism surely
is not long for this world. Yes?
Posted in
Democrats
,
Presidential politics
. Tagged
Charles
Krauthammer
,
Donald Trump
,
Hillary Clinton
.
There was a time, not long ago, when deficit scolds were
actively dangerous - when their huffing and puffing came
quite close to stampeding Washington into really bad policies
like raising the Medicare age (which wouldn't even have saved
money) and short-term fiscal austerity. At this point their
influence doesn't reach nearly that far. But they continue to
play a malign role in our national discourse - because they
divert and distract attention from much more deserving
problems, depriving crucial issues of political oxygen.
You saw that in the debates: four, count them, four
questions about debt from the Committee for a Responsible
Federal Budget, not one about climate change. And you see it
again in today's New York Times, with Pete Peterson (of
course) and Paul Volcker (sigh) lecturing us * about the
usual stuff.
What's so bad about this kind of deficit scolding? It's
deeply misleading on two levels: the problem it purports to
lay out is far less clearly a major issue than the scolds
claim, and the insistence that we need immediate action is
just incoherent.
So, about that supposed debt crisis: right now we have a
more or less stable ratio of debt to GDP, and no hint of a
financing problem. So claims that we are facing something
terrible rest on the presumption that the budget situation
will worsen dramatically over time. How sure are we about
that? Less than you may imagine.
Yes, the population is getting older, which means more
spending on Medicare and Social Security. But it's already
2016, which means that quite a few baby boomers are already
drawing on those programs; by 2020 we'll be about halfway
through the demographic transition, and current estimates
don't suggest a big budget problem.
Why, then, do you see projections of a large debt
increase? The answer lies not in a known factor - an aging
population - but in assumed growth in health care costs and
rising interest rates. And the truth is that we don't know
that these are going to happen. In fact, health costs have
grown much more slowly since 2010 than previously projected,
and interest rates have been much lower. As the chart above
shows, taking these favorable surprises into account has
already drastically reduced long-run debt projections. These
days the long-run outlook looks vastly less scary than people
used to imagine.
Still, it's probably true that something will eventually
have to be done to bring spending and revenues in line. But
that brings me to the second point: why is this a crucial
issue right now?
Are debt scolds demanding that we slash spending and raise
taxes right away? Actually, no: the economy is still weak,
interest rates still low (meaning that the Fed can't offset
fiscal tightening with easy money), and as a matter of
macroeconomic prudence we should probably be running bigger,
not smaller deficits in the medium term. So proposals to
"deal with" the supposed debt problem always involve
long-term cuts in benefits and (reluctantly) increases in
taxes. That is, they don't involve actual policy moves now,
or for the next 5-10 years.
So why is it so important to take up the issue right now,
with so much else on our plate?
Put it this way: yes, it's possible that we may at some
point in the future have to cut benefits. But deficit scolds
talk as if they offer a way to avoid this fate, when in fact
their solution to the prospect of future benefit cuts is … to
cut future benefits.
If you try really hard, you can argue that locking in
policies now for this future adjustment will make the
transition smoother. But that is really a second-order issue,
hardly deserving to take up a lot of our time. By putting the
debt question aside, we are NOT in any material way making
the future worse.
And that is a total contrast with climate change, where
our failure to act means pouring vast quantities of
greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, materially increasing
the odds of catastrophe with every year we wait.
So my message to the deficit scolds is this: yes, we may
face some hard choices a couple of decades from now. But we
might not, and in any case there aren't any choices that must
be made now. Meanwhile, there are genuinely scary things
happening as we speak, which we should be taking on but
aren't. And your fear-mongering is distracting us from these
real problems. Therefore, I would respectfully request that
you people just go away.
Please note that Hillary's path to the top was marked by proved beyond reasonable doubt DNC fraud.
With information contained in recent email leaks some DNC honchos probably might go to jail for
violation of elections laws. So for them this is a death match and people usually fight well when
they are against the wall. The same in true about Obama and his entourage.
And while this Nobel Peace Price winner managed to bomb just eight countries, Hillary might
improve this peace effort, which was definitely insufficient from the point of view of many diplomats
in State Department. Also the number of humanitarian bombs could be much greater. Here Hillary
election can really help.
From the other point of view this might well be a sign of the crisis of legitimacy of the US
ruling neoliberal elite (aka financial oligarchy).
After approximately 50 years in power the level of degeneration of the US neoliberal elite
reached the level when the quality of candidates reminds me the quality of candidates from the
USSR Politburo after Brezhnev death. Health-wise Hillary really bear some resemblance to Andropov
and Chernenko. And inability of the elite to replace either of them with a more viable candidate
speaks volumes.
The other factor that will not go away is that Obama effectively pardoned Hillary for emailgate
(after gentle encouragement from Bill via Loretta Lynch). Otherwise instead of candidate to POTUS,
she would be a viable candidate for orange suit too. Sure, the rule of law is not applicable to
neoliberal elite, so why Hilary should be an exception? But some naive schmucks might think that
this is highly improper. And be way too much upset with the fruits of neoliberal globalization.
Not that Brexit is easily repeatable in the USA, but vote against neoliberal globalization (protest
vote) might play a role.
Another interesting thing to observe is when (and if) the impeachment process starts, if she
is elected. With some FBI materials in hands of the Congress Republicans she in on the hook. A
simple majority of those present and voting is required for each article of impeachment, or the
resolution as a whole, to pass.
All-in-all her win might well be a Pyrrhic victory. And the unknown neurological disease that
she has (Parkinson?) makes her even more vulnerable after the election, then before. The role
of POTUS involves a lot of stress and requires substantial physical stamina as POTUS is the center
of intersection of all important government conflicts, conversations and communications. That's
a killing environment for anyone with Parkinson. And remember she was not able to survive the
pressure of the role of the Secretary of State when she was in much better health and has an earlier
stage of the disease.
Another interesting question, if the leaks continue after the election. That also can contribute
to the level of stress. Just anticipation is highly stressful. I do not buy the theory about "evil
Russians." This hypothesis does not survive Occam razor test. I think that there some anti-Hillary
forces within the USA ruling elite, possibly within the NSA or some other three letter agency
that has access to email boxes of major Web mail providers via NSA.
If this is a plausible hypothesis, that makes it more probable that the leaks continue. To
say nothing about possible damaging revelations about Bill (especially related to Clinton Foundation),
who really enjoyed his retirement way too much.
Those who vote for Hillary for the sake of stability need to be reminded that according to
the Minsky Theory stability sometimes can be very destabilizing
When Krugman is appointed to a top government post by Hillary Clinton we will be able to FOIA
his pay and attach a value to all the columns "electioneering" Krugman has written.
likbez -> anne...
Anne,
"An intolerably destructive essay that should never have been posted, and I assume no
such essay will be posted again on this blog. Shameful, shameful essay."
You mean that voting for the female warmonger with some psychopathic tendencies ("We came,
we saw, he died") is not shameful ?
An interesting approach I would say.
I am not fun of Trump, but he, at least, does not have the blood of innocent women and children
on his hands. And less likely to start WWIII unlike this completely out of control warmonger.
With the number of victims of wars of neoliberal empire expansion in Iraq, Libya and Syria,
you should be ashamed of yourself as a women.
Please think about your current position Anne. You really should be ashamed.
"... which may be the story one wishes for. But if there were a spread to compare her win against, it was Bernie who massively beat the spread. I'll leave it as an exercise to others to determine if her unfair advantages were as large as the winning margin. ..."
"... He makes a good point and you dismiss it. You bashed Bernie Sanders and "Bernie Bros" during the primary. Then you lie about it. That's why you're the worst. Dishonest as hell. ..."
"... Remember one thing anne, America is not a country. It is an idea. You cannot arrest it, murder it, or pretend it isn't there. We as a people are not perfect. But Mr Putin is stabbing directly at our democracy, not Hillary Clinton and not Paul Krugman. Time to be a little more objective, of which you are even more capable of than me. ..."
"... It is not exactly McCarthyism as stated (although kthomas with his previous Putin comments looks like a modern day McCarthyist). I think this is a pretty clear formulation of the credo of American Exceptionalism -- a flavor of nationalism adapted to the realities of the new continent. ..."
"... And Robert Kagan explained it earlier much better ... I wonder if Victoria Nuland and Dick Cheney vote for Hillary too. ..."
"...Mrs. Clinton won the Democratic nomination fairly easily..."
which may be the story one wishes for. But if there were a spread to compare her win against,
it was Bernie who massively beat the spread. I'll leave it as an exercise to others to determine
if her unfair advantages were as large as the winning margin.
"Why do people like you pretend to love Sen Sanders so much!?"
Why do you say he is pretending? What did he write to make you think that?
Are you just a dishonest troll centrist totebagger like PGL.
Peter K. -> to pgl...
What does that have to do with anything?
He makes a good point and you dismiss it. You bashed Bernie Sanders and "Bernie Bros" during
the primary. Then you lie about it. That's why you're the worst. Dishonest as hell. Are most
New Yorkers as dishonest as you, Trump, Guiliani, Christie, etc?
No. I am a fan of Sen Sanders, and not even he would believe your nonsense. History will not remember
it that way. What it will remember is how Putin Comrade meddled. And there is a price for that.
Sen Sanders wanted one, stated thing: to push the narrative to the left. He marginally accomplished
this. What he did succeed in was providing an opportunity for false-lefties like you and Mr Putin
who seem to think that America is the root of all evil.
Remember one thing anne, America is not a country. It is an idea. You cannot arrest it,
murder it, or pretend it isn't there. We as a people are not perfect. But Mr Putin is stabbing
directly at our democracy, not Hillary Clinton and not Paul Krugman. Time to be a little more
objective, of which you are even more capable of than me.
Sen Sanders wanted one stated thing: to push the narrative to the left. He marginally accomplished
this. What he did succeed in was providing an opportunity for false-lefties like --- and -- -----
who seem to think that America is the root of all evil....
[ Better to assume such an awful comment was never written, but the McCarthy-like tone to a
particular campaign has been disturbing and could prove lasting. ]
It is not exactly McCarthyism as stated (although kthomas with his previous Putin comments
looks like a modern day McCarthyist). I think this is a pretty clear formulation of the credo
of American Exceptionalism -- a flavor of nationalism adapted to the realities of the new continent.
BS, a remarkable.
No, I am sure he will be remembered more than that.
Bernard Sanders, last romantic politician to run his campaign on an average of $37 from 3,284,421
donations (or whatever Obama said at The Dinner). Remarkable but ineffectual. A good orator in
empty houses means he was practicing, not performing.
Why does Obama succeed and Sanders fail? Axelrod and co.
Peter K. -> cal... , -1
He was written off by the like of Krugman, PGL, you, KThomas etc.
He won what 13 million votes. Young people overwhelmingly voted for Sanders. He won New Hampshire,
Colorado, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon, etc. etc. etc. And now the "unromantic"
complacent people have to lie about the campaign.
Its from World Socialist Web Site by thier analysys
does contain some valid points. Especially about betrayal of nomenklatura, and, especially, KGB nomenklatura,which was wholesale bought
by the USA for cash.
Note that the author is unable or unwilling to use the tterm "neoliberalism". Looks like orthodox Marxism has problem with this
notion as it contradict Marxism dogma that capitalism as an economic doctrine is final stage before arrival of socialism. Looks like
it is not the final ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... Russia Since 1980 ..."
"... History reveals that the grandsons of the Bolshevik coup d'état didn't destroy the Soviet Union in a valiant effort to advance the cause of communist prosperity or even to return to their common European home; instead, it transformed Soviet managers and ministers into roving bandits (asset-grabbing privateers) with a tacit presidential charter to privatize the people's assets and revenues to themselves under the new Muscovite rule of men ..."
"... The scale of this plunder was astounding. It not only bankrupted the Soviet Union, forcing Russian President Boris Yeltsin to appeal to the G-7 for $6 billion of assistance on December 6, 1991, but triggered a free fall in aggregate production commencing in 1990, aptly known as catastroika. ..."
"... In retrospect, the Soviet economy didn't collapse because the liberalized command economy devised after 1953 was marked for death. The system was inefficient, corrupt and reprehensible in a myriad of ways, but sustainable, as the CIA and most Sovietologists maintained. It was destroyed by Gorbachev's tolerance and complicity in allowing privateers to misappropriate state revenues, pilfer materials, spontaneously privatize, and hotwire their ill-gotten gains abroad, all of which disorganized production. ..."
"... The rapid growth and increasing complexity of the Soviet economy required access to the resources of the world economy. ..."
"... For the Soviet bureaucracy, a parasitic social caste committed to the defense of its privileges and terrified of the working class, the revolutionary solution to the contradictions of the Soviet economy was absolutely unthinkable. The only course that it could contemplate was the second-capitulation to imperialism. ..."
"... In other words, the integration of the USSR into the structure of the world capitalist economy on a capitalist basis means not the slow development of a backward national economy, but the rapid destruction of one which has sustained living conditions which are, at least for the working class, far closer to those that exist in the advanced countries than in the third world. ..."
"... The Fourth International ..."
"... The End of the USSR, ..."
"... The report related the destruction of the USSR by the ruling bureaucracy to a broader international phenomenon. The smashing up of the USSR was mirrored in the United States by the destruction of the trade unions as even partial instruments of working-class defense. ..."
"... Millions of people are going to see imperialism for what it really is. The democratic mask is going to be torn off. The idea that imperialism is compatible with peace is going to be exposed. The very elements which drove masses into revolutionary struggle in the past are once again present. The workers of Russia and the Ukraine are going to be reminded why they made a revolution in the first place. The American workers are going to be reminded why they themselves in an earlier period engaged in the most massive struggles against the corporations. The workers of Europe are going to be reminded why their continent was the birthplace of socialism and Karl Marx. [p. 25] ..."
This analysis has been vindicated by scholarly investigations into the causes of the Soviet economic collapse that facilitated
the bureaucracy's dissolution of the USSR. In Russia Since 1980, published in 2008 by Cambridge University Press, Professors
Steven Rosefielde and Stefan Hedlund present evidence that Gorbachev introduced measures that appear, in retrospect, to have been
aimed at sabotaging the Soviet economy. "Gorbachev and his entourage," they write, "seem to have had a venal hidden agenda that caused
things to get out of hand quickly." [p. 38] In a devastating appraisal of Gorbachev's policies, Rosefielde and Hedlund state:
History reveals that the grandsons of the Bolshevik coup d'état didn't destroy the Soviet Union in a valiant effort to advance
the cause of communist prosperity or even to return to their common European home; instead, it transformed Soviet managers and ministers
into roving bandits (asset-grabbing privateers) with a tacit presidential charter to privatize the people's assets and revenues to
themselves under the new Muscovite rule of men. [p. 40]
Instead of displaying due diligence over personal use of state revenues, materials and property, inculcated in every Bolshevik
since 1917, Gorbachev winked at a counterrevolution from below opening Pandora's Box. He allowed enterprises and others not only
to profit maximize for the state in various ways, which was beneficial, but also to misappropriate state assets, and export the proceeds
abroad. In the process, red directors disregarded state contracts and obligations, disorganizing inter-industrial intermediate input
flows, and triggering a depression from which the Soviet Union never recovered and Russia has barely emerged. [p. 47]
Given all the heated debates that would later ensue about how Yeltsin and his shock therapy engendered mass plunder, it should
be noted that the looting began under Gorbachev's watch. It was his malign neglect that transformed the rhetoric of Market Communism
into the pillage of the nation's assets.
The scale of this plunder was astounding. It not only bankrupted the Soviet Union, forcing Russian President Boris Yeltsin
to appeal to the G-7 for $6 billion of assistance on December 6, 1991, but triggered a free fall in aggregate production commencing
in 1990, aptly known as catastroika.
In retrospect, the Soviet economy didn't collapse because the liberalized command economy devised after 1953 was marked for
death. The system was inefficient, corrupt and reprehensible in a myriad of ways, but sustainable, as the CIA and most Sovietologists
maintained. It was destroyed by Gorbachev's tolerance and complicity in allowing privateers to misappropriate state revenues, pilfer
materials, spontaneously privatize, and hotwire their ill-gotten gains abroad, all of which disorganized production. [p. 49]
The analysis of Rosefielde and Hedlund, while accurate in its assessment of Gorbachev's actions, is simplistic. Gorbachev's policies
can be understood only within the framework of more fundamental political and socioeconomic factors. First, and most important, the
real objective crisis of the Soviet economy (which existed and preceded by many decades the accession of Gorbachev to power) developed
out of the contradictions of the autarkic nationalist policies pursued by the Soviet regime since Stalin and Bukharin introduced
the program of "socialism in one country" in 1924. The rapid growth and increasing complexity of the Soviet economy required
access to the resources of the world economy. This access could be achieved only in one of two ways: either through the spread
of socialist revolution into the advanced capitalist countries, or through the counterrevolutionary integration of the USSR into
the economic structures of world capitalism.
For the Soviet bureaucracy, a parasitic social caste committed to the defense of its privileges and terrified of the working
class, the revolutionary solution to the contradictions of the Soviet economy was absolutely unthinkable. The only course that it
could contemplate was the second-capitulation to imperialism. This second course, moreover, opened for the leading sections
of the bureaucracy the possibility of permanently securing their privileges and vastly expanding their wealth. The privileged caste
would become a ruling class. The corruption of Gorbachev, Yeltsin and their associates was merely the necessary means employed by
the bureaucracy to achieve this utterly reactionary and immensely destructive outcome.
On October 3, 1991, less than three months before the dissolution of the USSR, I delivered a lecture in Kiev in which I challenged
the argument-which was widely propagated by the Stalinist regime-that the restoration of capitalism would bring immense benefits
to the people. I stated:
In this country, capitalist restoration can only take place on the basis of the widespread destruction of the already existing
productive forces and the social- cultural institutions that depended upon them. In other words, the integration of the USSR
into the structure of the world capitalist economy on a capitalist basis means not the slow development of a backward national economy,
but the rapid destruction of one which has sustained living conditions which are, at least for the working class, far closer to those
that exist in the advanced countries than in the third world. When one examines the various schemes hatched by proponents of
capitalist restoration, one cannot but conclude that they are no less ignorant than Stalin of the real workings of the world capitalist
economy. And they are preparing the ground for a social tragedy that will eclipse that produced by the pragmatic and nationalistic
policies of Stalin. ["Soviet Union at the Crossroads," published in The Fourth International (Fall- Winter 1992, Volume
19, No. 1, p. 109), Emphasis in the original.]
Almost exactly 20 years ago, on January 4, 1992, the Workers League held a party membership meeting in Detroit to consider the
historical, political and social implications of the dissolution of the USSR. Rereading this report so many years later, I believe
that it has stood the test of time. It stated that the dissolution of the USSR "represents the juridical liquidation of the workers'
state and its replacement with regimes that are openly and unequivocally devoted to the destruction of the remnants of the national
economy and the planning system that issued from the October Revolution. To define the CIS [Confederation of Independent States]
or its independent republics as workers states would be to completely separate the definition from the concrete content which it
expressed during the previous period." [David North, The End of the USSR, Labor Publications, 1992, p. 6]
The report continued:
"A revolutionary party must face reality and state what is. The Soviet working class has suffered a serious defeat. The bureaucracy
has devoured the workers state before the working class was able to clean out the bureaucracy. This fact, however unpleasant, does
not refute the perspective of the Fourth International. Since it was founded in 1938, our movement has repeatedly said that if the
working class was not able to destroy this bureaucracy, then the Soviet Union would suffer a shipwreck. Trotsky did not call for
political revolution as some sort of exaggerated response to this or that act of bureaucratic malfeasance. He said that a political
revolution was necessary because only in that way could the Soviet Union, as a workers state, be defended against imperialism." [p.
6]
I sought to explain why the Soviet working class had failed to rise up in opposition to the bureaucracy's liquidation of the Soviet
Union. How was it possible that the destruction of the Soviet Union-having survived the horrors of the Nazi invasion-could be carried
out "by a miserable group of petty gangsters, acting in the interests of the scum of Soviet society?" I offered the following answer:
We must reply to these questions by stressing the implications of the massive destruction of revolutionary cadre carried out within
the Soviet Union by the Stalinist regime. Virtually all the human representatives of the revolutionary tradition who consciously
prepared and led that revolution were wiped out. And along with the political leaders of the revolution, the most creative representatives
of the intelligentsia who had flourished in the early years of the Soviet state were also annihilated or terrorized into silence.
Furthermore, we must point to the deep-going alienation of the working class itself from state property. Property belonged to
the state, but the state "belonged" to the bureaucracy, as Trotsky noted. The fundamental distinction between state property and
bourgeois property-however important from a theoretical standpoint-became less and less relevant from a practical standpoint. It
is true that capitalist exploitation did not exist in the scientific sense of the term, but that did not alter the fact that the
day-to-day conditions of life in factories and mines and other workplaces were as miserable as are to be found in any of the advanced
capitalist countries, and, in many cases, far worse.
Finally, we must consider the consequences of the protracted decay of the international socialist movement...
Especially during the past decade, the collapse of effective working class resistance in any part of the world to the bourgeois
offensive had a demoralizing effect on Soviet workers. Capitalism assumed an aura of "invincibility," although this aura was merely
the illusory reflection of the spinelessness of the labor bureaucracies all over the world, which have on every occasion betrayed
the workers and capitulated to the bourgeoisie. What the Soviet workers saw was not the bitter resistance of sections of workers
to the international offensive of capital, but defeats and their consequences. [p. 13-14]
The report related the destruction of the USSR by the ruling bureaucracy to a broader international phenomenon. The smashing
up of the USSR was mirrored in the United States by the destruction of the trade unions as even partial instruments of working-class
defense.
In every part of the world, including the advanced countries, the workers are discovering that their own parties and their own
trade union organizations are engaged in the related task of systematically lowering and impoverishing the working class. [p. 22]
Finally, the report dismissed any notion that the dissolution of the USSR signified a new era of progressive capitalist development.
Millions of people are going to see imperialism for what it really is. The democratic mask is going to be torn off. The idea
that imperialism is compatible with peace is going to be exposed. The very elements which drove masses into revolutionary struggle
in the past are once again present. The workers of Russia and the Ukraine are going to be reminded why they made a revolution in
the first place. The American workers are going to be reminded why they themselves in an earlier period engaged in the most massive
struggles against the corporations. The workers of Europe are going to be reminded why their continent was the birthplace of socialism
and Karl Marx. [p. 25]
The aftermath of the dissolution of the USSR: 20 years of economic crisis, social decay, and political reaction
According to liberal theory, the dissolution of the Soviet Union ought to have produced a new flowering of democracy. Of course,
nothing of the sort occurred-not in the former USSR or, for that matter, in the United States. Moreover, the breakup of the Soviet
Union-the so-called defeat of communism-was not followed by a triumphant resurgence of its irreconcilable enemies in the international
workers' movement, the social democratic and reformist trade unions and political parties. The opposite occurred. All these organizations
experienced, in the aftermath of the breakup of the USSR, a devastating and even terminal crisis. In the United States, the trade
union movement-whose principal preoccupation during the entire Cold War had been the defeat of Communism-has all but collapsed. During
the two decades that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, the AFL-CIO lost a substantial portion of its membership, was reduced
to a state of utter impotence, and ceased to exist as a workers' organization in any socially significant sense of the term. At the
same time, everywhere in the world, the social position of the working class-from the standpoint of its influence on the direction
of state policy and its ability to increase its share of the surplus value produced by its own labor-deteriorated dramatically.
Certain important conclusions flow from this fact. First, the breakup of the Soviet Union did not flow from the supposed failure
of Marxism and socialism. If that had been the case, the anti-Marxist and antisocialist labor organizations should have thrived in
the post-Soviet era. The fact that these organizations experienced ignominious failure compels one to uncover the common feature
in the program and orientation of all the so-called labor organizations, "communist" and anticommunist alike. What was the common
element in the political DNA of all these organization? The answer is that regardless of their names, conflicting political alignments
and superficial ideological differences, the large labor organizations of the post-World War II period pursued essentially nationalist
policies. They tied the fate of the working class to one or another nation-state. This left them incapable of responding to the increasing
integration of the world economy. The emergence of transnational corporations and the associated phenomena of capitalist globalization
shattered all labor organizations that based themselves on a nationalist program.
The second conclusion is that the improvement of conditions of the international working class was linked, to one degree or another,
to the existence of the Soviet Union. Despite the treachery and crimes of the Stalinist bureaucracy, the existence of the USSR, a
state that arose on the basis of a socialist revolution, imposed upon American and European imperialism certain political and social
restraints that would otherwise have been unacceptable. The political environment of the past two decades-characterized by unrestrained
imperialist militarism, the violations of international law, and the repudiation of essential principles of bourgeois democracy-is
the direct outcome of the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
The breakup of the USSR was, for the great masses of its former citizens, an unmitigated disaster. Twenty years after the October
Revolution, despite all the political crimes of the Stalinist regime, the new property relations established in the aftermath of
the October Revolution made possible an extraordinary social transformation of backward Russia. And even after suffering horrifying
losses during the four years of war with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union experienced in the 20 years that followed the war a stupendous
growth of its economy, which was accompanied by advances in science and culture that astonished the entire world.
But what is the verdict on the post-Soviet experience of the Russian people? First and foremost, the dissolution of the USSR set
into motion a demographic catastrophe. Ten years after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Russian population was shrinking at an
annual rate of 750,000. Between 1983 and 2001, the number of annual births dropped by one half. 75 percent of pregnant women in Russia
suffered some form of illness that endangered their unborn child. Only one quarter of infants were born healthy.
The overall health of the Russian people deteriorated dramatically after the restoration of capitalism. There was a staggering
rise in alcoholism, heart disease, cancer and sexually transmitted diseases. All this occurred against the backdrop of a catastrophic
breakdown of the economy of the former USSR and a dramatic rise in mass poverty.
As for democracy, the post-Soviet system was consolidated on the basis of mass murder. For more than 70 years, the Bolshevik regime's
dissolution of the Constituent Assembly in January 1918-an event that did not entail the loss of a single life-was trumpeted as an
unforgettable and unforgivable violation of democratic principles. But in October 1993, having lost a majority in the popularly elected
parliament, the Yeltsin regime ordered the bombardment of the White House-the seat of the Russian parliament-located in the middle
of Moscow. Estimates of the number of people who were killed in the military assault run as high as 2,000. On the basis of this carnage,
the Yeltsin regime was effectively transformed into a dictatorship, based on the military and security forces. The regime of Putin-Medvedev
continues along the same dictatorial lines. The assault on the White House was supported by the Clinton administration. Unlike the
dissolution of the Constituent Assembly, the bombardment of the Russian parliament is an event that has been all but forgotten.
What is there to be said of post-Soviet Russian culture? As always, there are talented people who do their best to produce serious
work. But the general picture is one of desolation. The words that have emerged from the breakup of the USSR and that define modern
Russian culture, or what is left of it, are "mafia," "biznessman" and "oligarch."
What has occurred in Russia is only an extreme expression of a social and cultural breakdown that is to be observed in all capitalist
countries. Can it even be said with certainty that the economic system devised in Russia is more corrupt that that which exists in
Britain or the United States? The Russian oligarchs are probably cruder and more vulgar in the methods they employ. However, the
argument could be plausibly made that their methods of plunder are less efficient than those employed by their counterparts in the
summits of American finance. After all, the American financial oligarchs, whose speculative operations brought about the near-collapse
of the US and global economy in the autumn of 2008, were able to orchestrate, within a matter of days, the transfer of the full burden
of their losses to the public.
It is undoubtedly true that the dissolution of the USSR at the end of 1991 opened up endless opportunities for the use of American
power-in the Balkans, the Middle East and Central Asia. But the eruption of American militarism was, in the final analysis, the expression
of a more profound and historically significant tendency-the long-term decline of the economic position of American capitalism. This
tendency was not reversed by the breakup of the USSR. The history of American capitalism during the past two decades has been one
of decay. The brief episodes of economic growth have been based on reckless and unsustainable speculation. The Clinton boom of the
1990s was fueled by the "irrational exuberance" of Wall Street speculation, the so-called dot.com bubble. The great corporate icons
of the decade-of which Enron was the shining symbol-were assigned staggering valuations on the basis of thoroughly criminal operations.
It all collapsed in 2000-2001. The subsequent revival was fueled by frenzied speculation in housing. And, finally, the collapse in
2008, from which there has been no recovery.
When historians begin to recover from their intellectual stupor, they will see the collapse of the USSR and the protracted decline
of American capitalism as interrelated episodes of a global crisis, arising from the inability to develop the massive productive
forces developed by mankind on the basis of private ownership of the means of production and within the framework of the nation-state
system.
Kind of like Obama's gift of mandated health insurance
coverage given to a health insurance industry that is
consolidating more and more every day...and becoming an
oligopoly?
Of course, we already know how this ends from
privatization of retirement plans in Britain and in
Chile--it's a boon mainly to the finance industry.
"Britain's experience with individual accounts has been
troubling. None other than the business oriented Wall
Street Journal, in fact, headlined an article on the
British experience: "Social Security Switch in U.K. is
Disastrous; A Caution to the U.S.?"[7] While the Journal
article mainly focused on a multi-billion dollar fraud
scandal in which British pension sellers gave workers bad
investment advice, others have critically noted the
system's unexpectedly high administrative costs and the
growing income inequality among the nation's workers"
http://www.eoionline.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/social-security/PensionPrivatizationBritainBoondoggle-Sep00.pdf
What else would you expect from the Clintons, who have
spent a good part of their careers sucking up to the
finance industry?
"... Much of the content of these speeches to U.S. bankers dealt with foreign policy, and virtually all of that with warfare, potential warfare, and opportunities for military-led domination of various regions of the globe. This stuff is more interesting and less insultingly presented than the idiocies spewed out at the public presidential debates. But it also fits an image of U.S. policy that Clinton might have preferred to keep private. Just as nobody advertised that, as emails now show, Wall Street bankers helped pick President Obama's cabinet, we're generally discouraged from thinking that wars and foreign bases are intended as services to financial overlords. "I'm representing all of you," Clinton says to the bankers in reference to her efforts at a meeting in Asia. Sub-Saharan Africa has great potential for U.S. "businesses and entrepreneurs," she says in reference to U.S. militarism there. ..."
"... "We're going to ring China with missile 'defense,'" Clinton tells Goldman Sachs. "We're going to put more of our fleet in the area." ..."
"... In public debates, Clinton demands a "no fly zone" or "no bombing zone" or "safe zone" in Syria, from which to organize a war to overthrow the government. In a speech to Goldman Sachs, however, she blurts out that creating such a zone would require bombing a lot more populated areas than was required in Libya. ..."
"... Clinton also makes clear that Syrian "jihadists" are being funded by Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar. In October 2013, as the U.S. public had rejected bombing Syria, Blankfein asked if the public was now opposed to "interventions" - that clearly being understood as a hurdle to be overcome. Clinton said not to fear. "We're in a time in Syria," she said, "where they're not finished killing each other . . . and maybe you just have to wait and watch it." ..."
"... Regarding China again, Clinton claims to have told the Chinese that the United States could claim ownership of the entire Pacific as a result of having "liberated it." She goes on to claim to have told them that "We discovered Japan for heaven's sake." And: "We have proof of having bought [Hawaii]." Really? From whom? ..."
"... it's fascinating that even the bankers in whom Clinton confides her militarist mania ask her identical questions to those I get asked by peace activists at speaking events: "Is the U.S. political system completely broken?" "Should we scrap this and go with a parliamentary system?" ..."
In the speech transcripts from June 4, 2013, October 29, 2013, and October 19, 2015, Clinton was
apparently paid sufficiently to do something she denies most audiences. That is, she took questions
that it appears likely she was not secretly briefed on or engaged in negotiations over ahead of time.
In part this appears to be the case because some of the questions were lengthy speeches, and in part
because her answers were not all the sort of meaningless platitudes that she produces if given time
to prepare.
Much of the content of these speeches to U.S. bankers dealt with foreign policy, and
virtually all of that with warfare, potential warfare, and opportunities for military-led domination
of various regions of the globe. This stuff is more interesting and less insultingly presented than
the idiocies spewed out at the public presidential debates. But it also fits an image of U.S. policy
that Clinton might have preferred to keep private. Just as nobody advertised that, as emails now
show, Wall Street bankers helped pick President Obama's cabinet, we're generally discouraged from
thinking that wars and foreign bases are intended as services to financial overlords. "I'm representing
all of you," Clinton says to the bankers in reference to her efforts at a meeting in Asia. Sub-Saharan
Africa has great potential for U.S. "businesses and entrepreneurs," she says in reference to U.S.
militarism there.
Yet, in these speeches, Clinton projects exactly that approach, accurately or not, on other nations
and accuses China of just the sort of thing that her "far left" critics accuse her of all the time,
albeit outside the censorship of U.S. corporate media. China, Clinton says, may use hatred of Japan
as a means of distracting Chinese people from unpopular and harmful economic policies. China, Clinton
says, struggles to maintain civilian control over its military. Hmm. Where else have we seen these
problems?
"We're going to ring China with missile 'defense,'" Clinton tells Goldman Sachs. "We're going
to put more of our fleet in the area."
On Syria, Clinton says it's hard to figure out whom to arm - completely oblivious to any options
other than arming somebody. It's hard, she says, to predict at all what will happen. So, her advice,
which she blurts out to a room of bankers, is to wage war in Syria very "covertly."
In public debates, Clinton demands a "no fly zone" or "no bombing zone" or "safe zone" in Syria,
from which to organize a war to overthrow the government. In a speech to Goldman Sachs, however,
she blurts out that creating such a zone would require bombing a lot more populated areas than was
required in Libya. "You're going to kill a lot of Syrians," she admits. She even tries to distance
herself from the proposal by referring to "this intervention that people talk about so glibly" -
although she, before and at the time of that speech and ever since has been the leading such person.
Clinton also makes clear that Syrian "jihadists" are being funded by Saudi Arabia, UAE, and Qatar.
In October 2013, as the U.S. public had rejected bombing Syria, Blankfein asked if the public was
now opposed to "interventions" - that clearly being understood as a hurdle to be overcome. Clinton
said not to fear. "We're in a time in Syria," she said, "where they're not finished killing each
other . . . and maybe you just have to wait and watch it."
That's the view of many ill-meaning and many well-meaning people who have been persuaded that
the only two choices in foreign policy are bombing people and doing nothing. That clearly is the
understanding of the former Secretary of State, whose positions were more hawkish than those of her
counterpart at the Pentagon. It's also reminiscent of Harry Truman's comment that if the Germans
were winning you should help the Russians and vice versa, so that more people would die. That's not
exactly what Clinton said here, but it's pretty close, and it's something she would not say in a
scripted joint-media-appearance masquerading as a debate. The possibility of disarmament, nonviolent
peacework, actual aid on a massive scale, and respectful diplomacy that leaves U.S. influence out
of the resulting states is just not on Clinton's radar no matter who is in her audience.
On Iran, Clinton repeatedly hypes false claims about nuclear weapons and terrorism, even while
admitting far more openly than we're used to that Iran's religious leader denounces and opposes nuclear
weapons. She also admits that Saudi Arabia is already pursuing nuclear weapons and that UAE and Egypt
are likely to do so, at least if Iran does. She also admits that the Saudi government is far from
stable.
Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein asks Clinton at one point how a good war against Iran might
go - he suggesting that an occupation (yes, they use that forbidden word) might not be the best move.
Clinton replies that Iran can just be bombed. Blankfein, rather shockingly, appeals to reality -
something Clinton goes on at obnoxious length about elsewhere in these speeches. Has bombing a population
into submission ever worked, Blankfein asks. Clinton admits that it has not but suggests that it
just might work on Iranians because they are not democratic.
Regarding Egypt, Clinton makes clear her opposition to popular change.
Regarding China again, Clinton claims to have told the Chinese that the United States could claim
ownership of the entire Pacific as a result of having "liberated it." She goes on to claim to have
told them that "We discovered Japan for heaven's sake." And: "We have proof of having bought [Hawaii]."
Really? From whom?
This is ugly stuff, at least as damaging to human lives as the filth coming from Donald Trump.
Yet it's fascinating that even the bankers in whom Clinton confides her militarist mania ask her
identical questions to those I get asked by peace activists at speaking events: "Is the U.S. political
system completely broken?" "Should we scrap this and go with a parliamentary system?"
Et cetera.
In part their concern is the supposed gridlock created by differences between the two big parties,
whereas my biggest concern is the militarized destruction of people and the environment that never
seems to encounter even a slight traffic slowdown in Congress. But if you imagine that the people
Bernie Sanders always denounces as taking home all the profits are happy with the status quo, think
again. They benefit in certain ways, but they don't control their monster and it doesn't make them
feel fulfilled.
Hillary Clinton is a secret sex freak who paid fixers to set up illicit romps
with both men AND women!
That's the blockbuster revelation from a former Clinton family operative who is sensationally
breaking ranks with his one-time bosses to speak to The National ENQUIRER in a bombshell
9-page cover story - on newsstands Wednesday.
"I arranged a meeting for Hillary and a woman in an exclusive Beverly Hills hotel," the man,
who was hired by the Clintons, via a Hollywood executive, to cover up their scandals, told
The ENQUIRER .
"She had come to the studio to see the filming of a movie in 1994."
"While I was there, I helped her slip out of a back exit for a one-on-one session with the other
woman. It was made to look casual, leaving quietly [rather] that being caught up in the melee but
really it was for something presumably more sordid."
What's more, it wasn't just Hillary's flings with women that the shadowy Mr. Fix It helped to
orchestrate! Hillary's former bagman finally confessed to The ENQUIRER just how
he helped her to cover up her affair with married lover Vince Foster
, too!
The shadowy figure - who provided PROOF of his employment for the Clintons - also revealed 12
fixes he covered-up, including:
+ How Hillary secretly plotted to a counter-attack on Bill's mistress Monica
Lewinsky - via a document
buried for two decades!
+ What crooked reporters were on the take from the Clinton camp!
+ How he covered up Bill's seedy romp with hookers!
+ Which A-list celebrity had a secret affair with Bill during his presidency!
"... The news was released that Hillarnazi had lesbian lovers, paid for sexual encounters, has had memory issues so severe going
back to 2009 that her own people aren't sure if she knows what planet she is on, can't walk without getting massively fatigued, a new
rape victim came forward, the Clinton Foundation stole over $2 billion in Haitian relief funds, the Clinton Foundation has a pay gap
between men and women of $190,000 and she referred to blacks repeatedly as the dreaded "n" word . ..."
"... Again, that is from YESTERDAY Yet there has been no movement in the polls. She is the most criminal and unethical candidate
in the history of America, and is likely to win. There is no greater indictment about our citizens than her candidacy. if thise was
1920, she would be in front of a firing squad. ..."
"... But we have 2016. This is not breaking news at the main media outlets. Only people actively digging know this. All this pales
in comparison with the fact of bussing people around different states to vote. If elections can be rigged then nothing else actually
matters. Nothing will change because the only tool to repair the country is the election. ..."
"... The ballot box is not the last remedy to fix things. Just saying. Voting is more to bring you into the system than you changing
the system. What better way to keep you happy inside the system than to give you the ability to "vote the bums out" at the next (s)election?
..."
"... Europe is also facing the problem of not enough breeding to keep up the exponential expansion of their currency (debt issued
with interest) so they import people to keep the ponzi going. Not going to work as the people you bring in are not going to be expanding
it at the rate that someone born into that system is going to. ..."
"... Sucks to be them - the humillatiion and embarrassment of the cockroaches as they all scurry for cover. Not to mention the career
nose-dives en masse for all the selfsame scum floating around the turd herself. I'm surprised Hillary hasn't told Podesta to eat a bullet
(or nail-gun) yet, given the damage he has caused by being hacked. Err...rewind, eh Hillary? Because it is not as if you are an angel
in this respect, you dumb fucking senile cunt. ..."
"... Neocons are IT illiterate, and this must be their primary weakness, given how fucking useless they are at securing their insidious
evil shit (now in the public domain - eh, Poddy, old chum, you evil CUNT). It must be a fucking disease given how utterly bereft of
intelligence with respect to IT security they collectively are. ..."
"... It definitely sucks to be Hillary when even the help knows you're crooked. It sucks to be the help too. HILLARY FOR PRISON
2017!!!! ..."
"... As if. Former Lousiana Governor Edwin Edwards in 1983 said "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed with
either a dead girl or a live boy." In 2016, neither of those conditions is a bar to election to the presidency. ..."
"... Evidently the rats have been assured the ship isn't sinking. Besides it's insured if crossing is successful. ..."
"... Americans have the attention span of a gnat these days. The hypocrisy is stunning and has no bounds. ..."
"... The best part of waking up is realizing that TPTB had been pissing in our cup while we weren't looking. ..."
"... Another body to add to the Clinton Death List, this time the doctor who treated her for a concussion and knew about her glioma.
A devout Hindu, this doctor supposedly committed suicide after threatening to reveal Hillary medical information if prosecutors continued
to go after him for bogus criminal charges. http://www.govtslaves.info/clinton-doctor-who-confirmed-hillarys-brain-t... ..."
"... Neera Tanden must be suicidal by now. She probably doesn't even realise it yet. ..."
"... I was thinking the same thing. With so many on the "team" having such critical positions on their own "leader", why the fuck
are they supporting her, and why do they still have jobs? ..."
"... Power. Money. The belief that they will be able to run things themselves once she goes full brain clot. One thing I do know,
Hillary would be very unwise to let any of them pick her nursing home for her. ..."
"... Neera Tanden: "It worries me more that she doesn't seem to know what planet we are all living in at the moment." https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18353
..."
"... I imagine cankle's inner circle are gobling a lot off drugs about now. Their paranoia is no doubt palpable. I hope they devour
one another. ..."
"... It ain't just the US where free press is extinct. Had Wiki dropped the lot, it would simply have sunk without a trace with
respect to the MSM reporting it to the sheeple, as we have seen in the last 12 days. ..."
"... Free Shit and open borders and speaking well while lying. The stupidity of the average person, particularly those who only
get their news from the corporate controlled media, is fuckin' amazing. Only a military coup could hunt down and arrest the Deep State...
The Kagans and Powers and Jarretts and every cunt who has given HRC money. ..."
"... Short of a coup, massive desertion would be very helpful. ..."
"... you hit the nail on the head - "speaking well while lying". Middle class English people speak very well - appear attractive
to Americans - when in fact they have zero monopoly on honesty, brains or ability ..."
"... just because someone speaks well does not mean they are legal, decent, honest and truthful - in fact clinton fails on all four
of these positives and is illegal, indecent, crooked and a liar ..."
"... The no fly zone doesn't like questions not preprogrammed. I hope his brother gets a chance to rip Obama a new asshole. ..."
"... rule by criminals REQUIRES deep knowledge and primary experience with criminal exploits. She is the ONLY candidate who is qualified
to run Gov-Co. ..."
"... Comey is a Dirty Cop – Former US Attorney. How Crooked Clinton Got Off. ..."
"... Juan Williams email to John Podesta found here: https://twitter.com/hashtag/DrainTheSwamp?src=hash ..."
"... How does it feel working for a total scumbag just to get a paycheck? ..."
The latest WikiLeaks dump reveals yet another bombshell from the outspoken, an likely soon to be unemployed, Neera Tanden.
The email chain comes from March of this year and begins when Neera distributes a memo on proposals for reform policies
relative to bribery and corruption of public officials . That said, apparently the folks within the Hillary campaign were
aware that this was a very dicey topic for their chosen candidate as even Tanden admits " she may be so tainted she's really
vulnerable. "
Meanwhile, Hillary advisor Jake Sullivan provided his thoughts that he really liked the following proposal on strengthening bribery
laws...
"Strengthen bribery laws to ensure that politicians don' change legislation for political donations."
...but subsequently admits that it might be problematic given Hillary's history.
"The second idea is a favorite of mine, as you know, but REALLY dicey territory for HRC, right?"
Even a month before these internal campaign discussions, Stan Greenberg, a democrat strategist of Democracy Corps, wrote to Podesta
highlighting that "reform of money and politics is where she is taking the biggest hit." That said, Stan was quick
to assure Podesta that there was no reason for concern as a specially crafted message and a little help from the media could make
the whole problem go away.
"We are also going to test some messages that include acknowledgement of being part of the system , and know how much
has to change. "
Finally, perhaps no one has better summarized why the Clinton camp may be worried about corruption charges than Obama:
The news was released that Hillarnazi had lesbian lovers, paid for sexual encounters, has had memory issues so severe going
back to 2009 that her own people aren't sure if she knows what planet she is on, can't walk without getting massively fatigued,
a new rape victim came forward, the Clinton Foundation stole over $2 billion in Haitian relief funds, the Clinton Foundation has
a
pay gap between men and women of $190,000 and
she referred to blacks repeatedly as the dreaded "n" word .
Again, that is from YESTERDAY Yet there has been no movement in the polls. She is the most criminal and unethical candidate
in the history of America, and is likely to win. There is no greater indictment about our citizens than her candidacy. if thise
was 1920, she would be in front of a firing squad.
But we have 2016. This is not breaking news at the main media outlets. Only people actively digging know this. All this pales
in comparison with the fact of bussing people around different states to vote. If elections can be rigged then nothing else actually
matters. Nothing will change because the only tool to repair the country is the election.
The ballot box is not the last remedy to fix things. Just saying. Voting is more to bring you into the system than you changing
the system. What better way to keep you happy inside the system than to give you the ability to "vote the bums out" at the next
(s)election?
Europe is also facing the problem of not enough breeding to keep up the exponential expansion of their currency (debt issued
with interest) so they import people to keep the ponzi going. Not going to work as the people you bring in are not going to be
expanding it at the rate that someone born into that system is going to.
But, it is a plausible explanation for why they are trying it. The moneychangers have their very lives depending on keeping
this going, so they have to try it.
All I know is, most the cunts behind the curtain have been completely compromised pre-election.
Sucks to be them - the humillatiion and embarrassment of the cockroaches as they all scurry for cover. Not to mention the
career nose-dives en masse for all the selfsame scum floating around the turd herself. I'm surprised Hillary hasn't told Podesta
to eat a bullet (or nail-gun) yet, given the damage he has caused by being hacked. Err...rewind, eh Hillary? Because it is not
as if you are an angel in this respect, you dumb fucking senile cunt.
The fucking irony is palpable.
Neocons are IT illiterate, and this must be their primary weakness, given how fucking useless they are at securing their
insidious evil shit (now in the public domain - eh, Poddy, old chum, you evil CUNT). It must be a fucking disease given how utterly
bereft of intelligence with respect to IT security they collectively are.
As if. Former Lousiana Governor Edwin Edwards in 1983 said "The only way I can lose this election is if I'm caught in bed
with either a dead girl or a live boy." In 2016, neither of those conditions is a bar to election to the presidency.
Another body to add to the Clinton Death List, this time the doctor who treated her for a concussion and knew about her glioma.
A devout Hindu, this doctor supposedly committed suicide after threatening to reveal Hillary medical information if prosecutors
continued to go after him for bogus criminal charges.
http://www.govtslaves.info/clinton-doctor-who-confirmed-hillarys-brain-t...
I was thinking the same thing. With so many on the "team" having such critical positions on their own "leader", why the fuck
are they supporting her, and why do they still have jobs?
Power. Money. The belief that they will be able to run things themselves once she goes full brain clot. One thing I do
know, Hillary would be very unwise to let any of them pick her nursing home for her.
Assange has played a blinder, and all those who bitched about him "not dropping everything at once" give some thought to the fact
that even in the UK barely one reference to the deluge of shit landing on Hillary thus far has been reported in the MSM. They
have killed virtually everything, and are mainlining Trump the mad man (for insinuating election fraud) shit.
It ain't just the US where free press is extinct. Had Wiki dropped the lot, it would simply have sunk without a trace with
respect to the MSM reporting it to the sheeple, as we have seen in the last 12 days.
Better a death by a thousand cuts to build up momentum, and give EVERYONE the chance to absorb the full criminallity of this
fundamentally evil bitch and her cohorts. There is way too much to take in one hit.
sadly, most Americans are going to vote based on which candidate they think is least 'offensive' to them, and ISMism prevails
in the corporate MSM and Regressive Left:
For secure borders and controlled immigration: RACIST
Against set asides for women or think rosie o'donnell could lose a few: MISOGYNIST.
But voting for a banker owned duplicitous warmonger who is the crooked politician par excellance of this millenium, one
who will pursue more neocon/zionist wars and involve arming and aiding Al Qaeda and worse.... : 'PROGRESSIVE'.
Why?
Free Shit and open borders and speaking well while lying. The stupidity of the average person, particularly those who only
get their news from the corporate controlled media, is fuckin' amazing. Only a military coup could hunt down and arrest the Deep
State... The Kagans and Powers and Jarretts and every cunt who has given HRC money.
Short of a coup, massive desertion would be very helpful.
you hit the nail on the head - "speaking well while lying". Middle class English people speak very well - appear attractive
to Americans - when in fact they have zero monopoly on honesty, brains or ability
just because someone speaks well does not mean they are legal, decent, honest and truthful - in fact clinton fails on all
four of these positives and is illegal, indecent, crooked and a liar
Authoritarian rule by criminals REQUIRES deep knowledge and primary experience with criminal exploits. She is the ONLY candidate
who is qualified to run Gov-Co.
Is this from "The Onion"? Seriously, these people are so fucking tone deaf and out of touch it's amazing. Throw 'em all in prison.
How does it feel working for a total scumbag just to get a paycheck?
"... Yoko Ono has been talking about it for years and those who would be bothered by it, aren't voting for her anyway. ..."
"... I don't think anyone really cares especially since I doubt she's doing much of anything with anyone nowadays. ..."
"... Now, if she were to divorce Bill and have a public gay wedding ceremony with a divorced Huma Abedin, that might surprise some people but that wouldn't win her any points since it would alienate those who actually just like Bill . ..."
why bother, it's no secret to her voters I don't think Yoko Ono has been talking about
it for years and those who would be bothered by it, aren't voting for her anyway.
I don't think anyone really cares especially since I doubt she's doing much of anything with anyone
nowadays.
Now, if she were to divorce Bill and have a public gay wedding ceremony with a divorced Huma Abedin,
that might surprise some people but that wouldn't win her any points since it would alienate those
who actually just like Bill .
"... Rumors have abounded for years that Hillary's door swings this way and this is why she had no issue with Bill's marital infidelities. While the story is not a new one, if it came with credible proof to support those long persistent rumors, it could be a complete game-changer for the election that is now just a short, three weeks away. ..."
Popular Conservative news personality, Matt Drudge, has caused quite the stir. On Sunday
Drudge tweeted that he was about to unleash a bombshell like none other, one that could potentially
upend this contentious Presidential election.
"Oh, on the sex stuff. Hillary is about to get hers ," he wrote on Twitter,
sharing a photo of Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton with talk show host-comedienne-actress
Ellen DeGeneres. The implications, of course, are that the rumors may force Hillary out of the closet
so to speak as a lesbian.
Rumors have abounded for years that Hillary's door swings this way and this is why she had no
issue with Bill's marital infidelities. While the story is not a new one, if it came with credible
proof to support those long persistent rumors, it could be a complete game-changer for the election
that is now just a short, three weeks away.
"... First, Clinton's neoliberalism is so bone deep that she refers to Medicare as a "single market" rather than "single payer"; ..."
"... Clinton frames solutions exclusively ..."
"... Policy Sciences ..."
"... Stalin spent his early days in a seminary. Masters of broken promises. I'm more interested in Clinton's Chinese connections. Probably tied through JP Morgan. The Chinese are very straightforward in their, dare I say, inscrutible way. The ministers are the ministers, and the palace is the palace. ..."
"... SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to be an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and that includes Wall Street and Main Street. ..."
"... Because she wont pay for quality speechwriters or coaching. Because she is a shyster, cheapskate and a fraud. They hired the most inept IT company to 'mange' their office server who then (in a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) hired an inept IT client manager who then (in a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) asked Reddit for a solution. ..."
"... One can say a lot of justifiable bad things about Ronald Reagan, but, he had competent advisors and he used them! With Hillary, Even if she knows she has accessed the best advice on the planet her instinct it to not trust it because "she knows better" and she absolutely will not tolerate dissent. Left to her own devices, she simply copies other people's thinking/ homework instead of building her own ideas with it. ..."
"... What surprises me is that Goldmans paid her for these speeches, you know? Hillary C typically pays "the audience" to listen to, and come to her speeches. You know? You know! ..."
"... I heard Hillary speak in summer '92, when Bill was running for Prez. She. was. amazing. No joke. Great speech, great ideas, great points. I thought then she should be the candidate. But there was in her speech just a tiny undercurrent of "the ends justify the means." i.e. 'we need to get lots of money so we can do good things.' Fast forward 20+ years. Seems to me that for the Clintons the "means" (getting lots of money) has become the end in itself. Reassuring Wall St. is one method for getting money – large, large amounts of money. ..."
"... A fine illustration of the maxim that "crime makes you stupid." ..."
"... in that context ..."
"... So I guess the moral of the story is (a) more deterioration, this time from 2008 to 2016, and (b) Clinton can actually make a good decision, but only when forced to by a catastrophe that will impact her personally. Whether she'll be able to rise to the occasion if elected is an open question, but this post argues not. ..."
"... Bingo! Think about it: She was speaking to a group of people whose time is "valued" at 100's if not 1,000's of dollars per hour. She took up their "valuable" time but provided nothing except politics-as-usual blather tailored to that particular audience. Yet she was paid $225k for a single speech… ..."
"... Hillary is a remarkably inarticulate person, which calls into question her intellectual fitness for the job (amidst many other questions, of course). I entirely agree with your depiction of her speeches as mindless drivel. ..."
"... Not to otherwise compare them, but Bush I's inarticulateness made him seem a buffoon, and that was not the case, either. ..."
"... Matt Tiabbi, Elizabeth Warren, Benie Sanders, Noam Chompsky–all those used to seem like bastions of integrity have, thanks to Hillary, been revealed as slimy little Weasels who should henceforth be completely disregarded. I'd have to thank Hillary for pulling back the nlindets on that; if not for this election I might have been still foolishly listening to these people. ..."
"... What scares me most about Clinton is her belligerence towards Russia and clamoring for a no-fly zone in Syria. The no-fly zone will mean war with Russia. If only Clinton were saying this, we might be safe, but the entire Washington deep state seems to be of one mind in favor of a war. During the cold war this would have been inconceivable; everyone understood a nuclear war must not be allowed. This is no longer true and it is terrifying. Every war game the pentagon used to simulate a war with the U.S.S.R. escalated into an all out nuclear war. What is the "plan B" Obama is pursuing in Syria? ..."
"... The current fear/fever over nuclear war with Russia requires madness in the Kremlin - of which there is no evidence. Our Rulers are depending on Putin and his cohorts being the sane ones as rhetoric from the US and the West ratchets ever upwards. ..."
"... But then, the Kremlin is looking for any hint of sanity on US and NATO side and is finding little… ..."
"... Curtis LeMay tried to provoke a nuclear war with the Soviets in the 1950's. By and large, however, the American state understood a nuclear war was unwinnable and avoided such a possibility. A no-fly zone in Syria would start a war with Russia. William Polk, who participated in the Cuban missle crisis and U.S. nuclear war games, argues in this article ..."
"... both of which present a clinical assessment that Hillary suffers from Parkinson's. Seems like an elephant in the room. ..."
"... The absolute vacuousness of Clinton's remarks, coupled with her ease at neoliberal conventional wisdom, make it clear that Goldman's payments were nothing more (or less) than a $675,000 anticipatory "so no quid pro quo ..."
"... The leaked emails confirm - even though she herself never writes them, which is really odd, when you consider that Podesta is her Campaign Chair and close ally going back decades - that she is compulsively secretive, controlling, and resistant to admitting she's wrong. The chain of people talking about how to get her to admit she was wrong about Nancy Reagan and AIDS was particularly fascinating that way; she was flat out factually inaccurate, and it had the potential to do tremendous harm to her campaign with a key donor group, and it was apparently still a major task to persuade her to say "I made a mistake." ..."
"... basically, every real world policy problem is related to every other real world policy problem ..."
"... Most noticeable thing is her subservience to them like a fresh college grad afraid of his boss at his first job ..."
As readers know, WikiLeaks has
released transcripts
of the three speeches to Goldman Sachs that Clinton gave in 2013, and for which she was paid
the eyewatering sum of $675,000. (The link is to an email dated January 23, 2016, from Cllinton staffer
Tony Carrk , Clinton's research director, which pulls out
"noteworthy quotes" from the speeches. The speeches themselves are attachments to that email.)
Readers, I read them. All three of them. What surprises - and when I tell you I had to take a
little nap about halfway through, I'm not making it up! - is the utter mediocrity of Clinton's thought
and mode of expression[1]. Perhaps that explains Clinton's
otherwise inexplicable refusal to release them. And perhaps my sang froid is preternatural,
but I don't see a "smoking gun," unless forking over $675,000 for interminable volumes of shopworn
conventional wisdom be, in itself, such a gun. What can Goldman Sachs possibly have thought they
were paying for?
WikiLeaks has, however, done voters a favor - in these speeches, and in the DNC and Podesta email
releases generally - by giving us a foretaste of what a Clinton administration will be like, once
in power, not merely on policy (the "first 100 days"), but on how they will make decisions. I call
the speeches a "munitions dump," because the views she expresses in these speeches are bombs that
can be expected to explode as the Clinton administration progresses.
With that, let's contextualize and comment upon some quotes from the speeches
The Democrats Are the Party of Wall Street
Of course, you knew that, but it's nice to have the matter confirmed. This material was flagged
by Carrk (as none of the following material will have been). It's enormously prolix, but I decided
to cut only a few paragraphs. From
Clinton's second
Goldman speech at the AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium:
MR. O'NEILL: Let's come back to the US. Since 2008, there's been an awful lot of seismic activity
around Wall Street and the big banks and regulators and politicians.
Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now , what would be your
advice to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way forward with those two important
decisions?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I represented all of you for eight years. I had great relations and
worked so close together after 9/11 to rebuild downtown, and a lot of respect for the work you
do and the people who do it, but I do - I think that when we talk about the regulators and the
politicians, the economic consequences of bad decisions back in '08, you know, were devastating,
and they had repercussions throughout the world.
That was one of the reasons that I started traveling in February of '09, so people could, you
know, literally yell at me for the United States and our banking system causing this everywhere.
Now, that's an oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom [really?!].
And I think that there's a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding
and really politicizing [!] what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on
all sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening?
You guys help us figure it out and let's make sure that we do it right this time .
And I think that everybody was desperately trying to fend off the worst effects institutionally,
governmentally, and there just wasn't that opportunity to try to sort this out, and that
came later .
I mean, it's still happening, as you know. People are looking back and trying to, you know,
get compensation for bad mortgages and all the rest of it in some of the agreements that are being
reached.
There's nothing magic about regulations, too much is bad, too little is bad. How do you get
to the golden key, how do we figure out what works? And the people that know the industry
better than anybody are the people who work in the industry .
…
And we need banking. I mean, right now, there are so many places in our country where
the banks are not doing what they need to do because they're scared of regulations , they're
scared of the other shoe dropping, they're just plain scared, so credit is not flowing the way
it needs to to restart economic growth.
So people are, you know, a little - they're still uncertain, and they're uncertain both because
they don't know what might come next in terms of regulations, but they're also uncertain because
of changes in a global economy that we're only beginning to take hold of.
So first and foremost, more transparency, more openness, you know, trying to figure out,
we're all in this together , how we keep this incredible economic engine in this country
going. And this [finance] is, you know, the nerves, the
spinal column.
And with political people, again, I would say the same thing, you know, there was a lot
of complaining about Dodd-Frank, but there was also a need to do something because for political
reasons , if you were an elected member of Congress and people in your constituency were
losing jobs and shutting businesses and everybody in the press is saying it's all the fault of
Wall Street, you can't sit idly by and do nothing, but what you do is really important.
And I think the jury is still out on that because it was very difficult to sort of sort through
it all.
And, of course, I don't, you know, I know that banks and others were worried about continued
liability [oh, really?] and other problems down the road, so it would be better if we could
have had a more open exchange about what we needed to do to fix what had broken and then try to
make sure it didn't happen again, but we will keep working on it.
MR. O'NEILL: By the way, we really did appreciate when you were the senator from New York and
your continued involvement in the issues (inaudible) to be courageous in some respects to associated
with Wall Street and this environment. Thank you very much.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to be
an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and that
includes Wall Street and Main Street.
And there's a big disconnect and a lot of confusion right now. So I'm not interested in,
you know, turning the clock back or pointing fingers , but I am interested in trying to
figure out how we come together to chart a better way forward and one that will restore confidence
in, you know, small and medium-size businesses and consumers and begin to chip away at the unemployment
rate [five years into the recession!].
So it's something that I, you know, if you're a realist, you know that people have different
roles to play in politics, economics, and this is an important role, but I do think that there
has to be an understanding of how what happens here on Wall Street has such broad consequences
not just for the domestic but the global economy, so more thought has to be given to the process
and transactions and regulations so that we don't kill or maim what works, but we concentrate
on the most effective way of moving forward with the brainpower and the financial power
that exists here.
"Moving forward." And not looking back. (It would be nice to know what "continued liability"
the banks were worried about;
accounting
control fraud ? Maybe somebody could ask Clinton.) Again, I call your attention to the weird
combination of certainty and mediocrity of it; readers, I am sure, can demolish the detail. What
this extended quotation does show is that Clinton and Obama are as one with respect to the
role of the finance sector. Politico describes Obama's famous meeting with the bankster CEOs:
Arrayed around a long mahogany table in the White House state dining room last week, the CEOs
of the most powerful financial institutions in the world offered several explanations for paying
high salaries to their employees - and, by extension, to themselves.
"These are complicated companies," one CEO said. Offered another: "We're competing for talent
on an international market.".
But President Barack Obama wasn't in a mood to hear them out. He stopped the conversation and
offered a blunt reminder of the public's reaction to such explanations. "Be careful how you make
those statements, gentlemen. The public isn't buying that.".
"My administration," the president added, "is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."
And he did! He did! Clinton, however, by calling the finance sector the "the nerves, the spinal
column" of the country, goes farther than Obama ever did.
So, from the governance perspective, we can expect the FIRE sector to dominate a Clinton administration,
and the Clinton administration to service it. The Democrats are the Party of Wall Street. The bomb
that could explode there is corrupt dealings with cronies (for which the Wikileaks material provides
plenty of leads).
Clinton Advocates a "Night Watchman" State
The next quotes are shorter, I swear! Here's a quote from
Clinton's third
Goldman speech (not flagged by Carrk, no doubt because hearing drivel like this is perfectly
normal in HillaryLand):
SECRETARY CLINTON: And I tell you, I see any society like a three-legged stool. You have to
have an active free market that gives people the chance to live out their dreams by their own
hard work and skills. You have to have a functioning, effective government that provides
the right balance of oversight and protection of freedom and privacy and liberty and all the rest
of it that goes with it . And you have to have an active civil society. Because there's
so much about America that is volunteerism and religious faith and family and community activities.
So you take one of those legs away, it's pretty hard to balance it. So you've got to get back
to getting the right balance.
Apparently, the provision
of public services is not within government's remit -- What are Social Security and Medicare?
"All the rest of it"? Not only that, who said the free market was the only way to "live
out their dreams"? Madison, Franklin, even Hamilton would have something to say about that! Finally,
which one of those legs is out of balance? Civil society? Some would advocate less religion in politics
rather than more, including many Democrats. The markets? Not at Goldman? Government? Too much militarization,
way too little concrete material benefits, so far as I'm concerned, but Clinton doesn't say, making
the "stool" metaphor vacuous.
From a governance perspective, we can expect Clinton's blind spot on government's role in provisioning
servies to continue. Watch for continued privatization efforts (perhaps aided by Silicon Valley).
On any infrastructure projects, watch for "public-private partnerships." The bomb that could explode
there is corrupt dealings with a different set of cronies (even if the FIRE sector does
have a finger in every pie).
Clinton's Views on Health Care Reflect Market Fundamentalism
MR. O'NEILL: [O]bviously the Affordable Care Act has been upheld by the supreme court. It's
clearly having limitation problems [I don't know what that means]. It's unsettling, people still
- the Republicans want to repeal it or defund it. So how do you get to the middle on that clash
of absolutes?
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this is not the first time that we rolled out a big program with the
limitation problems [Clinton apparently does].
I was in the Senate when President Bush asked and signed legislation expanding Medicare benefits,
the Medicare Part D drug benefits. And people forget now that it was a very difficult implementation.
As a senator, my staff spent weeks working with people who were trying to sign up, because
it was in some sense even harder to manage because the population over 65, not the most computer-literate
group, and it was difficult. But, you know, people stuck with it, worked through it.
Now, this is on - it's on a different scale and it is more complex because it's trying to create
a market. In Medicare, you have a single market , you have, you know, the government
is increasing funding through government programs [sic] to provide people over 65 the drugs they
needed.
And there were a few variations that you could play out on it, but it was a much simpler market
than what the Affordable Care Act is aiming to set up.
Now, the way I look at this, Tim, is it's either going to work or it's not going to work.
First, Clinton's neoliberalism is so bone deep that she refers to Medicare as a "single market"
rather than "single payer"; but then
Clinton erases single payer whenever possible . Second, Clinton frames solutions exclusively
in terms of markets (and not the direct provision of services by government);
Obama does the same on health care in JAMA , simply erasing the possibility of single payer.
Third, rather than advocate a simple, rugged, and proven system like Canadian Medicare (single payer),
Clinton prefers to run an experiment ("it's either going to work or it's not going to work")
on the health of millions of people (and, I would urge, without their informed consent).
From a governance perspective, assume that if the Democrats propose
a "public option," it will be miserably inadequate. The bomb that could explode here is the ObamaCare
death spiral.
The Problems Are "Wicked," but Clinton Will Be Unable to Cope With Them
MR. BLANKFEIN: The next area which I think is actually literally closer to home but where American
lives have been at risk is the Middle East, I think is one topic. What seems to be the ambivalence
or the lack of a clear set of goals - maybe that ambivalence comes from not knowing what outcome
we want or who is our friend or what a better world is for the United States and of Syria, and
then ultimately on the Iranian side if you think of the Korean bomb as far away and just the Tehran
death spot, the Iranians are more calculated in a hotter area with - where does that go? And I
tell you, I couldn't - I couldn't myself tell - you know how we would like things to work out,
but it's not discernable to me what the policy of the United States is towards an outcome either
in Syria or where we get to in Iran.
MS. CLINTON: Well, part of it is it's a wicked problem , and it's a wicked
problem that is very hard to unpack in part because as you just said, Lloyd, it's not clear
what the outcome is going to be and how we could influence either that outcome or a different
outcome.
(I say "cope with" rather than "solve" for reasons that will become apparent.) Yes, Syria's bad,
as vividly shown by Blankfein's fumbling question, but I want to focus on the term "wicked problem,"
which comes from the the field of strategic planning, though it's also infiltrated
information technology
and management
theory . The concept originated in a famous paper by Horst W. J. Rittel and Melvin M. Webber
entitled: "Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning" (PDF), Policy Sciences 4 (1973), 155-169.
I couldn't summarize the literature even if I had the time, but here is Rittel and Webber's introduction:
There are at least ten distinguishing properties of planning-type problems, i.e. wicked ones,
that planners had better be alert to and which we shall comment upon in turn. As you will see,
we are calling them "wicked" not because these properties are themselves ethically deplorable.
We use the term "wicked" in a meaning akin to that of "malignant" (in contrast to "benign") or
"vicious" (like a circle) or "tricky" (like a leprechaun) or "aggressive" (like a lion, in contrast
to the docility of a lamb). We do not mean to personify these properties of social systems by
implying malicious intent. But then, you may agree that it becomes morally objectionable for the
planner to treat a wicked problem as though it were a tame one, or to tame a wicked problem prematurely,
or to refuse to recognize the inherent wickedness of social problems.
And here is a list of Rittel and Webber's ten properties of a "wicked problem" (
and a critique ):
There is no definite formulation of a wicked problem Wicked problems have no stopping rule Solutions
to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad. There is no immediate and no ultimate
test of a solution to a wicked problem. Every solution to a wicked problem is a "one-shot operation";
because there is no opportunity to learn by trial-and-error, every attempt counts significantly.
Wicked problems do not have an enumerable (or an exhaustively describable) set of potential solutions,
nor is there a well-described set of permissible operations that may be incorporated into the
plan. Every wicked problem is essentially unique. Every wicked problem can be considered to be
a symptom of another [wicked] problem. The causes of a wicked problem can be explained in numerous
ways. The choice of explanation determines the nature of the problem's resolution. [With wicked
problems,] the planner has no right to be wrong.
Of course, there's plenty of controversy about all of this, but if you throw these properties
against the Syrian clusterf*ck, I think you'll see a good fit, and can probably come up with other
examples. My particular concern, however, is with property #3:
Solutions to wicked problems are not true-or-false, but good-or-bad
There are conventionalized criteria for objectively deciding whether the offered solution to
an equation or whether the proposed structural formula of a chemical compound is correct or false.
They can be independently checked by other qualified persons who are familiar with the established
criteria; and the answer will be normally unambiguous.
For wicked planning problems, there are no true or false answers. Normally, many parties are
equally equipped, interested, and/or entitled to judge the solutions, although none has the power
to set formal decision rules to determine correctness. Their judgments are likely to differ widely
to accord with their group or personal interests, their special value-sets, and their ideological
predilections. Their assessments of proposed solutions are expressed as "good" or "bad" or, more
likely, as "better or worse" or "satisfying" or "good enough."
(Today, we would call these "many parties" "stakeholders.") My concern is that a Clinton administration,
far from compromising - to be fair, Clinton does genuflect toward "compromise" elsewhere - will try
to make wicked planning problems more tractable by reducing the number of parties to policy decisions.
That is, exactly, what "irredeemables" implies[2], which is unfortunate, especially when the cast
out amount to well over a third of the population. The same tendencies were also visible in the Clinton
campaigns approach to Sanders and Sanders supporters, and the general strategy of bringing the Blame
Cannons to bear on those who demonstrate insufficient fealty.
From a governance perspective, watch for many more executive orders acceptable to neither right
nor left, and plenty of decisions taken in secret. The bomb that could explode here is the
legitimacy of a Clinton administration, depending on the parties removed from the policy discussion,
and the nature of the decision taken.
Conclusion
I don't think volatility will decrease on November 8, should Clinton be elected and take office;
if anything, it will increase. A ruling party in thrall to finance, intent on treating government
functions as opportunities for looting by cronies, blinded by neoliberal ideology and hence incapable
of providing truly universal health care, and whose approach to problems of conflict in values is
to demonize and exclude the opposition is a recipe for continued crisis.
NOTES
[1]
Matt Taibbi takes the view that "Speaking to bankers and masters of the corporate universe, she
came off as relaxed, self-doubting, reflective, honest, philosophical rather than political, and
unafraid to admit she lacked all the answers." I don't buy it. It all read like the same old Clinton
to me, and I've read a lot of Clinton (see, e.g.,
here ,
here ,
here ,
here ,
here , and
here ).
[2] One is irresistibly reminded of Stalin's "No man, no problem," although some consider Stalin's
methods to be unsound. oho
October 17, 2016 at 1:14 pm
I had never read this article before. Near perfect diagnosis and even more relevant today than
it was then. For everyone's benefit, the central thesis:
Typically, these countries are in a desperate economic situation for one simple reason-the
powerful elites within them overreached in good times and took too many risks. Emerging-market
governments and their private-sector allies commonly form a tight-knit-and, most of the time,
genteel-oligarchy, running the country rather like a profit-seeking company in which they are
the controlling shareholders.
…
Of course, the U.S. is unique. And just as we have the world's most advanced economy, military,
and technology, we also have its most advanced oligarchy.
In a primitive political system, power is transmitted through violence, or the threat of
violence: military coups, private militias, and so on. In a less primitive system more typical
of emerging markets, power is transmitted via money: bribes, kickbacks, and offshore bank accounts.
Although lobbying and campaign contributions certainly play major roles in the American political
system, old-fashioned corruption-envelopes stuffed with $100 bills-is probably a sideshow today,
Jack Abramoff notwithstanding.
Instead, the American financial industry gained political power by amassing a kind of
cultural capital-a belief system. Once, perhaps, what was good for General Motors was good
for the country. Over the past decade, the attitude took hold that what was good for Wall Street
was good for the country. The banking-and-securities industry has become one of the top contributors
to political campaigns, but at the peak of its influence, it did not have to buy favors the
way, for example, the tobacco companies or military contractors might have to. Instead, it
benefited from the fact that Washington insiders already believed that large financial institutions
and free-flowing capital markets were crucial to America's position in the world.
A hypothesis (at least for "Main Street") proven true between 2009 and 2016:
Emerging-market countries have only a precarious hold on wealth, and are weaklings globally.
When they get into trouble, they quite literally run out of money -- or at least out of foreign
currency, without which they cannot survive. They must make difficult decisions; ultimately,
aggressive action is baked into the cake. But the U.S., of course, is the world's most powerful
nation, rich beyond measure, and blessed with the exorbitant privilege of paying its foreign
debts in its own currency, which it can print. As a result, it could very well stumble along
for years-as Japan did during its lost decade-never summoning the courage to do what it needs
to do, and never really recovering.
Lastly, the "bleak" scenario from 2009 that today looks about a decade too early, but could
with minor tuning (Southern instead of Eastern Europe, for example) end up hitting in a big way:
It goes like this: the global economy continues to deteriorate, the banking system in east-central
Europe collapses, and-because eastern Europe's banks are mostly owned by western European banks-justifiable
fears of government insolvency spread throughout the Continent. Creditors take further hits
and confidence falls further. The Asian economies that export manufactured goods are devastated,
and the commodity producers in Latin America and Africa are not much better off. A dramatic
worsening of the global environment forces the U.S. economy, already staggering, down onto
both knees. The baseline growth rates used in the administration's current budget are increasingly
seen as unrealistic, and the rosy "stress scenario" that the U.S. Treasury is currently using
to evaluate banks' balance sheets becomes a source of great embarrassment.
…
The conventional wisdom among the elite is still that the current slump "cannot be as
bad as the Great Depression." This view is wrong. What we face now could, in fact, be worse
than the Great Depression-because the world is now so much more interconnected and because
the banking sector is now so big. We face a synchronized downturn in almost all countries,
a weakening of confidence among individuals and firms, and major problems for government finances.
If our leadership wakes up to the potential consequences, we may yet see dramatic action on
the banking system and a breaking of the old elite. Let us hope it is not then too late.
That's a good reminder to us at NC that not all our readers have been with us since 2009 and
may not be familiar with the great financial crash and subsequent events. I remember reading the
Johnson article when it came out. And now, almost eight years later…
There's a reason that there's a "Banana Republic" category. Every time I read an article about
the political economy of a second- or third-world country I look for how it applies to this country,
and much of the time, it does, particularly on corruption.
We truly must consider the possibility Goldman wrote the 3 speeches, then paid Hillary to give
them.
Next, leak them to Wiki. Everything in them is pretty close to pure fiction – but it is neolib
banker fiction. Just makes it all seem more real when they do things this way.
Yike's, I'm turning into a crazy conspiracy theorist.
Don't fall for the 'status quo's' language Jedi mind trick crazyboy. I like to call myself
a "sane conspiracy theorist." You can too!
As for H Clinton's 'slavish' adherence to the Bankster Ethos; in psychology, there is the "Stockholm
Syndrome." Here, H Clinton displays the markers of "Wall Street Syndrome."
Ugh. Mindless drivel. Talking points provided by Wall St itself would sound identical.
Then there's this: She did NOT represent Wall St and the Banks while a Senator. They cannot
vote. They are not people. They are not citizens. She represented the PEOPLE. The PEOPLE that
can VOTE. You cannot represent a nonexistent entity like a corporation as an ELECTED official.
You can ONLY represent those who actually can, or do, vote. End of story.
I saw a video in high school years back that mentioned a specific congressional ruling that
gave Congress the equivalent to individual rights. I swear it was also in the 30s but I cannot
recall and have never been able to find what it was I saw. Do you have any insight here?
Historical Background and Legal Basis of the Federal Register / CFR Publications System
Why was the Federal Register System Established ?
New Deal legislation of the 1930's delegated responsibility from Congress to agencies to
regulate complex social and economic issues
Citizens needed access to new regulations to know their effect in advance
Agencies and Citizens needed a centralized filing and publication system to keep track of rules
Courts began to rule on "secret law" as a violation of right to due process under the Constitution
But don't forget. She is the most qualified candidate… EVER . Remind me again
how this species was able to bring three stranded Apollo 13 astronauts back from the abyss, the
vacuum of space with some tape and tubing.
This is like watching a cheap used car lot advertisement where the owner delivers obviously
false platitudes as the store and cars collapse, break, and burst into flames behind them.
Stalin spent his early days in a seminary. Masters of broken promises. I'm more interested
in Clinton's Chinese connections. Probably tied through JP Morgan. The Chinese are very straightforward
in their, dare I say, inscrutible way. The ministers are the ministers, and the palace is
the palace.
The show is disappointing, the debaters play at talking nuclear policy, but have *nothing*
to say about Saudi Arabia's new arsenal.
When politicos talk nuclear, they only mean to allege a threat to Israel, blame Russia, or
fear-monger the North Koreans.
We're in the loop, but only the quietest whispers of the conflict in Pakistan are available.
It sounds pretty serious, but there is only interest in attacking inconvenient Arabs.
On Trump, what an interesting study in communications. The no man you speak of. Even himself
caught between his own insincerity towards higher purpose and his own ego as 'the establishment'
turns on him.
The proles of his support are truely a silent majority. The Republicans promised us Reagan
for twenty years, and it's finally the quasi-Democrat Trump who delivers.
> This is like watching a cheap used car lot advertisement where the owner delivers obviously
false platitudes as the store and cars collapse, break, and burst into flames behind them.
+100
With a wall of American flags waving in the background as the smoke and flames rise.
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I don't feel particularly courageous. I mean, if we're going to
be an effective, efficient economy, we need to have all part of that engine running well, and
that includes Wall Street and Main Street.
this all reads like a cokehead's flow of consciousness on some ethereal topic with no intellectual
content on the matter to express. I would have said extemporaneous, but you know it was all scripted,
so that's even worse.
PHOTOJOURNALIST
"Do you know what the man is saying? Do you? This is dialectics.
It's very simple dialectics. One through nine, no maybes, no
supposes, no fractions - you can't travel in space, you can't go out
into space, you know, without, like, you know, with fractions - what
are you going to land on, one quarter, three-eighths - what are you
going to do when you go from here to Venus or something - that's
dialectic physics, OK? Dialectic logic is there's only love and hate, you
either love somebody or you hate them."
"Da5id's voice is deep and placid, with no trace of stress. The syllables roll off his tongue
like drool. As Hiro walks down the hallway he can hear Da5id talking all the way. 'i ge en i ge
en nu ge en nu ge en us sa tu ra lu ra ze em men….'" –Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash
Completely agree. When I first read excerpts from her speeches, I was appalled at the constant
use of "you know" peppering most of her sentences. To me, people who constantly bifurcate sentences
with "you know" are simply blathering. They usually don't have any in-depth knowledge of the subject
matter on which they are opining. Compare Hillary being asked to comment on a subject with someone
such as Michael Hudson or Bill Black commenting on a subject and she simply sounds illiterate.
I have this feeling that her educational record is based on an ability to memorize and parrot
back answers rather than someone who can reach a conclusion by examining multiple concepts.
Here's what I don't understand: The lady (and her husband) have LOADS of money. Yet this is
the best that she can do?
Really?
Heck, if I had half the Clintons' money, I'd be hiring the BEST speechwriters, acting coaches,
and fashion consultants on the planet. And I'd be taking their advice and RUNNING with it. Sheesh.
Some people have more money than sense.
Because she wont pay for quality speechwriters or coaching. Because she is a shyster, cheapskate
and a fraud. They hired the most inept IT company to 'mange' their office server who then (in
a further fit of cheapskate stupidity) hired an inept IT client manager who then (in a further
fit of cheapskate stupidity) asked Reddit for a solution.
Its in the culture: Podesta does it, Blumenthal does it
And now they blame the Russians!!!! Imagine the lunacy within the white house if this fool
is elected.
I think she is just not that smart. Maybe intelligent but not flexible enough to do much with
it.
Smart people seek the advice of even smarter people and knowing that experts disagree, they
make sure that there is dissent on the advisory team. Then they make up their mind.
One can say a lot of justifiable bad things about Ronald Reagan, but, he had competent
advisors and he used them! With Hillary, Even if she knows she has accessed the best advice on
the planet her instinct it to not trust it because "she knows better" and she absolutely will
not tolerate dissent. Left to her own devices, she simply copies other people's thinking/ homework
instead of building her own ideas with it.
I don't think so. The "you know" has a name, it's called a "verbal tick" and is one of the
first things that is attacked when one learns how to speak publicly. Verbal ticks come in many
forms, the "ums" for example, or repeating the last few words you just said, over and over again.
The brain is complex. The various parts of the brain needed for speech; cognition, vocabulary,
and vocalizations, actually have difficulty synchronizing. The vocalization part tends to be faster
than the rest of the brain and can spit out words faster than the person can put them together.
As a result, the "buffer" if you will runs empty, and the speech part of the brains simply fills
in the gaps with random gibberish.
You can train yourself out of this habit of course – but it's something that takes practice.
So I take HRC's "you know" as evidence that these are unscripted speeches and is directly improvising.
How come her responses during the debates are not peppered with these verbal ticks. At least,
I don't recall her saying you know so many times. Isn't she improvising then?
As Lambert said, HRC doesn't do unscripted. The email leaks even sends us evidence that her
interviews were scripted and town hall events were carful staged. Even sidestepping that however,
dealing with verbal ticks is not all that difficult with a bit of practice and self-awareness.
"You know" is an insidious variation on "like" and "andum", the latter two being bias neutral
forms of mental vapor lock of tbe speech center pausing for higher level intellectual processes
to refill the speech centers tapped out RAM.
The "you know" variant is an end run on the listener's cognitive functions logic filters. Is
essence appropriating a claim to the listener.
I detest "you knows" immediately with "no i dont know, please explain."
The same with "they say" i will always ask "who are they?"
I think this is important to fo do to ppl for no ofher reason thanto nake them think critically
even if it is a fleeting annoyance.
Back on HRC, i have maintai we that many people overrate her intellectual grasp. Personally
I think she is a hea ily cosched parrot. "The US has achieved energy independence"…. TILT. Just
because you state things smugly doesnt mean its reality.
I think what I call the lacunae words are really revealing in people's speech. When she says
"you know" she is emphasizing that she and the listener both know what she is "talking around."
Shared context as a form of almost - encryption, you could say. "This" rather than '"finance"
Here rather than at Goldman.I don't know what you'd call it exactly- free floating referent? A
habit, methinks, of avoiding being quoted or pinned down. It reminds me of the leaked emails…everyone
is very careful to talk around things and they can because they all know what they are talking
about. Hillary is consistently referred to, in an eerie H. Rider Haggard way, as "her" - like
some She Who Must Not Be Named.
What surprises me is that Goldmans paid her for these speeches, you know?
Hillary C typically pays "the audience" to listen to, and come to her speeches. You know? You
know!
This election cycle just proves how bad things have become. The two top presidential candidates
are an egotistical ignoramus and the quintessential establishment politician and they are neck
and neck because the voting public is Planet Stupid. Things will just continue to fall apart in
slow motion until some spark (like another financial implosion) sets off the next revolution.
"Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now, what would be your advice
to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way forward with those two important
decisions?
"SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I represented all of you [Wall St] for eight years."
I heard Hillary speak in summer '92, when Bill was running for Prez. She. was. amazing.
No joke. Great speech, great ideas, great points. I thought then she should be the candidate.
But there was in her speech just a tiny undercurrent of "the ends justify the means." i.e. 'we
need to get lots of money so we can do good things.' Fast forward 20+ years. Seems to me that
for the Clintons the "means" (getting lots of money) has become the end in itself. Reassuring
Wall St. is one method for getting money – large, large amounts of money.
I heard similar impressions of her at the time, from women who had dealt with her: Book smart.
Street smart. Likeable. But what might have been the best compromise you could get in one decade,
may have needed re-thinking as you moved along in time. The cast of players changes. Those who
once ruled are now gone. Oh, but the money! And so old ideas can calcify. I'm not suggesting that
Trump is even in the ballpark in terms of making compromises, speeches, life changes or anything
else to have ever been proud of. Still, the capacity to grow and change is important in a leader.
So where are we going now?
A fine illustration of the maxim that "crime makes you stupid."
I've said this once, but I'll say it again: After the 2008 caucus debacle, Clinton fired the
staff and rejiggered the campaign. They went to lots of small venues, like high school
gyms - in other words, "deplorables" territory - and Clinton did her detail, "I have a plan" thing,
which worked really well in that context because people who need government to deliver
concrete material benefits like that, and rightly. They also organized via cheap phones, because
that was how to reach their voters, who weren't hanging out at Starbucks. And, history being written
by the winners, we forget that using that strategy, Clinton won all the big states and (if all
the votes are counted) a majority of the popular vote. So, good decision on her part. And so from
that we've moved to the open corruption of the Clinton Foundation and Clinton campaign apparatus
that takes 11 people to polish and approve a single tweet.
So I guess the moral of the story is (a) more deterioration, this time from 2008 to 2016,
and (b) Clinton can actually make a good decision, but only when forced to by a catastrophe that
will impact her personally. Whether she'll be able to rise to the occasion if elected is an open
question, but this post argues not.
"Apparently, the provision of public services is not within government's remit! What are Social
Security and Medicare? "
What is the US Post Office? Rumor has it that the PO is mentioned in the US Constitution, a
fact that is conveniently forgotten by Strict Constructionists.
With respect to regulation, I think it should be less a case of quantity, and more one of quality,
but Clinton seems to want to make it about finding the sweet spot of exactly how many regulations
will be the right amount.
In general, when companies are willing to spot you $225,000 to speak for some relatively short
period of time, willing to meet your demands regarding transportation, hotel accommodations, etc.,
why would you take the chance of killing the goose that's laying those golden eggs by saying anything
likely to tick them off?
I'd like to think she's kind of embarrassed to have people see how humdrum/boring her speeches
were for how much she was paid to give them, but I think there's got to be more "there" somewhere
that she didn't want people to be made aware of – and it doesn't necessarily have to be Americans,
it could be something to do with foreign governments, foreign policy, trade, etc.
After learning how many people it takes to send out a tweet with her name on it, I have no
idea how she managed this speech thing, unless one of her requirements was that she had to be
presented with all questions in advance, so she could be prepared.
I am more depressed by the day, as it's really beginning to sink in that she's going to be
president, and it all just makes me want to stick needles in my eyes.
Also the "Wicked Problems" definitions are very, very interesting. Thank you for bringing those
in! I would add that these wicked problems lead to more wicked problems. It is basically dishonesty,
and to protect the lie you double down with more, and more, and more…. Most of Clinton's decisions
and career seem to be knots of wicked problems.
The wicked problem is quickly becoming our entire system of governance. Clinton has been described
as the malignant tumor here before, but even she is a place holder for the rot. One head of the
Hydra that I feel Establishment players would generally be okay with sacrificing if it came to
it (and maybe I am wrong there–but it seems as if a lot of the push fro her comes from her inner
circle and others play along).
Hail Hydra! Immortal Hydra! We shall never be destroyed! Cut off one limb and two more shall
take its place! We serve the Supreme Hydra, as the world shall soon serve us!
I've heard/read in some places Hillary Clinton described as a "safe pair of hands". I don't
understand where this characterization comes from. She's dangerous.
If she wins with as strong of an electoral map as Obama in '08, she'll take it as a strong
mandate and she'll have an ambitious agenda and likely attempt to overreach. I've been meaning
to call my congressional reps early and say "No military action on Syria, period!"
She might use a "public option" as an ACA stealth bailout scheme, but I don't think the public
has much appetite to see additional resources being thrown at a "failed experiment". I worry that
Bernie's being brought on board for this kind of thing. He should avoid it.
Is she crazy enough to go for a grand bargain right away? That seems nutty and has been a "Waterloo"
for many presidents.
Remember how important Obama's first year was. Bailouts and ACA were all done that first year.
How soon can we put President Clinton II in lame duck status?
Not really surprised by the intellectual and rhetorical poverty demonstrated by these speeches.
Given the current trajectory of our politics, the bar hasn't really been set very high. In fact
it looks like we're going to reach full Idiocracy long before originally predicted.
You ask, " What can Goldman Sachs possibly have thought they were paying for? "
But I think you know. Corruption has become so institutionalized that it is impossible to point
to any specific Quid Pro Quo. The Quo is the entire system in which GS operates and the care and
feeding of which the politicians are paid to administer.
We focus on HRC's speeches and payments here but I wonder how many other paid talks are given
to GS each year by others up and down the influence spectrum. As Bill Black says, a dollar given
to a politician provides the largest possible Return on Investment of any expenditure. It is Wall
Street's long-term health insurance plan.
Yeah we know which part of the "stool" we'll be getting.If the finance sector is "the nerves,
the spinal column" of the country, I suggest the country find a shallow pool in which to shove
it – head first.
I skimmed the /. comments on a story about this yesterday; basically everyone missed the obvious
and went with vox-type responses ("she's a creature of the system / in-fighter / Serious Person").
"So I'm not interested in, you know, turning the clock back or pointing fingers,
but I am interested in trying to figure out how we come together to chart a better way
forward and one that will restore confidence in, you know, small and medium-size businesses and
consumers and begin to chip away at the unemployment rate [five years into the recession!]."
Basically, even better than a get out of jail free card, in that it is rather a promise that
we won't go back and ever hold you responsible, and we have done the best we could so far to avoid
having you own up to anything or be held accountable in any way beyond some niggling fines, which
of course, you are happy to pay, because in the end, that is simply a handout to the legal industry,
who are your best drinking buddies.
The latter part of that quote is just mumbo jumbo non-sequitir blathering. Clinton appears
to know next to nothing about finance, only that it generates enormous amounts of cash for the
oh so deserving work that God told them to do.
+1 exactly: There will be no retrospective prosecutions and none in the future either, trust
me! Not the she is any better than Eric Holder but she is certain she should be paid more than
him.
Bingo! Think about it: She was speaking to a group of people whose time is "valued" at
100's if not 1,000's of dollars per hour. She took up their "valuable" time but provided nothing
except politics-as-usual blather tailored to that particular audience. Yet she was paid $225k
for a single speech…
I've only skimmed through the speech transcripts; did I miss something of substance?
Hillary is a remarkably inarticulate person, which calls into question her intellectual
fitness for the job (amidst many other questions, of course). I entirely agree with your depiction
of her speeches as mindless drivel.
However, you may be overthinking the "wicked problem" language. While it is certainly
possible that she is familiar with the literature that you cite, nothing else in her speeches
suggests that she commands that level of intellectual detail. This makes me think that somewhere
along the line she befriended someone from the greater Boston area who uses "wicked" the way Valley
Girls use "like". When I first heard the expression decades ago, I found it charming and incorporated
it into my own common usage. And I don't use it anything like you describe. To me it is simply
used for emphasis. Nothing more or less than that, but I am amused to see an entire literature
devoted to the concept of a "wicked problem".
I remain depressed by this election. No matter how it turns out, it's going to wicked suck
; )
I think the inarticulateness/cliche infestation is a ploy and a deflection; this is a very
intelligent woman who can effectively marshall language when she feels the need. That need was
more likely felt in private meetings with the inner cabal at Goldman.
Not to otherwise compare them, but Bush I's inarticulateness made him seem a buffoon, and
that was not the case, either.
Finally, as a thought experiment, I'd like to suggest that, granting that Clintonismo will
privilege those interests which best fortify their arguments with cash, it's also true that Bill
and Hillary are all about Bill and Hillary. In other words, it could be that she has the same
hustler's disregard toward the lumpen Assistant Vice Presidents filling that room at GS as she
does for the average voter. Thus, the empty, past-their-expiration-date calories.
Sure, she'll take their money and do their bidding, but why even bother to make any more effort
than necessary? On a very primal level with these two, it's all about the hustle and the action,
and everyone's a potential rube.
As in, when Bill put his presidency on the line, the base were expected to circle the wagons.
As in, "I'm With Her". Not "She's With Us", natch. It's *always* about the Clintons.
"Speaking to bankers and masters of the corporate universe, she came off as relaxed, self-doubting,
reflective, honest, philosophical rather than political, and unafraid to admit she lacked all
the answers."
seriously, matt taibbi? next, i would like to hear about the positive, feelgood, warmfuzzy
qualities of vampire squids (hugs cthulhu doll).
Matt Tiabbi, Elizabeth Warren, Benie Sanders, Noam Chompsky–all those used to seem like
bastions of integrity have, thanks to Hillary, been revealed as slimy little Weasels who should
henceforth be completely disregarded. I'd have to thank Hillary for pulling back the nlindets
on that; if not for this election I might have been still foolishly listening to these people.
agree w you except about Bernie. he always said he'd support the nominee. the suddenness of
his capitulation has led many of us to believe he was threatened. somewhere I read something about
"someone" planting kiddieporn on his son's computer if he didn't do…… I dunno. I reserve judgement
on Sanders until I learn more,…. if i ever do
Clinton's remarks were typically vague, as one might expect from a politician; she doesn't
want to be pinned down. This may be part of the banality of her remarks.
What scares me most about Clinton is her belligerence towards Russia and clamoring for
a no-fly zone in Syria. The no-fly zone will mean war with Russia. If only Clinton were saying
this, we might be safe, but the entire Washington deep state seems to be of one mind in favor
of a war. During the cold war this would have been inconceivable; everyone understood a nuclear
war must not be allowed. This is no longer true and it is terrifying. Every war game the pentagon
used to simulate a war with the U.S.S.R. escalated into an all out nuclear war. What is the "plan
B" Obama is pursuing in Syria?
In the Russian press every day for a long time now they have been discussing the prospect of
a conflict. Russia has been conducting civil defense drills in its cities and advised its citizens
to recall any children living abroad. This is never reported in our press, which only presents
us with caricatures of Putin. Russians are not taken seriously.
During the cold war this would have been inconceivable; everyone understood a nuclear war
must not be allowed.
No it wasn't. Far from it. By some miracle, the globe escaped instant incineration but only
barely. The Soviets, to their credit, were not about to risk nuclear annihilation to get one
up on the US of Perfidy. Our own Dauntless Warriors were more than willing, and I believe it's
only through dumb luck that a first strike wasn't launched deliberately or by deliberate "accident."
Review the Cold War concept of Brinkmanship.
The current fear/fever over nuclear war with Russia requires madness in the Kremlin - of
which there is no evidence. Our Rulers are depending on Putin and his cohorts being the sane
ones as rhetoric from the US and the West ratchets ever upwards.
But then, the Kremlin is looking for any hint of sanity on US and NATO side and is finding
little…
Curtis LeMay tried to provoke a nuclear war with the Soviets in the 1950's. By and large,
however, the American state understood a nuclear war was unwinnable and avoided such a possibility.
A no-fly zone in Syria would start a war with Russia. William Polk, who participated in the Cuban
missle crisis and U.S. nuclear war games, argues in this article
" "the nerves, the spinal column" of the country, goes farther than Obama ever did."
But this description is technically true. That is finance's proper function, co-ordinating
the flow of capital and resources, especially from where they're in excess to where they're needed.
It's a key decision-making system – for the economy, preferably not for society as a whole. That
would be the political system.
So on this basic level, the problem is that finance, more and more, has put its own institutional
and personal interests ahead of its proper function. It's grown far too huge, and stopped performing
its intended function – redistributing resources – in favor of just accumulating them, in the
rather illusory form of financial instruments, some of them pure vapor ware.
So yes, this line reflects a very bad attitude on Hillary's part, but by misappropriating a
truth – pretty typical propaganda.
No, finance does NOT "channel resources". Wash your mouth out. This is more neoliberal cant.
Financiers do not make investments in the real economy. The overwhelming majority of securities
trading is in secondary markets, which means it's speculation. And when a public company decides
whether or not to invest in a new project, it does not present a prospectus on that new project
to investors. It runs the numbers internally. For those projects, the most common source of funding
is retained earnings.
Clinton shows that she is either a Yale Law grad who does not have the slightest idea that
Wall Street does very little in the economy but fleece would-be investors, or that she is an obsequious
flatterer of those from whom she openly takes bribes.
Having heard Hillary, Chelsea (yes, she's being groomed) and many, many other politicians over
the years, including a stint covering Capitol Hill, Mme C's verbal style does not surprise to
me at all but rather strikes me as perfectly serviceable. It is a mellifluous drone designed to
lull the listener into thinking that she is on their side, and the weakness of the actual statements
only becomes clear when reading them on the page later (which rarely happens). The drowsy listener
will catch, among the words strung together like Christmas lights, just the key terms and concepts
that demonstrate knowledge of the brief and a soothing layer of vague sympathy. Those who can
award her $600K can assume with some confidence that, rhetoric aside, she will be in the tank
when needed. The rest of us have to blow away the chaff and peer into the yawning gaps lurking
behind the lawyerly parsing. In all fairness, this applies to 90% of seekers of public office.
The absolute vacuousness of Clinton's remarks, coupled with her ease at neoliberal conventional
wisdom, make it clear that Goldman's payments were nothing more (or less) than a $675,000 anticipatory
"so no quid pro quo here" bribe.
Who on earth gives up their vote to a politician who is so shameless an corrupt that she openly
accepts bribes from groups who equally shamelessly and corruptly are looting the commons? Apparently
many, but not me.
Nothing like making lemons out of lemonade, is there?
There really is a question why she didn't do this doc dump herself when Bernie asked. Yeah,
sure, she would have been criticized ("damned if you do, damned if you don't") but because of
who she is she'll be criticized no matter what. There is nothing she can do to avoid it.
Not only is there no smoking gun, it's almost as if she's trying to inject a modicum of social
conscience into a culture that has none. And no, she isn't speaking artfully; nor is she an orator.
Oh. Not that we didn't know already.
The most galling aspect is her devotion to the neoLibCon status quo. Steady as she goes. Apparently
a lot of people find the status quo satisfactory. Feh.
If this document dump came out during the primary campaign, then HRC may have lost. Even Black,
Southern ladies can smell the corrupting odor clinging to these "speeches".
Given the way DNC protected her during the primaries, and what looked like a pretty light touch
by Bernie and (who? O'Malley was it?) toward her, I doubt these speeches would have been her undoing.
Dull and relatively benign, and policy-wise almost identical to Obama's approach to the bankers'
role in the economic unpleasantness. "Consensus" stuff with some hint of a social conscience.
Not effective and not enough to do more than the least possible ("I told them they ought to
behave better. Really!") on behalf of the Rabble.
But not a campaign killer. Even so, by not releasing transcripts during the primary, she faced
- and still faces - mountains of criticism over it. No escape. Not for her.
I'm not sure that's an appropriate strategy for dealing with multiple interlocking wicked problems,
but I'm not sure why. Suppose we invoke the Precautionary Principle - is incremental change
really the way to avoid harm?
The Consensus (of Opinions That Matter) says it is. On the other hand, blowing up the System
leads to Uncertainty, and as we know, we can't have that. Mr. Market wouldn't like it…
The leaked emails confirm - even though she herself never writes them, which is really
odd, when you consider that Podesta is her Campaign Chair and close ally going back decades -
that she is compulsively secretive, controlling, and resistant to admitting she's wrong. The chain
of people talking about how to get her to admit she was wrong about Nancy Reagan and AIDS was
particularly fascinating that way; she was flat out factually inaccurate, and it had the potential
to do tremendous harm to her campaign with a key donor group, and it was apparently still a major
task to persuade her to say "I made a mistake."
So while I think you are wrong that the speeches wouldn't have hurt her in the primary, I also
think Huma would have had to knock her out and tie her up (not in a fun way) to get those speeches
released.
I can't imagine a worse temperament to govern, particularly under the conditions she'll be
facing. But she'll be fully incompetent before too long, so I don't suppose it matters that much.
I'm morbidly curious to see how long they can keep her mostly hidden and propped up for limited
appearances, before having to let Kaine officially take over. Will we be able to figure out who's
actually in power based on the line-up on some balcony?
Fair points, though the "temperament" issue may be one that follows from the nature of the
job - even "No Drama Obama" is said to have a fierce anger streak, and secrecy, controlling behavior,
and refusing to admit error is pretty typical of presidents, VPs, and other high officials. The
King/Queen can do no wrong, dontchaknow. (cf: Bush, GW, and his whole administration for recent
examples. History is filled with them, though.)
As for Hillary's obvious errors in judgment, I think they speak for themselves and they don't
speak well of her.
TINA vs WATA (we are the alternative)…the next two years are gonna be interesting…evil is often
a cover for total incompetence and exposure…our little tsarina will insist brigades that dont
exist move against enemies that are hardly there…when she & her useless minions were last in/on
the seat of power(j edger version of sop) the netizens of the world were young and dumb…now not
so much…
I got into wicked problems 35 years ago in the outstanding book by Ian Mitroff and R. O. Mason,
"Challenging Strategic Planning Assumptions." First page of Chapter One has subsection title COMPLEXITY,
followed by "A Little Experiment" Lets try the experiment with current problems.
One could come up with a list of major problems, but here is the one used by C. West Churchman
mentioned along with Horst Riddle. Churchman back in the 80's said that the problems of the world
were M*P**3, or M, P cubed, or M * P * P *P with the letters standing for Militarism, Population,
Poverty and Pollution.
Here is how they ran the exercise
1. Suppose there were a solution to any of these 4 problems, would that solution be related
to the other problems. Clearly.
2. Thus 'whenever a policy maker attempts to solve a complex policy problem, it is related
to all the others
Repeated attempts in other contexts give the same result: basically, every real world
policy problem is related to every other real world policy problem
This is from page 4, the second page of the book.
I ran this exercise for several years in ATT Bell Labs and ATT.
List major problems
How long have they been around? (most for ever except marketing was new after breakup in
'84
If one was solved, would that solution be related in any way to the other ones?
Do you know of any program that is making headway? (occasionally Quality was brought up)
This could be done in a few minutes, often less than 5 minutes
5. Conclusion: long term interdependent problems that are not being addressed
Thus the only grade that matters in this course on Corporate Transformation that now begins
is that you have new insights on these problems. This was my quest as an internal consultant in
ATT to transform the company. I failed.
I was a Sanders supporter. Many here will disagree, but if Clinton wins I don't think she's
going to act as she might have acted in 2008, if she had won.
Clinton is a politician, and *all* politicians dissemble in private, unless they're the mayor
of a small town of about 50 people – and even then! Politicians – in doing their work – *must*
compromise to some degree, with the best politicians compromising in ways that bring their constituents
more benefit, than not.
That said, Clinton is also a human being who is capable of change. This election cycle has
been an eye opener for both parties. If Clinton wins (and, I think she will), the memory of how
close it was with Sanders and the desperate anger and alienation she has experienced from Trump
supporters (and even Sanders' supporters) *must* have already gotten her thinking about what she
is going to have to get done to insure a 2020 win for Democrats, whether or not she is running
in 2020.
In sum, I think Clinton is open to change, and I don't believe that she is some deep state
evil incarnate; sge's *far* from perfect, and she's not "pure" in her positioning – thank god!,
because in politics, purists rarely accomplish anything.
If Clinton reverts to prior form (assuming she makes (POTUS), 2020 will make 2016 look like
a cakewalk, for both parties – including the appearance of serious 3rd party candidates with moxy,
smarts, and a phalanx of backers (unlike the current crop of two – Johnson and Stein).
"... Michael Isikoff, who was a leading reporter during the Monica Lewinsky scandal, said in a Thursday discussion that NBC should release a 17-year-old tape of an interview that it conducted with Broaddrick. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton was involved in quashing Broaddrick's rape claims. ..."
Michael Isikoff, who was a leading reporter during
the Monica Lewinsky scandal, said in a Thursday
discussion that NBC should release a 17-year-old
tape of an interview that it conducted with
Broaddrick.
Broaddrick has long claimed that the
interview that NBC aired edited out her claim that
Hillary Clinton was involved in quashing Broaddrick's rape claims.
Warns Hillary presidency 'would be destructive to the United States' Published: 05/18/2016
at 9:56 PM >
[Editor's note: WND sent Candice Jackson, attorney and author of the acclaimed book
"Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine," to Arkansas to conduct a rare in-person
interview with Juanita Broaddrick, who claims Bill Clinton raped her in 1978. Jackson's revealing,
in-depth interview with Broaddrick is presented here for the first time. For those not familiar with
the actual details of Clinton's alleged felonious sexual assault on Broaddrick, WND has published
the entire Broaddrick rape narrative from "Their Lives"
here.
What follows, as Jackson explains, poignantly and in detail, reveals for the first time how
Broaddrick's life – like that of so many others – has been deeply and permanently scarred by her
alleged unwanted sexual encounter with Bill Clinton. Broaddrick also details Hillary Clinton's "haunting"
and intimidating interaction with her following the sexual assault.]
By Candice E. Jackson
Juanita Broaddrick first spoke publicly about her experience being raped by Bill Clinton in 1999.
I met her while featuring her story in my book,
"Their Lives: The Women Targeted By The Clinton Machine." She has largely stayed out of the public
eye for the last decade, but she has spoken out during this 2016 election cycle to urge the American
public to refuse to elect Hillary Clinton to the presidency. I was honored to meet with Juanita in
her Van Buren, Arkansas, home to talk about the long-lasting impact the Clintons' abuse has had on
her life.
The brutal sexual assault itself has been described in Juanita's own words in the
Wall Street Journal
, on
NBC's "Dateline" with Lisa Myers , and in my book
"Their Lives." This interview isn't about cheap headlines promising new revelations of details
surrounding the rape itself. This is about sharing publicly new details of how the rape has affected
Juanita over her lifetime. It's also about presenting Juanita's experience to a new generation, including
millennials who may be more open-minded to hearing the truth about the Clintons now than their baby
boomer parents were in the 1990s.
Juanita created a social media firestorm earlier this year by tweeting that she had been "dreading
seeing my abuser on TV campaign trail for enabler wife but his physical appearance reflects ghosts
of past are catching up." One of the many media figures who called her after this tweet was Andrea
Mitchell of NBC. Because she'd had a positive experience with Lisa Myers with NBC back in 1999, Andrea
Mitchell was one of the few calls Juanita returned in the aftermath of her trending tweets. Andrea
Mitchell asked her just one question, listened to her answer, and told Juanita condescendingly, "We're
not going to air anything with you because you have nothing new to add." Juanita felt bewildered
by Andrea Mitchell's dismissive attitude.
Nothing new? Hardly. What happened to Juanita in that Little Rock hotel room at the hands of Bill
Clinton in 1978 is "nothing new," and Hillary's inimical confrontation of Juanita weeks later, and
Bill Clinton's much-delayed and dubious "apology" to Juanita years later are historical events that
haven't changed for three decades. What's new is that Hillary Clinton has all but secured the Democratic
Party's nomination for president, and Juanita Broaddrick is willing to bravely come forward to shed
new light on the lifetime of pain Bill and Hillary Clinton have caused her (and so many women like
her).
"I could actually have respected Hillary if she had divorced Bill in 1978. But I feel like she
has always known about all of his dalliances and misdeeds either at the time or shortly after, and
now we know their marriage is just an arrangement. I can't respect a woman like that." She pauses,
reflecting, "I remember being shocked to hear that Hillary was pregnant. She'd been in Sweden or
Switzerland or something like that when I heard it on the news. I was shocked because of what Bill
had told me in that hotel room, you know, that I shouldn't worry about getting pregnant because he
was sterile after having had the mumps."
"... [Qatar] would like to see WJC 'for five minutes' in NYC, to present $1 million check that Qatar promised for WJC's birthday in 2011," an employee at The Clinton Foundation said to numerous aides, including Doug Brand ..."
"... No doubt! The Clintons sure were working the Haiti angle any way that they could. I wonder how that's playing in Florida? ..."
"[Qatar] would like to see WJC 'for five minutes' in NYC, to present $1 million check that
Qatar promised for WJC's birthday in 2011," an employee at The Clinton Foundation said to numerous
aides, including Doug Brand [isc]. "Qatar would welcome our suggestions for investments in Haiti
- particularly on education and health. They have allocated most of their $20 million but are
happy to consider projects we suggest. I'm collecting input from CF Haiti team."
No doubt! The Clintons sure were working the Haiti angle any way that they could. I wonder how
that's playing in Florida?
"... When Hillary Clinton recently declared half of Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables", Zaitchik told another reporter, the language "could be read as another way of saying 'white-trash bin'." ..."
When Hillary Clinton recently declared half of Trump supporters a "basket of deplorables", Zaitchik
told another reporter, the language "could be read as another way of saying 'white-trash bin'."
Clinton
quickly apologized for the comment, the context of which contained compassion for many Trump voters.
But making such generalizations at a $6m fundraiser in downtown New York City, at which some attendees
paid $50,000 for a seat, recalled for me scenes from the television political satire Veep in which
powerful Washington figures discuss "normals" with distaste behind closed doors.
Beginning in the 1970s, it has increasingly become an organ of this same class. Affluent
white-collar professionals are today the voting bloc that Democrats represent most faithfully,
and they are the people whom Democrats see as the rightful winners in our economic order. Hillary
Clinton, with her fantastic résumé and her life of striving and her much-commented-on
qualifications, represents the aspirations of this class almost perfectly.
Hillary advocates are in a typical situation "The pot calling the kettle black". Bill Clinton
sexapades are much more serious that Trump said or ever attempted...
Notable quotes:
"... Krugman's hero, Hillary Rodham Clinton, is on the record for support Simpson-Bowles. Austerity and raising the Social Security age? What gives? ..."
"... I'd suggest, an underlying cynicism... We're talking about a party that has long exploited white backlash to mobilize working-class voters, while enacting policies that actually hurt those voters but benefit the wealthy. Anyone participating in that scam ... has to have the sense that politics is a sphere in which you can get away with a lot if you have the right connections ..."
"... There is also, I'd suggest, an underlying cynicism that pervades the Republican elite. We're talking about a party that has long exploited white backlash to mobilize working-class voters, while enacting policies that actually hurt those voters but benefit the wealthy. ..."
"... I agree, impugning the integrity of a large group of people is about as bad as calling a large group of people 'deplorables' or Romney's writing off 47% of the population. ..."
"... Unfortunately, history is clear that there is one group of people who routinely took sexual advantage of women: some of the rich and powerful. ..."
"... The main reason it was incomprehensible was that "Europe" practices the allegedly-French maxim "live and let live" in this regard - a considerable level of "benevolent" sin and debauchery will be tolerated and dutifully disregarded as long as it is properly hidden and orderly public perceptions are maintained (or if some of it gets out, at least a customary effort will have to have been made to keep it under wraps). I.e. if you make reasonable efforts to keep it private, it will be treated as private. But fail to make the effort or deliberately show off, then you will meet with scorn and resentment. ..."
"... Using positions of influence to actively take advantage or extract concessions, or abusive behavior of any kind, are not OK, and there is no presumption that it is a perk of power. ..."
"... And that it was viewed as extramarital relations was in good part because a lot of the media "coverage" concentrated on rehashing all the salacious "sexual" aspects in almost pornographic detail. If anybody defiled Ms. Lewinsky's virtue and reputation, it was the persecutors and the media. ..."
"... So why do the French tolerate behavior that would both shame and topple leaders in the U.S. or Britain? Because, despite French lip service to their revolution's promise of "egalite" for all citizens, voters still tend to defer to politicians as a class apart who enjoy entitlements once associated with royal courts. ..."
"... Italy was pretty tolerant of Berlusconi's behavior...until it was proven that he slept with an underage woman. ..."
"... Krugman's claim: "Yes, Bill Clinton had affairs; but there's a world of difference between consensual sex, however inappropriate, and abuse of power to force those less powerful to accept your urges." ..."
"... Wikipedia: "Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United States (1993-2001), has been publicly accused by several women of sexual misconduct. Juanita Broaddrick has accused Clinton of rape; Kathleen Willey has accused Clinton of groping her without consent; and Paula Jones accuses Clinton of exposing himself and sexually harassing her." ..."
"... Sadly, Krugman is just spewing the usual partisan sanctimony ...being shocked--just shocked--at the behavior of the other side while showing a shocking lack of curiosity in the misbehavior of politicians on his side...or denying that it might have happened. ..."
"... Let's be clear...Trump's behavior was despicable. Any maybe, just maybe, Bill Clinton's behavior was somewhat less despicable. Still, we can agree that both behaved badly, taking advantage of their power and position to take advantage of others. ..."
"... Clintons have no convictions. And there is always a worse criminal to excuse them. ..."
"... According to sexual harassment guidelines issued by the Clinton administration, large imbalances of power made "consensual" very problematic. For you irony fans..... ..."
"... How can Democrats be shocked--just shocked!--at Trump's behavior, while they continue to cover up and minimize Bill Clinton's? Can Democrats legitimately claim that Bill Clinton was the lesser of two evils when it came to sexual predation? I don't think so. How many hairs do you want to split when it comes to sexual predation? ..."
"... Certainly, Hillary must find it hard to have stood by her man, despite his sexual predations, and then attack Trump for the same behavior. As a result, she leaves the attacks to her army of partisan hacks...like Krugman. ..."
"... Of course he was abusing his power. Being an apologist for Clinton exploiting his power to get sex is pathetic. Failing to recognize the significance of the power differential between Clinton and the women he screwed is pathetic. ..."
"... Predator talk angst on faux prudes is nothing to neocon predator plans on entire countries. It is alleged that Trump does women. Hillary would do Syria, ousting Assad is her goal much like her murder of Qaddafi and Libya. The bait and switch! ..."
Predators in Arms, by Paul Krugman, NY Times
: As many people are
pointing out, Republicans now trying to distance themselves from
Donald Trump need to explain why The Tape was a breaking point, when
so many previous incidents weren't. ...
Meanwhile, the Trump-Ailes axis of abuse raises another question: Is
sexual predation by senior political figures - which Mr. Ailes
certainly was, even if he pretended to be in the journalism business -
a partisan phenomenon?
Just to be clear, I'm not talking about bad behavior in general...
Yes, Bill Clinton had affairs; but there's a world of difference
between consensual sex, however inappropriate, and abuse of power to
force those less powerful to accept your urges. ...
... ... ...
Mr. Trump, in other words, isn't so much an anomaly as he is a pure
distillation of his party's modern essence.
"There is also, I'd suggest, an underlying cynicism... We're
talking about a party that has long exploited white backlash
to mobilize working-class voters, while enacting policies
that actually hurt those voters but benefit the wealthy.
Anyone participating in that scam ... has to have the sense
that politics is a sphere in which you can get away with a
lot if you have the right connections. ..."
Times are
tough, our backs are against the wall. But, do Americans quit
? No.
Like when the Germans attacked Pearl Harbor ;-) ......
There is also, I'd suggest, an underlying cynicism that
pervades the Republican elite. We're talking about a party
that has long exploited white backlash to mobilize
working-class voters, while enacting policies that actually
hurt those voters but benefit the wealthy.
Anyone
participating in that scam - which is what it is - has to
have the sense that politics is a sphere in which you can get
away with a lot if you have the right connections. So in a
way it's not surprising if a disproportionate number of major
players feel empowered to abuse their position....
-- Paul
Krugman
[ This is the rationale of the generalizing in the column,
and possibly the rationale is correct as such and makes sense
of the stereotyping of individuals in the Republican Party. I
have no counter argument, though I feel I should have. ]
I agree, impugning the integrity of a large group of people
is about as bad as calling a large group of people
'deplorables' or Romney's writing off 47% of the population.
Unfortunately, history is clear that there is one group of
people who routinely took sexual advantage of women: some of
the rich and powerful.
The practice even has a name: Droit du seigneur, or droit
du jambage, whereby a lord was entitled to deflower the bride
of another man on her wedding night.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_du_seigneur
Though the Wikipedia entry casts some doubt on the
practice, because there was no proof (there wasn't proof of
much back then), it has been a recurring theme. Balzac and
Dumas, fils wrote novels about very young women brought into
wealthy households as playthings. Mario Vargas Llosa wrote a
novel about the dictator Trujillo's practice of having
virgins delivered to his palace during the 1950s. Amin Malouf
wrote a similar novel about a local lord in Lebanon in the
19th century.
My guess is that the practice is alive and well. Many
Europeans never understood why the Lewinsky affair became a
scandal, because they assumed that such behavior was just a
perk of the position. Certainly, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, IMF
Managing Director and a contender for the presidency of
France, felt no compunction about sexually assaulting a maid
in New York City in 2011.
Now I don't want to impugn the integrity of ALL people who
are rich and/or powerful, but there is clearly a problem with
some of them, regardless of nationality or political party.
The
Feast of the Goat (Spanish: La fiesta del chivo, 2000) is a
novel by the Peruvian Nobel Prize in Literature laureate
Mario Vargas Llosa. The book is set in the Dominican Republic
and portrays the assassination of Dominican dictator Rafael
Trujillo, and its aftermath, from two distinct standpoints a
generation apart: during and immediately after the
assassination itself, in May 1961; and thirty five years
later, in 1996. Throughout, there is also extensive
reflection on the heyday of the dictatorship, in the 1950s,
and its significance for the island and its inhabitants.
THE FEAST OF THE GOAT
By Mario Vargas Llosa.
Translated by Edith Grossman.
Sympathy, or at least empathy, for the Devil seldom fails
as a novelistic formula. Virtue may inspire, but evil
fascinates. Most fascinating of all, perhaps, is political
evil -- the sort of programmatic perfidy that doesn't just
harm individuals but roils the flow of history itself. For
all its richness as a subject, such large-scale wrongdoing
rarely gets much play in the work of North American writers,
who tend to favor stories of private crime over tales of
public villainy. Recent events may change this cultural
emphasis, but for now one has to look abroad, to talents such
as Mario Vargas Llosa, the prolific Peruvian essayist and
novelist, for the lowdown on organized evil in high
places....
Latin American literature is great...and it often deals with
the abuses of the politically powerful...Isabel Allende,
Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Mario Vargas Llosa, Carlos Fuentes
and others. One of my favorites is 'El Otoño del Patriarca,"
a composite of many strongmen who ruled in Latin America.
The US once had great authors such as Steinbeck and Sinclair
Lewis. Barbara Kingsolver's 'The Lacuna' is a really good
story set in Mexico and The US in the 1930s and fascinating
commentary on art and politics of the time.
A Stunning Portrait of a Monstrous Caribbean Tyrant
By WILLIAM KENNEDY
THE AUTUMN OF THE PATRIARCH
By Gabriel García Márquez.
Translated by Gregory Rabassa.
In 1968 when he began to write this majestic novel,
Gabriel García Márquez told an interviewer that the only
image he had of it for years was that of an incredibly old
man walking through the huge, abandoned rooms of a palace
full of animals. Some of his friends remember him saying as
far back as 1958, when as a newsman he was witnessing the
fall of Marcos Pérez Jiménez in Venezuela, that he would one
day write a book about a dictator. He has since spoken of the
influence of the life of the Venezuelan caudillo, Juan
Vicente Gómez, on this book. He himself lived for years under
the Rojas Pinilla dictatorship in his native Colombia. He
covered the trial of a Batista butcher in the early days of
Castro's Cuban takeover. He lived in Spain during the
interminable rattlings of Franco's elusive death, when that
country was a hospitable journey's end for deposed Latin
dictators.
He has added to these times of his own life fragments from
the long history of dictators--the deaths of Julius Caesar
and Mussolini, the durability of Stroessner, the wife-worship
of Perón, what seems to be a close study of the times of
Trujillo and the United States and English
gunboat-puppeteering of so many bestial morons into the
dictator's palace. He has absorbed and re-imagined all this,
and more, and emerged with a stunning portrait of the
archetype: the pathological fascist tyrant.
García Márquez (his surname is García; Márquez is his
mother's name) began this novel in 1968 and said in 1971 that
it was finished. But he continued to embellish it until 1975
when he published it in Spain. Now Gregory Rabassa, who
translated the author's last novel, "One Hundred Years of
Solitude," and who on the basis of these two books alone
stands as one of the best translators who ever drew breath,
has given us the superb English equivalent of García
Márquez's magisterial Spanish.
The book, as is to be expected from García Márquez, is
mystical, surrealistic, Rabelaisian in its excesses, its
distortions and its exotic language. But García Márquez'
sense of life is that surreality is as much the norm as
banality. "In Mexico surrealism runs through the streets,"he
once said. And elsewhere: "The Latin American reality is
totally Rabelaisian."
And so his patriarch, the unnamed General (his precise
rank is General of the Universe) of an unnamed Caribbean
nation, lives to be anywhere between 107 and 232 years old,
sires 5,000 children, all runts, all born after seven-month
gestations. He is a bird woman's bastard, conceived in a
storm of bluebottle flies, born in a convent doorway, gifted
at birth with huge, deformed feet and an enlarged testicle
the size of a fig, which whistles a tune of pain to him every
moment of his impossibly long life. The graffiti on the walls
of the servants' toilet give him oracular insight into
traitorous cohorts, one of whom he serves roasted for dinner
to a gathering of his generals.
He has such power that when he orders the time of day
changed from three to eight in the morning to deliver himself
from darkness, the roses open two hours before dew time. His
influence is so indelible that eventually his cows are born
with his hereditary presidential brand. His venality such
that he rigs the weekly lottery, using children under seven
to draw the winning three numbers, and he always wins all
three. To quiet the children about their enforced complicity,
he imprisons them. When they number 2,000 and the Pope
anguishes publicly over their disappearance and the League of
Nations investigates it, he isolates the children in the
wilderness after a Nazi-like deportation in boxcars, and
finally drowns them at sea, denying they ever existed.
But his most fantastic depredation is the sale of the
Caribbean Sea to the gringos who have kept him in power. The
United States ambassador orders in giant suction dredges and
nautical engineers, who carry off the sea "in numbered pieces
to plant it far from the hurricanes in the blood-red dawns of
Arizona, they took it away with everything it had inside
general sir, with the reflection of our cities, our timid
drowned people, our demented dragons," and they leave behind
a torn crater, a deserted plain of harsh lunar dust. To
replace the breezes that were lost when the sea went away,
another U.S. ambassador gives the General a wind machine....
Latin American literature is great...and it often deals with
the abuses of the politically powerful...Isabel Allende,
Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Mario Vargas Llosa, Carlos Fuentes
and others....
"Many Europeans never understood why the Lewinsky affair
became a scandal, because they assumed that such behavior was
just a perk of the position."
I disagree. I don't know any
Europeans who think like that.
Extramarital affairs are not really uncommon, and not
restricted to people of high social stature. The affair was
viewed more as extramarital relations than (passively) taking
advantage of somebody arguably in a position of occupational
dependence, and the whole impeachment proceedings were
recognized as a witch hunt by lecherous old bucks riding the
well-worn Puritan mock adultery outrage theme. (And some of
whom later turned out to have had affairs of their own going
on.)
The main reason it was incomprehensible was that "Europe"
practices the allegedly-French maxim "live and let live" in
this regard - a considerable level of "benevolent" sin and
debauchery will be tolerated and dutifully disregarded as
long as it is properly hidden and orderly public perceptions
are maintained (or if some of it gets out, at least a
customary effort will have to have been made to keep it under
wraps). I.e. if you make reasonable efforts to keep it
private, it will be treated as private. But fail to make the
effort or deliberately show off, then you will meet with
scorn and resentment.
Using positions of influence to actively take advantage or
extract concessions, or abusive behavior of any kind, are not
OK, and there is no presumption that it is a perk of power.
And that it was viewed as extramarital relations was in good
part because a lot of the media "coverage" concentrated on
rehashing all the salacious "sexual" aspects in almost
pornographic detail. If anybody defiled Ms. Lewinsky's virtue
and reputation, it was the persecutors and the media.
"So why do the French tolerate behavior that would both shame
and topple leaders in the U.S. or Britain? Because, despite
French lip service to their revolution's promise of "egalite"
for all citizens, voters still tend to defer to politicians
as a class apart who enjoy entitlements once associated with
royal courts."
I thought that Thoma would be wise enough not to republish
this Krugman column...but since he wasn't, here goes:
Krugman's claim: "Yes, Bill Clinton had affairs; but there's
a world of difference between consensual sex, however
inappropriate, and abuse of power to force those less
powerful to accept your urges."
Wikipedia: "Bill Clinton, the 42nd President of the United
States (1993-2001), has been publicly accused by several
women of sexual misconduct. Juanita Broaddrick has accused
Clinton of rape; Kathleen Willey has accused Clinton of
groping her without consent; and Paula Jones accuses Clinton
of exposing himself and sexually harassing her."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations
Sadly, Krugman is just spewing the usual partisan
sanctimony ...being shocked--just shocked--at the behavior of
the other side while showing a shocking lack of curiosity in
the misbehavior of politicians on his side...or denying that
it might have happened.
Let's be clear...Trump's behavior was despicable. Any
maybe, just maybe, Bill Clinton's behavior was somewhat less
despicable. Still, we can agree that both behaved badly,
taking advantage of their power and position to take
advantage of others.
I say, let's continue to expose the dirty laundry...all of
it. Historically, the media has chosen to treat Presidents
like royalty. But, as we know, the British royal family has
its share of tawdry scandals.
The American people deserve to see what's behind the
carefully fabricated public images of rich and powerful
people who choose to be our leaders. A spotlight needs to be
shown on powerful people who abuse their position both for
personal gain as well as exploitation of the less powerful.
What alternate universe do you live in? Bill Clinton - a bit
old and decrepit - goes down as a good president, isn't
running. We dems don't bring up GWB - a very bad president -
in re Trump.
The analogy to Clinton and Monika: there was evidence he did
the deed; she was bullied, she was the underling, she was
abused, and the process let Bill off. Why different standard
for no evidence but braggadocio Trump?
The shady "process"
that let H. Clinton off on security and federal records was
not like the process Bill endured.
According to sexual harassment guidelines issued by the
Clinton administration, large imbalances of power made
"consensual" very problematic.
For you irony fans.....
How can Democrats be shocked--just shocked!--at Trump's
behavior, while they continue to cover up and minimize Bill
Clinton's? Can Democrats legitimately claim that Bill Clinton
was the lesser of two evils when it came to sexual predation?
I don't think so. How many hairs do you want to split when it
comes to sexual predation?
Certainly, Hillary must find it
hard to have stood by her man, despite his sexual predations,
and then attack Trump for the same behavior. As a result, she
leaves the attacks to her army of partisan hacks...like
Krugman.
> Krugman's claim: "Yes, Bill Clinton had affairs; but
there's a world of difference between consensual sex, however
inappropriate, and abuse of power to force those less
powerful to accept your urges."
Wow. Show of hands: Who
believes Bill Clinton was not using his power to 'encourage'
less powerful people to accept his urges?
I can't keep a straight face with that. Of course he was
abusing his power. Being an apologist for Clinton exploiting
his power to get sex is pathetic. Failing to recognize the
significance of the power differential between Clinton and
the women he screwed is pathetic.
ilsm :
, -1
Predator talk angst on faux prudes is nothing to neocon
predator plans on entire countries.
It is alleged that
Trump does women.
Hillary would do Syria, ousting Assad is her goal much
like her murder of Qaddafi and Libya. The bait and switch!
Oct 7, 2016 6:01 PM
Zero Hedge
0
SHARES
While the media is transfixed with the just released Washington Post leak of a
private Donald Trump conversation from 2005
in which he was speaking "lewdly" about
women, and for which he has apologized, roughly at the same time, Wikileaks released
part one of what it dubbed the "
Podesta
emails
", which it describes as "a series on deals involving Hillary Clinton campaign
Chairman John Podesta. Mr Podesta is a long-term associate of the Clintons and was
President Bill Clinton's Chief of Staff from 1998 until 2001. Mr Podesta also owns the
Podesta Group with his brother Tony, a major lobbying firm and is the Chair of the
Center for American Progress (CAP), a Washington DC-based think tank."
While the
underlying story in this specific case involves the alleged kickbacks received by the
Clinton Foundation from the Russian government-controlled "Uranium One", a story which
has been profiled previously by the NYT, and about which Wikileaks adds that "as Russian
interests gradually took control of Uranium One
millions of dollars were donated to
the Clinton Foundation between 2009 and 2013 from individuals directly connected to the
deal including the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer.
Although Mrs Clinton had an
agreement with the Obama White House to publicly identify all donors to the Clinton
Foundation, the contributions from the Chairman of Uranium One were not publicly
disclosed by the Clintons",
what caught our attention is an email from Tony
Carr,
a Research Director at
Hillary for America
, in which he lay outs hundreds of excerpts from the heretofore
missing transcripts of Hillary Clinton's infamous Wall Street speeches, with an emphasis
on those which should be flagged as they may be damaging to Hillary.
But first, here are the greatest hits as conveniently flagged by the Clinton Campaign
itself on page one of the 80 page addendum dubbed "
awkward"
Hillary Clinton: "I'm Kind Of Far Removed" From The Struggles Of The
Middle Class "Because The Life I've Lived And The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That
My Husband And I Now Enjoy."
"And I am not taking a position on any policy,
but I do think there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over
the feeling that the game is rigged. And I never had that feeling when I was growing
up. Never. I mean, were there really rich people, of course there were. My father
loved to complain about big business and big government, but we had a solid middle
class upbringing. We had good public schools. We had accessible health care. We
had our little, you know, one-family house that, you know, he saved up his money,
didn't believe in mortgages. So I lived that. And now, obviously, I'm kind of far
removed because the life I've lived and the economic, you know, fortunes that my
husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't forgotten it." [Hillary Clinton Remarks at
Goldman-Black Rock, 2/4/14]
When A Questioner At Goldman Sachs Said She Raised Money For Hillary
Clinton In 2008, Hillary Clinton Joked "You Are The Smartest People
."
"PARTICIPANT: Secretary, Ann Chow from Houston, Texas. I have had the honor to
raise money for you when you were running for president in Texas. MS. CLINTON: You
are the smartest people. PARTICIPANT: I think you actually called me on my cell
phone, too. I talked to you afterwards." [ Speech to Goldman Sachs, 2013 IBD Ceo
Annual Conference, 6/4/13]
Hillary Clinton Joked That If Lloyd Blankfein Wanted To Run For Office, He
Should "Would Leave Goldman Sachs And Start Running A Soup Kitchen Somewhere
.
" "MR. BLANKFEIN: I'm saying for myself. MS. CLINTON: If you were going
to run here is what I would tell you to do -- MR. BLANKFEIN: Very
hypothetical. MS. CLINTON: I think you would leave Goldman Sachs and start running a
soup kitchen somewhere. MR. BLANKFEIN: For one thing the stock would go
up. MS. CLINTON: Then you could be a legend in your own time both when you were
there and when you left." [ Speech to Goldman Sachs, 2013 IBD Ceo Annual Conference,
6/4/13]
Hillary Clinton Noted President Clinton Had Spoken At The Same Goldman
Summit Last Year, And Blankfein Joked "He Increased Our Budget."
"SECRETARY
CLINTON: Well, first, thanks for having me here and giving me a chance to know a
little bit more about the builders and the innovators who you've gathered. Some of
you might have been here last year, and my husband was, I guess, in this very same
position. And he came back and was just thrilled by- MR. BLANKFEIN: He increased
our budget. SECRETARY CLINTON: Did he? MR. BLANKFEIN: Yes. That's why
we -- SECRETARY CLINTON: Good. I think he-I think he encouraged you to
grow it a little, too. But it really was a tremendous experience for him, so I've
been looking forward to it and hope we have a chance to talk about a lot of things."
[Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]
Clinton Said When She Got To State, Employees "Were Not Mostly Permitted
To Have Handheld Devices."
"You know, when Colin Powell showed up as
Secretary of State in 2001, most State Department employees still didn't even have
computers on their desks. When I got there they were not mostly permitted to have
handheld devices. I mean, so you're thinking how do we operate in this new
environment dominated by technology, globalizing forces? We have to change, and I
can't expect people to change if I don't try to model it and lead it." [Clinton
Speech For General Electric's Global Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL, 1/6/14]
Clinton Joked It's "Risky" For Her To Speak To A Group Committed To
Futures Markets
Given Her Past Whitewater Scandal. "Now, it's always a
little bit risky for me to come speak to a group that is committed to the futures
markets because -- there's a few knowing laughs -- many years ago, I actually traded
in the futures markets. I mean, this was so long ago, it was before computers were
invented, I think. And I worked with a group of like-minded friends and associates
who traded in pork bellies and cotton and other such things, and I did pretty well. I
invested about a thousand dollars and traded up to about a hundred thousand. And then
my daughter was born, and I just didn't think I had enough time or mental space to
figure out anything having to do with trading other than trading time with my
daughter for time with the rest of my life. So I got out, and I thought that would be
the end of it." [Remarks to CME Group, 11/18/13]
Hillary Clinton Said Jordan Was Threatened Because
"They Can't Possibly
Vet All Those Refugees So They Don't Know If, You Know, Jihadists Are Coming In Along
With Legitimate Refugees."
"So I think you're right to have gone to the
places that you visited because there's a discussion going on now across the region
to try to see where there might be common ground to deal with the threat posed by
extremism and particularly with Syria which has everyone quite worried, Jordan
because it's on their border and they have hundreds of thousands of refugees and they
can't possibly vet all those refugees so they don't know if, you know, jihadists are
coming in along with legitimate refugees. Turkey for the same reason." [Jewish
United Fund Of Metropolitan Chicago Vanguard Luncheon, 10/28/13]
Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And
Open Markets.
"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and
open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as
we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere."
[05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]
* * *
Here is the full email by Carrk as of January 25, 2016 laying out all the potentially
delicate issues that the Clinton campaign would wish to avoid from emerging. One thing
to note: as Michael Tracey points out, the
Hillary campaign had all the transcripts
at her disposal all along, despite repeated deflection.
Perhaps as a result of this
leak she will now release the full transcripts for the "proper context."
Attached are the flags from HRC's paid speeches we have from HWA. I put some
highlights below. There is a lot of policy positions that we should give an extra scrub
with Policy.
Hillary Clinton: "I'm Kind Of Far Removed" From The Struggles Of The Middle
Class "Because The Life I've Lived And The Economic, You Know, Fortunes That My Husband
And I Now Enjoy."
"And I am not taking a position on any policy, but I do think
there is a growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country over the feeling that
the game is rigged. And I never had that feeling when I was growing up. Never. I mean,
were there really rich people, of course there were. My father loved to complain about
big business and big government, but we had a solid middle class upbringing. We had
good public schools. We had accessible health care. We had our little, you know,
one-family house that, you know, he saved up his money, didn't believe in mortgages. So
I lived that. And now, obviously, I'm kind of far removed because the life I've lived
and the economic, you know, fortunes that my husband and I now enjoy, but I haven't
forgotten it." [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Goldman-Black Rock, 2/4/14]
CLINTON SAYS YOU NEED TO HAVE A PRIVATE AND PUBLIC POSITION ON POLICY
Clinton: "But If Everybody's Watching, You Know, All Of The Back Room
Discussions And The Deals, You Know, Then People Get A Little Nervous, To Say The Least.
So, You Need Both A Public And A Private Position."
CLINTON: You just have to
sort of figure out how to -- getting back to that word, "balance" -- how to balance the
public and the private efforts that are necessary to be successful, politically, and
that's not just a comment about today. That, I think, has probably been true for all of
our history, and if you saw the Spielberg movie, Lincoln, and how he was maneuvering and
working to get the 13th Amendment passed, and he called one of my favorite predecessors,
Secretary Seward, who had been the governor and senator from New York, ran against
Lincoln for president, and he told Seward, I need your help to get this done. And Seward
called some of his lobbyist friends who knew how to make a deal, and they just kept
going at it. I mean, politics is like sausage being made. It is unsavory, and it always
has been that way, but we usually end up where we need to be. But if everybody's
watching, you know, all of the back room discussions and the deals, you know, then
people get a little nervous, to say the least. So, you need both a public and a private
position. And finally, I think -- I believe in evidence-based decision making. I want to
know what the facts are. I mean, it's like when you guys go into some kind of a deal,
you know, are you going to do that development or not, are you going to do that
renovation or not, you know, you look at the numbers. You try to figure out what's going
to work and what's not going to work. [Clinton Speech For National Multi-Housing
Council, 4/24/13]
CLINTON TALKS ABOUT HOLDING WALL STREET ACCOUNTABLE ONLY FOR POLITICAL
REASONS
Clinton Said That The Blame Placed On The United States Banking System For
The Crisis "Could Have Been Avoided In Terms Of Both Misunderstanding And Really
Politicizing What Happened."
"That was one of the reasons that I started
traveling in February of '09, so people could, you know, literally yell at me for the
United States and our banking system causing this everywhere. Now, that's an
oversimplification we know, but it was the conventional wisdom. And I think that there's
a lot that could have been avoided in terms of both misunderstanding and really
politicizing what happened with greater transparency, with greater openness on all
sides, you know, what happened, how did it happen, how do we prevent it from happening?
You guys help us figure it out and let's make sure that we do it right this time. And I
think that everybody was desperately trying to fend off the worst effects
institutionally, governmentally, and there just wasn't that opportunity to try to sort
this out, and that came later." [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium,
10/24/13]
* * *
Clinton: "Even If It May Not Be 100 Percent True, If The Perception Is That
Somehow The Game Is Rigged, That Should Be A Problem For All Of Us."
"Now, it's
important to recognize the vital role that the financial markets play in our economy and
that so many of you are contributing to. To function effectively those markets and the
men and women who shape them have to command trust and confidence, because we all rely
on the market's transparency and integrity. So even if it may not be 100 percent true,
if the perception is that somehow the game is rigged, that should be a problem for all
of us, and we have to be willing to make that absolutely clear. And if there are
issues, if there's wrongdoing, people have to be held accountable and we have to try to
deter future bad behavior, because the public trust is at the core of both a free market
economy and a democracy." [Clinton Remarks to Deutsche Bank, 10/7/14]
CLINTON SUGGESTS WALL STREET INSIDERS ARE WHAT IS NEEDED TO FIX WALL
STREET
Clinton Said Financial Reform "Really Has To Come From The Industry Itself."
"Remember what Teddy Roosevelt did. Yes, he took on what he saw as the
excesses in the economy, but he also stood against the excesses in politics. He didn't
want to unleash a lot of nationalist, populistic reaction. He wanted to try to figure
out how to get back into that balance that has served America so well over our entire
nationhood. Today, there's more that can and should be done that really has to come from
the industry itself, and how we can strengthen our economy, create more jobs at a time
where that's increasingly challenging, to get back to Teddy Roosevelt's square deal.
And I really believe that our country and all of you are up to that job." [Clinton
Remarks to Deutsche Bank, 10/7/14]
* * *
Speaking About The Importance Of Proper Regulation, Clinton Said "The People
That Know The Industry Better Than Anybody Are The People Who Work In The Industry."
"I mean, it's still happening, as you know. People are looking back and trying to, you
know, get compensation for bad mortgages and all the rest of it in some of the
agreements that are being reached. There's nothing magic about regulations, too much is
bad, too little is bad. How do you get to the golden key, how do we figure out what
works? And the people that know the industry better than anybody are the people who
work in the industry. And I think there has to be a recognition that, you know, there's
so much at stake now, I mean, the business has changed so much and decisions are made so
quickly, in nano seconds basically. We spend trillions of dollars to travel around the
world, but it's in everybody's interest that we have a better framework, and not just
for the United States but for the entire world, in which to operate and trade." [Goldman
Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]
CLINTON ADMITS NEEDING WALL STREET FUNDING
Clinton Said That Because Candidates Needed Money From Wall Street To Run For
Office, People In New York Needed To Ask Tough Questions About The Economy Before
Handing Over Campaign Contributions.
"Secondly, running for office in our
country takes a lot of money, and candidates have to go out and raise it. New York is
probably the leading site for contributions for fundraising for candidates on both sides
of the aisle, and it's also our economic center. And there are a lot of people here who
should ask some tough questions before handing over campaign contributions to people who
were really playing chicken with our whole economy." [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative
Investments Symposium, 10/24/13]
* * *
Clinton: "It Would Be Very Difficult To Run For President Without Raising A
Huge Amount Of Money And Without Having Other People Supporting You Because Your
Opponent Will Have Their Supporters."
"So our system is, in many ways, more
difficult, certainly far more expensive and much longer than a parliamentary system, and
I really admire the people who subject themselves to it. Even when I, you know, think
they should not be elected president, I still think, well, you know, good for you I
guess, you're out there promoting democracy and those crazy ideas of yours. So I think
that it's something -- I would like -- you know, obviously as somebody who has been
through it, I would like it not to last as long because I think it's very distracting
from what we should be doing every day in our public business. I would like it not to
be so expensive. I have no idea how you do that. I mean, in my campaign -- I lose
track, but I think I raised $250 million or some such enormous amount, and in the last
campaign President Obama raised 1.1 billion, and that was before the Super PACs and all
of this other money just rushing in, and it's so ridiculous that we have this kind of
free for all with all of this financial interest at stake, but, you know, the Supreme
Court said that's basically what we're in for. So we're kind of in the wild west, and,
you know, it would be very difficult to run for president without raising a huge amount
of money and without having other people supporting you because your opponent will have
their supporters. So I think as hard as it was when I ran, I think it's even harder
now." [Clinton Speech For General Electric's Global Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL,
1/6/14]
CLINTON TOUTS HER RELATIONSHIP TO WALL STREET AS A SENATOR
Clinton: As Senator, "I Represented And Worked With" So Many On Wall Street
And "Did All I Could To Make Sure They Continued To Prosper" But Still Called For
Closing Carried Interest Loophole.
In remarks at Robbins, Gellar, Rudman & Dowd
in San Diego, Hillary Clinton said, "When I was a Senator from New York, I represented
and worked with so many talented principled people who made their living in finance.
But even thought I represented them and did all I could to make sure they continued to
prosper, I called for closing the carried interest loophole and addressing skyrocketing
CEO pay. I also was calling in '06, '07 for doing something about the mortgage crisis,
because I saw every day from Wall Street literally to main streets across New York how a
well-functioning financial system is essential. So when I raised early warnings about
early warnings about subprime mortgages and called for regulating derivatives and over
complex financial products, I didn't get some big arguments, because people sort of
said, no, that makes sense. But boy, have we had fights about it ever since." [Hillary
Clinton's Remarks at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd in San Diego, 9/04/14]
* * *
Clinton On Wall Street: "I Had Great Relations And Worked So Close Together
After 9/11 To Rebuild Downtown, And A Lot Of Respect For The Work You Do And The People
Who Do It."
"Now, without going over how we got to where we are right now, what
would be your advice to the Wall Street community and the big banks as to the way
forward with those two important decisions? SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I represented all
of you for eight years. I had great relations and worked so close together after 9/11
to rebuild downtown, and a lot of respect for the work you do and the people who do it,
but I do -- I think that when we talk about the regulators and the politicians, the
economic consequences of bad decisions back in '08, you know, were devastating, and they
had repercussions throughout the world." [Goldman Sachs AIMS Alternative Investments
Symposium, 10/24/13]
CLINTON TALKS ABOUT THE CHALLENGES RUNNING FOR OFFICE
Hillary Clinton Said There Was "A Bias Against People Who Have Led Successful
And/Or Complicated Lives," Citing The Need To Divese Of Assets, Positions, And Stocks.
"SECRETARY CLINTON: Yeah. Well, you know what Bob Rubin said about that. He said,
you know, when he came to Washington, he had a fortune. And when he left Washington, he
had a small -- MR. BLANKFEIN: That's how you have a small fortune, is you
go to Washington. SECRETARY CLINTON: You go to Washington. Right. But,
you know, part of the problem with the political situation, too, is that there is such a
bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives. You know, the
divestment of assets, the stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks. It
just becomes very onerous and unnecessary." [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators
Summit, 10/29/13]
CLINTON SUGGESTS SHE IS A MODERATE
Clinton Said That Both The Democratic And Republican Parties Should Be
"Moderate."
"URSULA BURNS: Interesting. Democrats? SECRETARY CLINTON: Oh,
long, definitely. URSULA BURNS: Republicans? SECRETARY CLINTON: Unfortunately, at the
time, short. URSULA BURNS: Okay. We'll go back to questions. SECRETARY CLINTON: We
need two parties. URSULA BURNS: Yeah, we do need two parties. SECRETARY CLINTON: Two
sensible, moderate, pragmatic parties." [Hillary Clinton Remarks, Remarks at Xerox,
3/18/14]
* * *
Clinton: "Simpson-Bowles… Put Forth The Right Framework. Namely, We Have To
Restrain Spending, We Have To Have Adequate Revenues, And We Have To Incentivize Growth.
It's A Three-Part Formula… And They Reached An Agreement. But What Is Very Hard To Do Is
To Then Take That Agreement If You Don't Believe That You're Going To Be Able To Move
The Other Side."
SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, this may be borne more out of hope
than experience in the last few years. But Simpson-Bowles -- and I know you heard from
Erskine earlier today -- put forth the right framework. Namely, we have to restrain
spending, we have to have adequate revenues, and we have to incentivize growth. It's a
three-part formula. The specifics can be negotiated depending upon whether we're acting
in good faith or not. And what Senator Simpson and Erskine did was to bring Republicans
and Democrats alike to the table, and you had the full range of ideological views from I
think Tom Coburn to Dick Durbin. And they reached an agreement. But what is very hard
to do is to then take that agreement if you don't believe that you're going to be able
to move the other side. And where we are now is in this gridlocked dysfunction. So
you've got Democrats saying that, you know, you have to have more revenues; that's the
sine qua non of any kind of agreement. You have Republicans saying no, no, no on
revenues; you have to cut much more deeply into spending. Well, looks what's happened.
We are slowly returning to growth. It's not as much or as fast as many of us would like
to see, but, you know, we're certainly better off than our European friends, and we're
beginning to, I believe, kind of come out of the long aftermath of the '08 crisis.
[Clinton Speech For Morgan Stanley, 4/18/13]
* * *
Clinton: "The Simpson-Bowles Framework And The Big Elements Of It Were Right…
You Have To Restrain Spending, You Have To Have Adequate Revenues, And You Have To Have
Growth."
CLINTON: So, you know, the Simpson-Bowles framework and the big
elements of it were right. The specifics can be negotiated and argued over. But you
got to do all three. You have to restrain spending, you have to have adequate revenues,
and you have to have growth. And I think we are smart enough to figure out how to do
that. [Clinton Speech For Morgan Stanley, 4/18/13]
CLINTON IS AWARE OF SECURITY CONCERNS AROUND BLACKBERRIES
Clinton: "At The State Department We Were Attacked Every Hour, More Than Once
An Hour By Incoming Efforts To Penetrate Everything We Had. And That Was True Across
The U.S. Government."
CLINTON: But, at the State Department we were attacked
every hour, more than once an hour by incoming efforts to penetrate everything we had.
And that was true across the U.S. government. And we knew it was going on when I would
go to China, or I would go to Russia, we would leave all of our electronic equipment on
the plane, with the batteries out, because this is a new frontier. And they're trying
to find out not just about what we do in our government. They're trying to find out
about what a lot of companies do and they were going after the personal emails of people
who worked in the State Department. So it's not like the only government in the world
that is doing anything is the United States. But, the United States compared to a
number of our competitors is the only government in the world with any kind of
safeguards, any kind of checks and balances. They may in many respects need to be
strengthened and people need to be reassured, and they need to have their protections
embodied in law. But, I think turning over a lot of that material intentionally or
unintentionally, because of the way it can be drained, gave all kinds of information not
only to big countries, but to networks and terrorist groups, and the like. So I have a
hard time thinking that somebody who is a champion of privacy and liberty has taken
refuge in Russia under Putin's authority. And then he calls into a Putin talk show and
says, President Putin, do you spy on people? And President Putin says, well, from one
intelligence professional to another, of course not. Oh, thank you so much. I mean,
really, I don't know. I have a hard time following it. [Clinton Speech At UConn,
4/23/14]
* * *
Hillary Clinton: "When I Got To The State Department, It Was Still Against
The Rules To Let Most -- Or Let All Foreign Service Officers Have Access To A
Blackberry."
"I mean, let's face it, our government is woefully, woefully
behind in all of its policies that affect the use of technology. When I got to the
State Department, it was still against the rules to let most -- or let all Foreign
Service Officers have access to a Blackberry. You couldn't have desktop computers when
Colin Powell was there. Everything that you are taking advantage of, inventing and
using, is still a generation or two behind when it comes to our government." [Hillary
Clinton Remarks at Nexenta, 8/28/14]
* * *
Hillary Clinton: "We Couldn't Take Our Computers, We Couldn't Take Our
Personal Devices" Off The Plane In China And Russia.
"I mean, probably the most
frustrating part of this whole debate are countries acting like we're the only people in
the world trying to figure out what's going on. I mean, every time I went to countries
like China or Russia, I mean, we couldn't take our computers, we couldn't take our
personal devices, we couldn't take anything off the plane because they're so good, they
would penetrate them in a minute, less, a nanosecond. So we would take the batteries
out, we'd leave them on the plane." [Hillary Clinton Remarks at Nexenta, 8/28/14]
* * *
Clinton Said When She Got To State, Employees "Were Not Mostly Permitted To
Have Handheld Devices."
"You know, when Colin Powell showed up as Secretary of
State in 2001, most State Department employees still didn't even have computers on their
desks. When I got there they were not mostly permitted to have handheld devices. I
mean, so you're thinking how do we operate in this new environment dominated by
technology, globalizing forces? We have to change, and I can't expect people to change
if I don't try to model it and lead it." [Clinton Speech For General Electric's Global
Leadership Meeting – Boca Raton, FL, 1/6/14]
* * *
Hillary Clinton Said You Know You Can't Bring Your Phone And Computer When
Traveling To China And Russia And She Had To Take Her Batteries Out And Put them In A
Special Box.
"And anybody who has ever traveled in other countries, some of
which shall remain nameless, except for Russia and China, you know that you can't bring
your phones and your computers. And if you do, good luck. I mean, we would not only
take the batteries out, we would leave the batteries and the devices on the plane in
special boxes. Now, we didn't do that because we thought it would be fun to tell
somebody about. We did it because we knew that we were all targets and that we would be
totally vulnerable. So it's not only what others do to us and what we do to them and how
many people are involved in it. It's what's the purpose of it, what is being collected,
and how can it be used. And there are clearly people in this room who know a lot about
this, and some of you could be very useful contributors to that conversation because
you're sophisticated enough to know that it's not just, do it, don't do it. We have to
have a way of doing it, and then we have to have a way of analyzing it, and then we have
to have a way of sharing it." [Goldman Sachs Builders And Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]
* * *
Hillary Clinton Lamented How Far Behind The State Department Was In
Technology, Saying "People Were Not Even Allowed To Use Mobile Devices Because Of
Security Issues."
"Personally, having, you know, lived and worked in the White
House, having been a senator, having been Secretary of State, there has traditionally
been a great pool of very talented, hard-working people. And just as I was saying about
the credit market, our personnel policies haven't kept up with the changes necessary in
government. We have a lot of difficulties in getting-when I got to the State
Department, we were so far behind in technology, it was embarrassing. And, you know,
people were not even allowed to use mobile devices because of security issues and cost
issues, and we really had to try to push into the last part of the 20
th
Century in order to get people functioning in 2009 and '10." [Goldman Sachs Builders And
Innovators Summit, 10/29/13]
CLINTON REMARKS ARE PRO KEYSTONE AND PRO TRADE
Clinton: "So I Think That Keystone Is A Contentious Issue, And Of Course It
Is Important On Both Sides Of The Border For Different And Sometimes Opposing Reasons…"
"So I think that Keystone is a contentious issue, and of course it is important
on both sides of the border for different and sometimes opposing reasons, but that is
not our relationship. And I think our relationship will get deeper and stronger and put
us in a position to really be global leaders in energy and climate change if we worked
more closely together. And that's what I would like to see us do." [Remarks at
tinePublic, 6/18/14]
* * *
Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open
Trade And Open Markets.
"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open
trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and
sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the
hemisphere." [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]
* * *
Hillary Clinton Said We Have To Have A Concerted Plan To Increase Trade; We
Have To Resist Protectionism And Other Kinds Of Barriers To Trade.
"Secondly, I
think we have to have a concerted plan to increase trade already under the current
circumstances, you know, that Inter-American Development Bank figure is pretty
surprising. There is so much more we can do, there is a lot of low hanging fruit but
businesses on both sides have to make it a priority and it's not for governments to do
but governments can either make it easy or make it hard and we have to resist,
protectionism, other kinds of barriers to market access and to trade and I would like to
see this get much more attention and be not just a policy for a year under president X
or president Y but a consistent one." [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 32]
CLINTON IS MORE FAVORABLE TO CANADIAN HEALTH CARE AND SINGLE PAYER
Clinton Said Single-Payer Health Care Systems "Can Get Costs Down," And "Is
As Good Or Better On Primary Care," But "They Do Impose Things Like Waiting Times."
"If you look at countries that are comparable, like Switzerland or Germany, for
example, they have mixed systems. They don't have just a single-payer system, but they
have very clear controls over budgeting and accountability. If you look at the
single-payer systems, like Scandinavia, Canada, and elsewhere, they can get costs down
because, you know, although their care, according to statistics, overall is as good or
better on primary care, in particular, they do impose things like waiting times, you
know. It takes longer to get like a hip replacement than it might take here." [Hillary
Clinton remarks to ECGR Grand Rapids, 6/17/13]
* * *
Clinton Cited President Johnson's Success In Establishing Medicare And
Medicaid And Said She Wanted To See The U.S. Have Universal Health Care Like In Canada.
"You know, on healthcare we are the prisoner of our past. The way we got to develop any
kind of medical insurance program was during World War II when companies facing
shortages of workers began to offer healthcare benefits as an inducement for
employment. So from the early 1940s healthcare was seen as a privilege connected to
employment. And after the war when soldiers came back and went back into the market
there was a lot of competition, because the economy was so heated up. So that model
continued. And then of course our large labor unions bargained for healthcare with the
employers that their members worked for. So from the early 1940s until the early 1960s
we did not have any Medicare, or our program for the poor called Medicaid until
President Johnson was able to get both passed in 1965. So the employer model continued
as the primary means by which working people got health insurance. People over 65 were
eligible for Medicare. Medicaid, which was a partnership, a funding partnership between
the federal government and state governments, provided some, but by no means all poor
people with access to healthcare. So what we've been struggling with certainly Harry
Truman, then Johnson was successful on Medicare and Medicaid, but didn't touch the
employer based system, then actually Richard Nixon made a proposal that didn't go
anywhere, but was quite far reaching. Then with my husband's administration we worked
very hard to come up with a system, but we were very much constricted by the political
realities that if you had your insurance from your employer you were reluctant to try
anything else. And so we were trying to build a universal system around the
employer-based system. And indeed now with President Obama's legislative success in
getting the Affordable Care Act passed that is what we've done. We still have primarily
an employer-based system, but we now have people able to get subsidized insurance. So
we have health insurance companies playing a major role in the provision of healthcare,
both to the employed whose employers provide health insurance, and to those who are
working but on their own are not able to afford it and their employers either don't
provide it, or don't provide it at an affordable price. We are still struggling. We've
made a lot of progress. Ten million Americans now have insurance who didn't have it
before the Affordable Care Act, and that is a great step forward. (Applause.) And what
we're going to have to continue to do is monitor what the costs are and watch closely to
see whether employers drop more people from insurance so that they go into what we call
the health exchange system. So we're really just at the beginning. But we do have
Medicare for people over 65. And you couldn't, I don't think, take it away if you
tried, because people are very satisfied with it, but we also have a lot of political
and financial resistance to expanding that system to more people. So we're in a learning
period as we move forward with the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. And I'm
hoping that whatever the shortfalls or the glitches have been, which in a big piece of
legislation you're going to have, those will be remedied and we can really take a hard
look at what's succeeding, fix what isn't, and keep moving forward to get to affordable
universal healthcare coverage like you have here in Canada. [Clinton Speech For
tinePublic – Saskatoon, CA, 1/21/15]
* * *
Below is the full 80 page documents of "speech flags" in Hillary speeches:
"... What struck me was not so much Clinton's statements about letting Wall Street regulate Wall Street, the fact that she is "out of touch" with Main Street, or her favorable comments about single payer (very ironic given how she has not advocated for this publicly). No, what struck me is that she is NOT a leader. ..."
"... No, Clinton is many things, but not a leader. She is revealed as the perfect tool for the elite. Occasionally piping up to express some concern, but so distanced and entrenched in the establishment that she will never do anything of consequence for working Americans. ..."
"... I didn't even read the stuff about the blackberries and computer nonsense. She is incompetent with technology, doesn't understand digital security and is dangerously arrogant about her ignorance. Stipulated. ..."
What struck me was not so much Clinton's statements about letting Wall Street regulate Wall Street,
the fact that she is "out of touch" with Main Street, or her favorable comments about single payer (very
ironic given how she has not advocated for this publicly). No, what struck me is that she is NOT a leader.
Opposed to Citizens United?
… it's so ridiculous that we have this kind of free for all with all of this financial interest
at stake, but, you know, the Supreme Court said that's basically what we're in for. So we're kind of
in the wild west, and, you know, it would be very difficult to run for president without raising a huge
amount of money.
Sorta like, "Meh! This stinks, but this is how the world works so I'm gonna go raise me some cash."
A Forceful Champion of Wall Street Reform?
I called for closing the carried interest loophole and addressing skyrocketing CEO pay. I also
was calling in '06, '07 for doing something about the mortgage crisis, because I saw every day from
Wall Street literally to main streets across New York how a well-functioning financial system is essential.
So when I raised early warnings about early warnings about subprime mortgages and called for regulating
derivatives and over complex financial products, I didn't get some big arguments, because people sort
of said, no, that makes sense.
Really? She called for reinstatement of Glass-Steagall? I don't remember her anywhere near the scene
of the crime in '06/07. She (may have) made a few comments here and there but never took any real action
or was serious about meaningful reform. Still isn't.
And then there is this gem.
We need two parties. .. Two sensible, moderate, pragmatic parties.
A Model of Two Sensible, Pragmatic Parties Working Together: Simpson-Bowles
Simpson-Bowles framework and the big elements of it were right. The specifics can be negotiated
and argued over. But you got to do all three. You have to restrain spending, you have to have adequate
revenues, and you have to have growth. And I think we are smart enough to figure out how to do that.
Oh, no, we aren't! Not when "figuring it out" means following neoliberal dogma to extract more from
labor and give more and more and more to the 1%.
No, Clinton is many things, but not a leader. She is revealed as the perfect tool for the
elite. Occasionally piping up to express some concern, but so distanced and entrenched in the establishment
that she will never do anything of consequence for working Americans.
I didn't even read the stuff about the blackberries and computer nonsense. She is incompetent
with technology, doesn't understand digital security and is dangerously arrogant about her ignorance.
Stipulated.
She comes across as either naive or duplicitous, re Latin America "coming
out of 2 decades of doing well," but now having to deal with disruption and
regime change.
"... Krugman is such a deplorable hack. I know we are supposed to accept bribe-taking politicians and the economy run by looting robber barons. But can't we even have a goddamn fourth estate? ..."
"... The way Krugman murders journalism ethics by outright campaigning for one of the most corrupt politicians in American history is outrageous. Barfing up her disgusting campaign memes verbatim as if he's coordinating his columns with her war room. ..."
"... If you're a scientist you would know that economics does not remotely resemble a science. One familiar with the history of math and science will notice that their development (based on discovered facts) forms a tree-like structure. One discovery branches out to more discoveries. The growth is therefore exponential. ..."
Sure...Krugman will occasionally pay lip service to green energy.
The problem is that 'liberal' economists tend to keep separate silos for green energy and infrastructure.
Question is, why do they refuse to connect the dots between climate change mitigation, green
energy, fiscal stimulus, and lots of jobs? And why do they prioritize more road and bridges, which
will only make climate change worse?
Krugman is an abhorrent neoliberal hack (as well as Hillary stooge).
Who actually understand very little about climate change clearly being non-specialist without
any training of physics and geophysics. He is a second rate neoclassical economist with penchant
for mathiness (and a very talented writer).
The key question here is Clinton warmongering and the threat of nuclear war with Russia. Washington
neocon chichenhawks became recently realty crazy. Obama looks completely important and does not
control anything.
I think this is more immediate threat then climate change.
Oil depletion (which already started and will be in full force in a couple of decades) might
take care about climate change as period of "cheap oil" (aka "oil age") probably will last less
then 100 years and as such is just a blip in Earth history.
End of cheap oil also might lead to natural shrinking of human population -- another factor
in the global climate change and a threat to natural ecosystems.
Hillary is the fracking Queen. Claiming she's a champion of the environment is as ridiculous portraying
Donald Trump a feminist.
Obomba is another pretender on the environment. The Paris Agreement commits to absolutely nothing
but more talk at a future time. China signed on and is still keeping its commitment to do absolutely
nothing to reduce emissions until 2030. (By the time the West has exported the lion share of its
emissions to the country in a pointless GHG emissions shell game; emission per capita have skyrocketed
since 2002! a 25% increase!)
Krugman is such a deplorable hack. I know we are supposed to accept bribe-taking politicians
and the economy run by looting robber barons. But can't we even have a goddamn fourth estate?
The way Krugman murders journalism ethics by outright campaigning for one of the most corrupt
politicians in American history is outrageous. Barfing up her disgusting campaign memes verbatim
as if he's coordinating his columns with her war room.
So to all the pretend liberals out there who offer the people nothing more than more corruption,
lies, war-profiteering and public trust liquidation: you deserve Trump. And I pray that you get
him. (After him, a New Deal; and the 'me generation,' the Void.)
If you're a scientist you would know that economics does not remotely resemble a science.
One familiar with the history of math and science will notice that their development (based on
discovered facts) forms a tree-like structure. One discovery branches out to more discoveries.
The growth is therefore exponential.
Economic history does not follow this pattern.
With science there are paradigm shifts that occur with groundbreaking discoveries like the
theories of relativity and quantum mechanics. The Friedmanian paradigm shift was founded on jettisoning
all the enormously successful work Keynes accomplished and digging up failed 19th century ideology,
repeating disastrous history.
Even psychology follows the pattern. Although it began with a lot of unsubstantiated Aristotelian
philosophizing, it was a starting point from which a significant body of definite knowledge and
medical treatments developed. A real social science. (Not perfect. It was recently discovered
that about 50% of published psychological experiments were not reproducible.)
As an anthropologist you should know about cliques and group-think. Have an inkling of how
corruption could gradually develop and spread among upper-echelon cliques to the point where the
government, the economy, the courts and the news media become captured by the upper class. Understand
how cowards would rather look the other way than take a stand and deal with it: "see no evil,
hear no evil, speak no evil."
As an anthropologist, I can assert with confidence that you are babbling about things you do not
really understand at all. I have issues with a lot of economics, but you are completely incoherent.
Completely incoherent? Then it should be easy enough for you to tear apart what I wrote. It was
certainly easy enough for me to tear into Krugman's crass political pandering. But all you got
is lame generalizations. Stock insults that could be said about anything.
What issues do you have with "a lot of economics?" I bet you can't come up with anything. Come
on. Out with it! Say something intelligent about anything, if you are at all capable, Mr. Dick.
I have yet to read anything from you that indicates you have any knowledge about anything.
It is Dr. Dick, since I have a Ph.D. If you ever read the comments on this blog, you would know
full well what those issues are, since I have raised them here many times. For a start the assumption
of "rational actors" (only partially true), the assumption of economic maximization (people maximize
many different things which affect their economic choices), and the assumption of "rational markets"
(this ignores pervasive information assymetry and active deceit).
In my continued talks with people who insist that voting for Clinton is the
only choice because TRUMP, I just got I would rather have war with Russia than
Putin deciding American policy because the President owes him money.
After I decimated that one by asking if everyone in Congress owes Putin as
well, I continued by noting that Congress is also a stumbling block if ACA was
really their only concern.
That they better figure out how to move to a country with a real health care
system or give up being an artist and find a better paying job with employer
provided insurance because the idea that Clinton has some magic method of
preventing it from dying is a fantasy.
The President cannot unilaterally do anything to stop insurance companies
from dropping out and no legislation saving it is going to pass in a Congress
where one or both of the Houses have Republican majorities. Sure she might stop
them from cutting their subsidy, but even with Clinton they have a couple of
years at most before they are royally screwed. Especially since Clinton's
Democratic Party is not bothering to try to fight every race in an attempt to
get the House, and even have grabbed money from the state parties for her
campaign.
Every once in a while I get a little annoyed with people who want to accuse
me of not being realistic and believing in unicorns when it is beyond clear
that they are dreaming.
I should note that they also pulled out the SCOTUS canard. I have to thank
Clinton for picking Kaine since just quoting his record as Governor pretty much
destroys the idea that she picks liberals.
"... Globalism is all about big finance, don't you get it? The peasants are useful political tools. ..."
"... lot of people do not get that which in inherent in the financialization of non-financial firms meme, the basis for all of the charms of modern corporatism; outsourcing, merging, downsizing, and offshoring along with the complementary low wages and layoffs. The issue with public education has always been that fools make more useful tools. ..."
Globalism is all about big finance, don't you get it? The peasants are useful political
tools.
RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Tom aka Rusty... , -1
"Globalism is all about big finance..."
[A lot of people do not get that which in inherent in the financialization of non-financial
firms meme, the basis for all of the charms of modern corporatism; outsourcing, merging, downsizing,
and offshoring along with the complementary low wages and layoffs. The issue with public education
has always been that fools make more useful tools.]
DrDick -> Tom aka Rusty... , -1
However, no one on the actual "left" is a fan of finance or anyone actively involved in it. To
my knowledge, Rubin is universally loathed on the left and loved on the right and by centrists
(who are the people you are actually speaking of).
In December 2008 The Wall Street Journal did a vicious smack
down of Rubin, who received $115M in compensation from Citi
over eight years but claimed he had "no line
responsibilities."
Rubin encouraged Citi to increase risk
but when the bubble popped he blamed the people below him.
Whatever you call him, he was not only incompetent but he
was a rat.
Rubin is a neoliberal. He can't be center-left (even if we
assume that modern US center-left means moderate republicans;
some people even claim that Hillary is center-left ;-) and he
can't be anti globalization.
Robert Rubin, the Man Who Gave Us Bubble Driven Growth,
Shares His Wisdom in the WaPo
The Washington Post gave a column * to Robert Rubin, the
man best known for setting the U.S. economy on a path of
bubble-driven growth in the late 1990s, the opportunity to
share his wisdom on the economy. Unsurprisingly, Rubin
proposes to cut Social Security and Medicare, as he has in
times past. Of course Rubin is not likely to need these
programs since he earned over $100 million in his stint at
Citigroup in the housing bubble years. The Financial Crisis
Inquiry Commission recommended that the Justice Department
investigate Rubin's conduct at Citigroup during this period
but for some reason it seems the Justice Department did not
follow through.
RE: Here's how America should play its winning hand for
long-run economic growth
[Robert Rubin tells us how it
should be done. There is no small irony in that.]
...For too long, we have been caught in a vicious cycle:
Failure to achieve inclusive growth has undermined the public
trust and Congress's commitment to governing that, in turn,
is necessary to achieve inclusive growth. If we act on the
policies that promote inclusive growth, we could restore
support for governance and initiate a virtuous cycle,
spurring further constructive policy...
[Could that public trust thingy have to do with the
aftermath of decades of financial deregulation and offshoring
of jobs? Bob wants us to increase public investment and
reduce the public debt of course.]
"Failure to achieve inclusive growth has undermined the
public trust"
They have achieved nice profits for the
overclass.
But Bob is right. (I recommend Benjamin Friedman's book
The Moral Consequences of Economic Growth. Prosperity leads
to tolerance and an open society. Stagnation leads to Brexit
and Trump or worse.)
Too bad Bob's policies (dump Bill Clinton spending bill,
strong dollar, bubble-fueled growth, corporate free trade,
deregulation, deficit reduction) lead to popping bubbles
which create a stagnating economy if not booming profits for
the one percent.
Now the predatory class claims to be aghast at what its
policies have enabled--Trump. But are Trumps policies really
the problem...or is the problem that doesn't use the
reassuring, coded language that the predatory class has
carefully crafted to cover its exploitation?
Maybe instead of Al Gore, Michael Moore should hit the stump with Clinton
to work the crowd and sign people up to MoveOn.org membership since it will
be needed to defend Hillary in her up-coming impeachment trial in the
Republican Senate. It will bring back memories as we relive the Clinton
years all over again. And while the oxygen gets sucked out policy discussion
from Hillary's impeachment, she can get to work on Grand Bargain and finally
privatize SS and maybe no-fly zone & WW3, too. With so much stuff like that
going on, people should be sufficiently distracted from from their
shittacular healthcare, declining wages, and student loaners lurking in
basements as the number of states experiencing Obamacare "collapse" go from
current 4-7 to who knows … 10-20 or so.
"... I think Trump may be the one and only person to increase the likelihood the US will still be an independent country in ten years. ..."
"... Trump may have some issues, but at least he psychologically identifies with the US. Most US elites think of themselves as world citizens and really couldn't care less if the US becomes like the DRC. ..."
"... Univision's lead owner is Hillary's largest contributor, the Israeli-American media mogul Haim Saban: ..."
"... This convenient FCC rule change hands them a nice exit strategy. Not convinced to contribute to the Clinton Foundation yet? They make magic happen. ..."
There is a real risk the media will be wholly foreign owned very soon. The FCC under Pres.
Obama eliminated the rule on foreign ownership. This, the TPP, and giving up internet control
are of a piece.
I think Trump may be the one and only person to increase the likelihood the US will still
be an independent country in ten years. With Clinton we may end up losing our sovereignty
by 2020. Trump may have some issues, but at least he psychologically identifies with the US.
Most US elites think of themselves as world citizens and really couldn't care less if the US becomes
like the DRC.
I trust Trump's instincts much more than Hillary's. The continued existence of an independent
US will be very, very important for the world to have any degree of pluralism. Any global hegemony
is likely to be unpleasant for most people.
Grupo Televisa, a Mexican company with a minority stake in the Spanish-language station
Univision, might now be able to increase its ownership.
Univision's lead owner is Hillary's largest contributor, the Israeli-American media mogul
Haim Saban:
On June 27, 2006, Saban Capital Group led a group of investors bidding for Univision
Communications, the largest Spanish-language media company in the United States.
Other investors in the Saban-led group were Texas Pacific Group of Fort Worth, Texas and
Thomas H. Lee Partners. The group was successful in acquiring Univision with a bid valued at
$13.7 billion.
This convenient FCC rule change hands them a nice exit strategy. Not convinced to contribute
to the Clinton Foundation yet? They make magic happen.
There is a real risk the media will be wholly foreign owned very soon. The
FCC under Pres. Obama eliminated the rule on foreign ownership. This, the TPP,
and giving up internet control are of a piece.
I think Trump may be the one and only person to increase the likelihood the
US will still be an independent country in ten years. With Clinton we may end
up losing our sovereignty by 2020. Trump may have some issues, but at least he
psychologically identifies with the US. Most US elites think of themselves as
world citizens and really couldn't care less if the US becomes like the DRC. I
trust Trump's instincts much more than Hillary's. The continued existence of an
independent US will be very, very important for the world to have any degree of
pluralism. Any global hegemony is likely to be unpleasant for most people.
Grupo Televisa, a Mexican company with a minority stake in the
Spanish-language station Univision, might now be able to increase its
ownership.
Univision's lead owner is Hillary's largest contributor, the
Israeli-American media mogul Haim Saban:
On June 27, 2006, Saban Capital Group led a group of investors bidding
for Univision Communications, the largest Spanish-language media company
in the United States.
Other investors in the Saban-led group were Texas Pacific Group of
Fort Worth, Texas and Thomas H. Lee Partners. The group was successful in
acquiring Univision with a bid valued at $13.7 billion.
This convenient FCC rule change hands them a nice exit strategy.
Convinced to contribute to the Clinton Foundation yet?
They make magic
happen.
RE: Debate Night Message: The Markets Are Afraid of Donald Trump
[ Justin Wolfers convincingly argues that Wall Street's darling in this election is Hillary Clinton
and not Donald Trump although that was probably an unintended consequence of making his case without
reading between his own line.]
Wall Street fears a Trump presidency. Stocks may lose 10 to 12 percent of their value if he wins
the November election, and there may be a broader economic downturn.
These conclusions arise from close analysis of financial markets during Monday's presidential
debate, which provides a fascinating case study of the complex interconnections between American
politics and economics. The market's judgment stands in sharp opposition to Donald J. Trump's claims
that his presidency would be good for business.
Decoding these market signals is no easy task because it is difficult to disentangle correlation
from causation. Ideally we would observe stock prices in parallel universes with identical economic
conditions, with a single exception: In one, Mr. Trump has a good shot at becoming president, while
in the other, his chances are low.
Monday's presidential debate provided a rough approximation of this experiment. At 9 p.m., before
the debate began, the betting markets gave Mr. Trump a 35 percent chance of becoming president. Two
hours later, after the debate, we had entered the parallel universe in which economic conditions
were the same, but Mr. Trump's chances had fallen a tad below 30 percent...
RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl,
Ron... , -1
"The stock market has forecast nine of the last five recessions." Paul Samuelson (1966), quoted
in: John C Bluedorn et al. Do Asset Price Drops Foreshadow Recessions? (2013), p. 4
[Of course the real question is how well do the betting markets predict the stock market? The
only question actually answered was "Who do you love?"]
...
September 30, 2016 at 06:17 AM
" He got AG to agree to allow unemployment to drop to 4% in
exchange for raising taxes and dropping the middle class tax
cuts. "
That's untrue. Greenspan blackmailed Clinton over
interest rates. He and Rubin told Clinton that the bond
market would give them lower rates in exchange for deficit
reduction. In reality it was up to Greenspan whether or not
to raise rates.
That's why James Carville famously said:
"I used to think that if there was reincarnation, I wanted
to come back as the president or the pope or as a .400
baseball hitter. But now I would like to come back as the
bond market. You can intimidate everybody."
"From October 1993 to November 1994 US 10-year yields
climbed from 5.2% to just over 8.0% fueled by concerns about
federal spending. With some guidance from Robert Rubin, the
Clinton Administration and Congress made an effort to reduce
the deficit. 10-year yields dropped to approximately 4% by
November 1998."
The only problem is inflation. The Fed could engage in
bond-buying and bring down yields.
Greenspan didn't allow unemployment to get below 4 percent
until the late 90s. As Dean Baker has pointed out, Democratic
governors on the FOMC like Yellen and Blinder wanted to raise
rates but Greenspan wasn't worried about inflation b/c of
productivity gains and financial crises over seas.
I followed all of this in real time and so remember it
very well.
"... Right now, the SYSTEM(establishment) is rigged favoring Hillary. Trump is no saint but unpredictable as perceived by deep state and the MSM. What more damage he can do compared to Bush, Obama or the Hilabama. At least he is challenging the status quo and the establishment, unlike any other candidates in the past! ..."
"... I am vacillating about whom to vote. Bernie would have been my choice. Now Trump vote by default is a protest vote, against the rigged system. Not the best choice but I am fed up with status quo. It needs a jolt and now, only Trump can do that. ..."
"... Paul Ryan went on record that if Trump is elected they'll just ignore him and further the agenda hammered out for them by their Kochtopus overlords. Which is exactly what I have expected would be the case all along. This isn't a damned game, but the more I hear the more it seems that's how it's being viewed, as if the final winner has no real-world relevance. ..."
"... Amen. These so-called "best and brightest" like Clinton and Obama are not only morally bankrupt, the awful truth is they are also obviously poorly informed and self-evidently not very bright either. Obama could, in fact, be almost the definition of the "empty suit". ..."
"... I no longer entertain any such illusions, Hilary and Obama know full well what the consequences of their actions are, all the way from Yemen to Minnesota health insurers. Obama is working toward a sexy retirement golfing with billionaires and raising funds for his Library, as for Hilary, her lust for pure unbridled power for its own sake knows no bounds. From the hallowed halls of Goldman Sachs to the board room at Monsanto, Hilary knows *precisely* where she can get the funds to satisfy her blood and power lusts. ..."
"... Well, her leaked audio fits in with her new plan to give all those "basement dwellers" something to do – that National Service Reserve thing…… But yea, all you stupid millennials – get off the couch and vote for Hillary because she told you to!! And then get off her lawn! ..."
"... Beyond a tone-deafness in self-expression that's astonishing for an experienced politician (even if she did not expect the statement to become public), I find it amazing that there is not even a hint of the thought, "well, maybe there's something about our economy that we need to adjust." ..."
"... Maybe not super generous, but the U.S. medical system already costs more than single payer, so there is more than that going on than just "can't afford it". I have often though the citizens of an empire must be kept in abject poverty, so they don't get to questioning the empire thing (maybe they learned from Vietnam). ..."
"... As Hillary derides those who think we ought to be more like Scandinavia, with free college, free national health care, what she isn't making clear is that America the nation is paying more military money than most of the rest of the world combined. In her mindset, we are the Global Police, and if that $791 billion of military spending reduces us to recession, unaffordable college, unaffordable medical care, and a few dozen people owning over half of all the assets in a nation of 300 million, well that's the price of being the Good Guys. ..."
"... What this tells me about Hillary is she thinks the economy is fine, thinks the current economic policies and trade deals are fine, and has no intention of changing anything. For her, the current economic situation is the best of all possible worlds. ..."
"... Not to mention selling cluster bombs and white phosphorus to the same Saudi despots who use them against Yemeni civilians with the US's assistance. 10s of thousands have been killed and there is a dreadful famine affecting hundreds of thousands. ..."
"... But Trump called a woman fat, so he is the evil one. ..."
About that hacked audio, I suddenly saw it all over youtube last night on various progressive
channels from around midnight on. Well, here is a primary source! 2 minutes of Hillary explaining
that Bernie supporters are basement dwelling barista losers without futures who are too naive
to understand how politics really work. And she confirms she's center-right, in case anyone was
fooled by her recent ostensible leftness:
...Right now, the SYSTEM(establishment) is rigged favoring Hillary. Trump is no saint but
unpredictable as perceived by deep state and the MSM. What more damage he can do compared to Bush,
Obama or the Hilabama. At least he is challenging the status quo and the establishment, unlike
any other candidates in the past!
I am vacillating about whom to vote. Bernie would have been my choice. Now Trump vote by
default is a protest vote, against the rigged system. Not the best choice but I am fed up with
status quo. It needs a jolt and now, only Trump can do that.
A vote for Greens is not a vote for Hillary. A vote for the Green candidate is a vote for the
Green candidate.
The GOP should have vetted someone who wasn't a buffoon and who wasn't going to treat minority
populations with disdain and use their pain as a tool. In much the same way that the Democratic
Party shouldn't have ignored the pain of average Americans and rigged their primary for Hillary.
You're entitled to your own strategy for how to vote, however be gracious enough to let others
have that same courtesy.
The GOPs idea of 'vetting' was the usual one this go-round: They gave a lot of media attention
to the crazies like Rubio and Cruz and Trump. The way it always worked before was the media would
then focus on the 'grown-up' or the 'serious' candidate. In this case it was JEB!
The problem was Trump went off the reservation talking about things the Republican base actually
cares about. And stole a lot of Bernie's thunder since Bernie had a long list of no-go issues
(we can rail against the banks but can't actually do anything about them)
It didn't help that JEB! so obviously didn't want the job. Maybe because he can see the trainwreck
coming down the pike. For the same reason Trump ended the debate by shouting about the bubble
economy. (When it wasn't his turn, natch)
"…vote for Greens not worthless. If they average 5% of the vote nationwide they will get
matching funds in 2020. Please consider this and also spread the word."
And by 2020, if the Republicans gain control of all three branches of government, those "matching
funds" will be a memory. I know I'm going to catch flack for this, but in the sense that too many
of the younger voters have had an all but nonexistent education in political science, history
and civics, Clinton is at least right on that score. I've seen it too often-and been attacked
for trying to point out that election fraud and party corruption are not what we should
be focused on now when the future of the republic is in jeopardy.
How any intelligent human being can say, much less believe, that allowing Trump to be elected
will "teach the Democrats" anything is beyond my comprehension. After all, it's not as if anything
that happens after that will affect them in any discernible way. It will be the poor and the elderly
and the people of color who'll bear the weight of a GOP-owned government.
Paul Ryan went on record that if Trump is elected they'll just ignore him and further the
agenda hammered out for them by their Kochtopus overlords. Which is exactly what I have expected
would be the case all along. This isn't a damned game, but the more I hear the more it seems that's
how it's being viewed, as if the final winner has no real-world relevance.
In a rush to judgment, I decided Clinton did not understand ACA when she said its problems
could be addressed with incremental changes. Nice to have proof this is one more area the self
proclaimed policy wonk is unaware of the details of the policy and its effects.
Don't confuse her awareness with her propaganda talking points. She is perfectly aware of what
ACA is for and she is glad. Does she want us to share her awareness? No.
I agree she understands its true purpose. Where I differ is that I don't for a moment belief
that either Clinton or Obama have a clue what is really in that law or what its true effect would
be over time. I think it of it this way – both of them understood the true purpose of overthrowing
Qaddafi, neither of them or the architects of that strategy began to understand that it would
not just continue to destabilize the region it would destabilize Europe.
Do you think either of them recognized that forcing people to buy garbage insurance with no
health care attached in order to entrench insurance companies was going to significantly help
their opponents? Endanger Clinton's election? Or that it might not last long enough for the opening
of the Obama library because the sheer weight of it was unsustainable?
True, they don't care, but it also shows how stupid not caring is.
I don't think they cared if it helped their "opponents." Remaining in power is less important
than the payout afterwards – I think they just don't think in the long term because the short
term is good enough for their purposes.
Amen. These so-called "best and brightest" like Clinton and Obama are not only morally
bankrupt, the awful truth is they are also obviously poorly informed and self-evidently not very
bright either. Obama could, in fact, be almost the definition of the "empty suit".
Look at who goes onto the success track out of the Ivies, if it isn't legacy offspring dimbulbs
like Chelsea, it's frequently superficially articulate suck-ups who can be trusted to faithfully
and unquestioningly follow orders and has almost an inverse relationship with objective merit
of the sort we are sold.
I was ahead of the curve and saw that the fix was in before Obama's inauguration, boy that
was an unpopular stance. Then I went through a long internal debate: is he stupid or is he evil?
I chose "stupid" for quite a while, giving the benefit of the doubt, I just *wanted to believe*
that Lucy would not pull the football away at the last minute this time around.
I no longer entertain any such illusions, Hilary and Obama know full well what the consequences
of their actions are, all the way from Yemen to Minnesota health insurers. Obama is working toward
a sexy retirement golfing with billionaires and raising funds for his Library, as for Hilary,
her lust for pure unbridled power for its own sake knows no bounds. From the hallowed halls of
Goldman Sachs to the board room at Monsanto, Hilary knows *precisely* where she can get the funds
to satisfy her blood and power lusts.
Funny how that leaked in a week where Clinton, and the Obamas were busy explaining political
reality according to the usual suspects to those same basement dwellers. You know the one where
any vote not for Clinton was automatically the same as voting for Trump, and voters couldn't really
do that because Hillary was not perfect. But now we have proof that Clinton isn't just "not perfect"
she isn't even interested in the concerns of those voters the entitled turds were lecturing.
Well according to Hillary and Obama a vote for Jill Stein is the same as a vote against Hillary.
Then that means that a vote for Trump is like two votes against Hillary! Think about it.
Well, her leaked audio fits in with her new plan to give all those "basement dwellers"
something to do – that National Service Reserve thing……
But yea, all you stupid millennials – get off the couch and vote for Hillary because she told
you to!! And then get off her lawn!
Uh I don't even see what is so bad about anything she says at least in the clip (maybe I'm
missing some larger context). Otherwise much ado about nothing. Look I'm not a fan of Hillary's
policies, it's unlikely I'd vote for Hillary but … really … mountains out of molehills. It's like
Trump's comment about how it might be a 400 pound person who hacked the DNC and suddenly it's
a fat person's rights issue or something, and frankly his statement was more offensive than this,
only in context it was a common throwaway nerd stereotype in the face of Hillary falsely blaming
a nuclear power.
But no not everyone who has been in an election or more knows any history is bewildered. When
times are bad the choice is always go left or go right. And go right always ends in disaster,
but if going left is blocked, it's exactly what people will do even so. The way to avoid that
it to keep the left alive, but the ruling class will risk the hard right over going left every
time.
Free health care of course is not "going as far as Scandinavia" but is what every developed
country on earth has pretty much except the U.S.. So yes it's offensive if one imagined Hillary
was for single payer, but did anyone seriously think this? It is not like she has campaigned on
it.
OK, if you don't see it, you don't see it. Just take my word for it then: whatever slim chance
Hillary had to win just went out the window. Other than that it's not a big deal.
After all we've (1%) done? for those educated? basement living? baristas?!!
Each one of those is problematic (based on memes mocking millenials) not to mention she's doing
it in a room of 1%ers. The rich flat out mocking the people they victimize is not going to go
over well. Her statements are worse than Rmoney's 47% garbage. MSM can ignore it, which takes
care of half the citizenry but the other half is on-line.
Beyond a tone-deafness in self-expression that's astonishing for an experienced politician
(even if she did not expect the statement to become public), I find it amazing that there is not
even a hint of the thought, "well, maybe there's something about our economy that we need to adjust."
It's clear that the only adjustment HRC feels necessary is citizens' expectations of their
future in the USA. This person is not fit for public service at any level. I hope every voter
who's thinking of voting for her listens carefully to exactly what she said here and ponders what
it reveals about her assessment of the challenges we face.
It's unclear what people just don't understand about Scandinavia. Higher taxes? Yea it's true
people might balk at Scandinavian level taxes, however at the actual point in the continuum the
U.S. actually exists in, I think a lot of people would trade higher taxes for the benefits of
a welfare state (not dealing with insurance companies, not facing poverty in old age – and hey
paid sick time and paid 6 week vacations).
When I was in the insurance biz I met a Swedish woman who was an up and coming exec in the
company. She had been a school teacher in Sweden and had moved to the U.S. to earn more and pay
less taxes. Her plan, once she had made her pile, was to move back to Sweden explaining, "because
I would never want to be old in America."
What Americans don't understand about Scandinavia is that those countries don't have a bloated
military – or any military really – to protect their 'exorbitant privilege'.
An Empire cannot be a welfare state, and vice versa.
Maybe not super generous, but the U.S. medical system already costs more than single payer,
so there is more than that going on than just "can't afford it". I have often though the citizens
of an empire must be kept in abject poverty, so they don't get to questioning the empire thing
(maybe they learned from Vietnam).
An Empire's priorities are usually not with the welfare and general well-being of its citizenry.
In fact its population can best be kept in a precarious state in order to lower labor costs,
limit social demands and, or course, fill the lower military ranks.
Quite a revealing mindset on Hillary's part. Reminds me of Romney dismissing 47% of the population
as free riders.
As Hillary derides those who think we ought to be more like Scandinavia, with free college,
free national health care, what she isn't making clear is that America the nation is paying more
military money than most of the rest of the world combined. In her mindset, we are the Global
Police, and if that $791 billion of military spending reduces us to recession, unaffordable college,
unaffordable medical care, and a few dozen people owning over half of all the assets in a nation
of 300 million, well that's the price of being the Good Guys.
This brings up a new (old) definition of nationalism; the simple idea that you take care of
your own people and infrastructure first, and that your military expenses are only for defensive
purposes - not for establishing 800+ military bases all over the world, and dividing the entire
globe into theaters of war. That's what our military and political leaders have done, following
the wishes of the very, very few ultra wealthy who make billions every year off this system.
A nation, any nation, has no more precious and priceless resource than the minds of its young
people. The health and wellbeing of its young people. Where do they think the citizens of coming
decades are going to come from? Some other country?
America the nation is dying because America's Empire is pulling up the floorboards and chopping
up the furniture to feed the flames of endless wars around the world, wars which accomplish nothing
for America but poverty of its citizens. We need voters and political leaders who will stand against
America's Empire, who will dismantle it and return our attention to becoming a leading nation
among nations, not Number One in arms sales, not Number One in blood spilled, not Number One in
war crimes.
wow…… clueless in bubble-land. So a bad economy for most (since 2008 at least) and poor job
prospects for most is a matter of "mind set" ? Oh, if only the young did positive thinking. That
would fix everything.
What this tells me about Hillary is she thinks the economy is fine, thinks the current
economic policies and trade deals are fine, and has no intention of changing anything. For her,
the current economic situation is the best of all possible worlds. If people can't find decent
jobs it's their own fault.
Her audio clip sounds like Mitt Romney's 47 percent comment: "And so my job is not to worry
about those people - I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and
care for their lives." – Romney
"What this tells me about Hillary is she thinks the economy is fine, thinks the current economic
policies and trade deals are fine, and has no intention of changing anything. For her, the current
economic situation is the best of all possible worlds."
This is why the concept of a Buy Nothing Month in October is being mentioned as a means of
passive protest. No discretionary purchases. Cash only for essentials to hammer Wells Fargo and
the credit card tapeworms in the economy.
Most people are already down to essentials, and those who aren't likely agree with Hillary
or don't see why they should suffer more for a very tenuous possibility of doing mild harm to
their tormentors.
Poor, brave Hillary - trapped between the Deplorables and the Basement Dwellers (presumably
on their way to becoming the Morlocks and the Eloi). What I find hysterical is the way she depicts
herself as the sane one in a world gone mad.
It's appalling that Hillary and her media toadies are playing up the fact that Trump called
women fat, while that same media completely ignores that Hillary took money from Saudi Arabia
to send America to war against Libya.
Seriously, in the entire history of the human race has there ever, ever been a more singularly
corrupt act than to take money from a foreign power to send your own nation to war against some
other nation? And all we hear about is that Trump called women fat! These people are out of their
minds.
Not to mention selling cluster bombs and white phosphorus to the same Saudi despots who
use them against Yemeni civilians with the US's assistance. 10s of thousands have been killed
and there is a dreadful famine affecting hundreds of thousands.
But Trump called a woman fat, so he is the evil one.
The famine is affecting millions. Yemen is enduring the worst humanitarian crisis on the
planet. That is a war for Saudi Arabia to flex its muscle against Iran and shiites to counteract
their economic weakness from oil price declines. No one has any real geopolitical interest there.
Only Trump brings attention to Yemen on the campaign trail. Not the media, and definitely not
Clinton who gleefully increased weapons sales to Saudi Arabia while she was at State.
The Obama/Hilary government in action. Anyone voting for a continuation is complicit.
So yes, you can have a president who did not call someone "fat"….but be sure and keep a photo
of the Yemeni girl with her arms blown off on your bedside table to remind you the price you paid
for that crucial advantage.
OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL
Re: Syria, Yemen, Honduras, Poland, Ukraine, Brazil et alia ad nauseam.
What we need is an American Anti-Imperialist League, it should have a former president, a titan
of industry, and a famous celebrity as founding members.
Oh, look, we had one already, with Grover Cleveland, Andrew Carnegie, and Mark Twain:
"... Hey get that straight, NBC paid her Six Hundred Thousand a year for the years she was there. And I apologize I was under the impression that her contract was allowed to lapse, but it was renewed once. They really were paying her for nothing after the first year… ..."
"... You and your son might want to think about the fact that extended families living together has been historically and still is the norm for many. My son works in the building trades and doesn't make enough money to buy a house in our neighborhood. He has been living with me for several years and our relationship is very good. ..."
About that hacked audio, I suddenly saw it all over youtube last night on various progressive
channels from around midnight on. Well, here is a primary source! 2 minutes of Hillary explaining
that Bernie supporters are basement dwelling barista losers without futures who are too naive to
understand how politics really work. And she confirms she's center-right, in case anyone was fooled
by her recent ostensible leftness:
Our son is one of those recent grads Hillary disdains. He has just picked up his third slightly
above minimum wage part time job. He has had two interviews in his chosen field only to be told at
the end of each the companies were 'just looking' at the job field prospects and did not actually
have an open job available…. he has applied for a number of generic type jobs that just require a
college degree as well… to no response so far. He is personalble, bright and according to the managers
at his part time jobs he was a great interviewee…
He has severe kidney stone issues that require hospitalization and stents about once a year –
often for ten day stays and so we have chosen to pay for a Cadillac policy for him ourselves so he
gets the quality care he needs ( no the ACA was useless – he tried) . He is embarrassed we have to
do this for him… He spends every bit of his meager pay paying off his small student loan debt so he can at least get
that burden off and keeping his ancient little car in repair. He refused to allow us to help him
pay his loans and or buy him a better car. He lives at home and feels terrible about it – and so
is constantly doing all the home work he can during the few hours between his jobs to 'make up' for
needing our help. Friends go out to dinner and movies sports games etc and have stopped asking him
because he usually does not have the money …. So….. He is on his way to depression I think…. all that work in college. He has a solid 3.4 GPA and a 3.7
GPA in his field.and he is willing to move anywhere immediately and would not mind a job that entailed
a lot of travel…. But I guess Hillary just thinks he is some unmotivated stupid despite all that….
I know a vote for Stein is totally useless but other that leaving it blank I have no options here.
This country is tanking….I cannot believe this is happening to my son. Spouse and I walked out of
college with a 3.1 and 3.0 gpas directly into decent paying career jobs and an upward trajectory
that continues to this day… he is smarter and works harder than either of us ever have frankly….
Meanwhile Chelsea (who "doesn't care about being rich" or whatever nonsense she spouted) is grifted
into a $500K/year do-nothing job at NBC, marries a hedge fund manager, and flies in private jets.
And her mom and dad make $300,000 for one hour speeches.
Hey get that straight, NBC paid her Six Hundred Thousand a year for the years she was there.
And I apologize I was under the impression that her contract was allowed to lapse, but it was
renewed once. They really were paying her for nothing after the first year…
And don't forget the various Boards she serves on, mostly Clinton entities.
You and your son might want to think about the fact that extended families living together
has been historically and still is the norm for many. My son works in the building trades and
doesn't make enough money to buy a house in our neighborhood. He has been living with me for several
years and our relationship is very good. I am the son of a man who abandoned his own children,
which perhaps accounts for my finding our arrangement particularly gratifying and take great pleasure
in his company as well as that of his friends and lovers.
brilliant son in college, nothing out there at all except 711 jobs. the store he works and
was on shift at got robbed twice on consecutive nights and i had to ask him to stop going there
for his safety.
it is sad sad sad how the future of the kids is being destroyed. the 0.01% have "arranged"
sinecures for their kids and they dont care about our kids. Go into debt to get an education no
one seems to need to pay overpaid professors and administrators at the university, and then carry
that around your neck all your life.
I hope your son does find what he's looking for. I'm worried for my own children and what they
will do too.
What strikes me the most about stories like yours is how much luck factors into things. Graduating
into a recession is horrible. Decisions that made sense 4 years prior to graduation suddenly seem
irresponsible when the day comes to leave college.
So much of my own career has benefitted from being in the right place at the right time, and
I could only have been at this place at that time because I graduated when I did. Sure, I've hustled
and taken advantage of opportunities too. I've always been willing to get dirty and do the things
other people weren't willing to do. But the fact is that I was in a position to do all of that
because of many things that had nothing to do with how hard I worked, how smart I was, or what
degrees I had. If I had been born a year later, graduated a year earlier, chosen a slightly different
discipline… so many things would be different for me now. It's one reason why I don't complain
too much about taxes.
"... I think one reason Sanders was respected by some of these people, even when his views were radically opposed to theirs, was because this theme of fairness resonated with them, they sensed he was operating on a similar principle, even if disagreeing on the content. ..."
"... I actually find it easier to imagine why someone listening to the debate might place forlorn hope in Trump than to conjure up the people who could listen to Clinton's platitudes and not recall any of the history. Corey Robin is right that Trump is a standard Republican in everything but style, but there was also a break between the Republican electorate and the Republican establishment that put Trump on that stage, and Clinton has embraced the Republican establishment. ..."
"... In Labour Party politics, the insistence of the PLP on Tory-lite policy stances seems, from my great distance, farcical. The Clinton embrace of the Republican establishment drains the last drop of populism from the Democrats even while Late Trump proves how ill-suited the Republicans are to populist appeal despite years of petty demagoguery. ..."
"... I think Trump differs very substantially from the standard Republican politician. Sure he mostly channels the same meme's, but he is willing to consume some sacred ideological cows at the same time. ..."
"... Given that Trump loudly opposes trade deals, it is difficult to say that he on economics is a typical Republican. People vote for Trump because they think the system is rigged against them, and Hilary Clinton is running as the candidate of the status quo. They will see Hilary's resemblance to past candidates as a reminder of what they have gotten from the past 40 years of government policy. ..."
"... Clinton is socially embedded but apparently unaware of the deficiencies of elite performance. This makes her a favorite of the new class, but also makes it very difficult to rally broad popular support or avoid policy disaster. ..."
"... She wants George W Bush's vote. No joke. Why so many on the left are clueless about this and what it implies about policy is left as an exercise. ..."
"... Sure, he supported the Iraq War, but at least he lies about it. And Hillary (with Lester Holt's help) successfully maneuvered around her own vulnerability on that score. She doesn't need to be invoking GW Bush. ..."
"... aside from the Iran agreement, HRC has pretty much carried the neocons water. ..."
"... in the primaries, Trump seriously trashed Bush's most excellent Mesopotamian adventure. Hillary can't do that without creating blowback from her vote for the war. ..."
"... She may well believe that, but if so it's self-deception. She'll get nothing from Republicans in Congress, who will treat her as even more illegitimate than Obama. ..."
"... No way the median Republican member of Congress will open up to a primary challenge just because Clinton is playing nice with the Bushes. ..."
"... Only of the many unhelpful aspects of the HRC presidency will be that since her reachout to Republicans turns off base Dems, she is likely to face a Repub House and Senate, who will be at least as obstructive to her as they have been to Obama. That leaves her room to abandon all the half-hearted dog treats she threw to the Bernie supporters as "now impossible", and plenty of room to get "bipartisan" on passing the TPP and cutting SS. ..."
"... And it won't impede her military desires to enlarge the empire one iota. ..."
"... The comments here strike me as very sensible and sober. Given that the CT community shares little with a great swath of the electorate and in fact share HRC's view that they are both deplorable and irredeemable, its probably sound reasoning to deduce that if people here thought HRC won, a great many 'others' believe the opposite. ..."
"... Hillary succeeded in the first debate because she didn't fall over, cough a lot, and looked alive in that bright, red dress. That isn't enough to convince voters that she's not the candidate of the past. ..."
"... We begin from the assumption that Clinton is standard-bearer of "neoliberalism," and then interpret everything she does as evidence of that. ..."
"... the Democratic Party was once the party of the working class and old-style liberalism, but, starting with Bill Clinton, they abandoned this, and now they have lost the loyalty of the working class. In actuality, the last old-style liberal in the Democratic Party was Mondale, and he lost the popular vote by eighteen percentage points, more than anyone since. ..."
"... In foreign policy, we need a new term that we can drain of all meaning, and so Clinton becomes a "neoconservative," virtually indistinguishable from Charles Krauthammer, and eager to rain down destruction on the rest of the world. ..."
"... A no-fly zone? Those neocons will stop at nothing! ..."
Against a background anxiety surrounding a
sense that things are not working. The old ideologies are not working, every
thing has to change and we hate much of the change we do see creeping up. The
conservative party serves up a wrecking ball. The reform party serves up the
status quo warmed over. ("Intelligent surge") We fear change. We fear the
continuation of the status quo and the degeneration the status quo promises to
continue.
Yan
09.27.16 at 5:46 pm
"On the other hand, there's a not so small current in American politics that
would hear that, that Trump didn't pay his taxes, and think, with him, that he
was indeed smart for having outsmarted the system. …This is a nation of conmen
(and women)…"
I think this is right but misleading, since the voters who
probably liked that comment don't see themselves as conmen out for a quick
buck, but as victims gaming a rigged system. They think taxes are an injustice,
and that they're John Dillinger fighting for their rightful earnings against
the thieving IRS.
This is generally important for understanding Trump voters: for all their
quirks, at bottom they are, like most Americans, very strongly motivated by a
skewed notion of fairness: they think others are cutting in line, getting a
handout, getting special rights and favors.
I think one reason Sanders was respected by some of these people, even
when his views were radically opposed to theirs, was because this theme of
fairness resonated with them, they sensed he was operating on a similar
principle, even if disagreeing on the content.
bruce wilder
09.27.16 at 6:20 pm
Watching British Labour Party politics from afar is like seeing Democratic
Party politics in a fun house mirror. One thing that is writ in primary colors
and big block letters in the Labour Party struggle is the tension between the
new class and everyone else seeking protection from the globalizing plutocracy
and whose only ideological models are anachronisms.
I actually find it
easier to imagine why someone listening to the debate might place forlorn hope
in Trump than to conjure up the people who could listen to Clinton's platitudes
and not recall any of the history. Corey Robin is right that Trump is a
standard Republican in everything but style, but there was also a break between
the Republican electorate and the Republican establishment that put Trump on
that stage, and Clinton has embraced the Republican establishment.
In Labour Party politics, the insistence of the PLP on Tory-lite policy
stances seems, from my great distance, farcical. The Clinton embrace of the
Republican establishment drains the last drop of populism from the Democrats
even while Late Trump proves how ill-suited the Republicans are to populist
appeal despite years of petty demagoguery.
I think Trumps policies frequently look like a generic Republicans because he
didn't enter this election as a serious candidate, and now that he's the actual
nominee he's been scrambling to come up with any policies at all. So he's
copying from the party that nominated him.
His campaign has always been very ad hoc. Look at his "make Mexico pay for
the wall" thing. He clearly just threw that out there as bluster, then when it
went viral cobbled together a pseudo plan to make it sound plausible.
His line on taxes was perfect, unfortunately. On taxes, for a lot of people
the question is whether he behaved legally. If you can legally not pay taxes
but you do anyway, you're a chump. Can anyone who does their own taxes honestly
say that they've chosen to NOT take an exemption or deduction for which they
were qualified? I can't.
The people who feel this way may wish it wasn't legal for Trump to do this.
But as far as condemning him for it assuming it WAS legal… maybe they can drum
up some generic resentment of the rich, or tell themselves that he probably
broke the law somewhere, somehow, but that's about it. They're not going to
adopt a principled belief that he should pay taxes he doesn't have to pay. And
if Democrats push on this there's no shortage of "rich democrat does lawful but
resentment inducing rich-guy thing" stories that can be used as a smokescreen.
Now… are Trumps taxes actually on the level? Probably not. I suppose the IRS
will tell us eventually, after the election. It's not like Trump will release
them in the meantime.
Other than that Hillary Clinton won but it won't matter because
conservatives live in a creepy little bubble where HRC is a shadowy murderess
who assassinates her rivals and must be kept from the throne at all costs.
Omega Centauri
09.27.16 at 6:28 pm
I think Trump differs very substantially from the standard Republican
politician. Sure he mostly channels the same meme's, but he is willing to
consume some sacred ideological cows at the same time.
Just recently he
said he'd allow over the counter contraception. He tried to Savage war hero
John McCain because he'd been captured. He hasn't just thrown away the dog
whistle, he is willing to jetison any part of the ideology he finds
inconvenient.
Watson Ladd
09.27.16 at 6:51 pm
Given that Trump loudly opposes trade deals, it is difficult to say that he
on economics is a typical Republican. People vote for Trump because they think
the system is rigged against them, and Hilary Clinton is running as the
candidate of the status quo. They will see Hilary's resemblance to past
candidates as a reminder of what they have gotten from the past 40 years of
government policy.
bruce wilder
09.27.16 at 7:06 pm
Omega Centauri @ 21
Listening to Trump has a way of casting his audience into
the same position as the dogs in a Gary Larson
Far Side
cartoon, where
the dogs only hear a few words they are hungry to hear.
Clinton's patter seems more conventionally structured, but its highlights
are righteous self-regard, well past its sell-by date.
There is no coherence (beyond class interest) to Trump. He is a socially
isolated Billionaire who is lazy, inattentive, arrogant . . . but put him in
front of an audience and he will talk randomly until he finds a laugh or
applause.
Clinton is socially embedded but apparently unaware of the deficiencies
of elite performance. This makes her a favorite of the new class, but also
makes it very difficult to rally broad popular support or avoid policy
disaster.
She will win the election, but after that . . . things are unlikely to go
well.
People make the observation that both have high negatives. But, beneath
those high negatives, each has pursued coalition-building strategies almost
guaranteed to narrow their respective bases of support below a majority
threshold.
Why isn't Clinton saying "Trump is a more reckless, less coherent George W.
Bush"
She wants George W Bush's vote. No joke. Why so many on the
left are clueless about this and what it implies about policy is left as an
exercise.
politicalfootball
09.27.16 at 7:46 pm
I wouldn't read too much into HRCs apparent decision not to tar Trump with
Bush.
That's a charge that simply wouldn't stick. Trump has quite
persuasively separated himself from the Bushes - and vice versa.
Sure, he supported the Iraq War, but at least he lies about it. And
Hillary (with Lester Holt's help) successfully maneuvered around her own
vulnerability on that score. She doesn't need to be invoking GW Bush.
I would be curious for Bruce to explain anything that Hillary has actually
done
to get Bush's vote. Seems to me she continues to run to the left.
Omega Centauri
09.27.16 at 8:33 pm
I'm not Bruce, but
aside from the Iran agreement, HRC has pretty much
carried the neocons water.
But, I think its mainly that the Bushes see
Trump as crazy beyond the pale, and Clinton as a somewhat steady hand. Also
in the primaries, Trump seriously trashed Bush's most excellent Mesopotamian
adventure. Hillary can't do that without creating blowback from her vote for
the war.
JimV
09.27.16 at 8:56 pm
I agree with Bruce Wilder than HRC doesn't want to offend Republicans
unnecessarily. He seems to see it as a character flaw, and maybe it is, but it
could be simply that she can get more done in office if she doesn't make a lot
of bitter Republican enemies. And I think it is the polite way to behave even
with those with whom you disagree, but I won't lobby for that motive here.
If
Trump avoided taxes legally and that is a smart, enviable thing to do, why
doesn't he release his tax information to show how smart he was? Why is he
really hiding the information? Inquiring campaign adds will want to know, if
people can't figure that out for themselves.
Ideology: I like the ideology that climate science is not a hoax, that
universal health insurance is a good thing with more work needed on it, and
some other parts of HRC's agenda that do not seem to be the current ideology
(in power).
"Smart surge": that was another palpable hit by Bruce Wilder (along with
"no-fly zone in Syria"). Ouch. (I'm not being sarcastic, if it is difficult to
tell.) I'm going to write her a letter opposing that. She's sent me a couple
letters, so I should have her return address. I think I haven't recycled the
last one yet.
Layman
09.27.16 at 9:25 pm
"…it could be simply that she can get more done in office if she doesn't make a
lot of bitter Republican enemies."
She may well believe that, but if so
it's self-deception. She'll get nothing from Republicans in Congress, who will
treat her as even more illegitimate than Obama.
There's no obvious
incentive for them to do anything else, and the base think she's a murderer and
traitor.
No way the median Republican member of Congress will open up to a
primary challenge just because Clinton is playing nice with the Bushes.
marku52
09.27.16 at 9:46 pm
Only of the many unhelpful aspects of the HRC presidency will be that since
her reachout to Republicans turns off base Dems, she is likely to face a Repub
House and Senate, who will be at least as obstructive to her as they have been
to Obama. That leaves her room to abandon all the half-hearted dog treats she
threw to the Bernie supporters as "now impossible", and plenty of room to get
"bipartisan" on passing the TPP and cutting SS.
And it won't impede
her military desires to enlarge the empire one iota.
A Trump presidency would be hated by all parties to the duo-gopoly, and
would be stymied at everything.
The point about not paying tax is on point, I think. I wrote something yonks
ago about Berlusconi and 'patrimonial populism' – the idea being that
Berlusconi was seen as both the figurehead of the nihilistic "screw politics"
crowd and a national sugar daddy, dishing out favours from the national budget
in just the same way that he lobbed sweeteners to business partners. One
Italian commentator spotted a graffito that called on Berlusconi to abolish
speed limits – "Silvio, let us speed on the autostrada!" Because you knew
he
would, and if you voted for him, hey, maybe he'd let you do it too.
(Berlusconi hasn't been in government for a while, but he was Prime Minister
for ten years in total between 1994 and 2011. He's still involved in three
court cases relating to corruption and fraud, and has been found guilty in
another; he served a sentence of house arrest and community service. He will be
80 on Thursday.)
kidneystones
09.27.16 at 10:05 pm
The comments here strike me as very sensible and sober. Given that the CT
community shares little with a great swath of the electorate and in fact share
HRC's view that they are both deplorable and irredeemable, its probably sound
reasoning to deduce that if people here thought HRC won, a great many 'others'
believe the opposite.
derrida derider
09.27.16 at 11:17 pm
The best way to assess how a national TV debate went is to watch the whole
thing with the sound turned off. Swing voters are almost by definition the
least interested watchers who will just not care about coherence, patter,
policy, ideology, etc because they don't just don't care about politics much.
Subconscious impressions, mainly set by body language with perhaps the odd
striking expression, are what persuades or dissuades them.
ZM 09.27.16 at 11:24 pm @ 45:
'This is a paper by Paul Gilding on a war time mobilisation response,
although he isn't connected to the Democrats I don't think: WAR. What Is It
Good For? WWII Economic Mobilisation An Analogy For Climate Action
http://media.wix.com/ugd/148cb0_1bfd229f6638410f8fcf230e12b1e285.pdf
'
I criticized the war metaphor before, mostly on literary or stylistic grounds,
but having seen this publication, I feel it is necessary to offer as well a
practical consideration, out of character as that may be. War metaphors and
models appeal to many people because a good-sized war, especially in our era,
appears as an existential crisis, and in properly organized wartime all
dissidence and discussion are swept away by the power of necessity, harnessed
by great leaders and experts. It is a paradise of authority.
kidneystones
09.28.16 at 12:25 am
@ 52 "My main takeaway from the debate is that it finally refuted any notion
that Trump has any idea what he's doing."
What markers did Trump provide that are significantly different from any of
the ravings that propelled him past a stable of extremely well-funded and
politically-skilled GOP politicians?
The fact that a rodeo clown like Trump is even on the same stage as HRC
suggests that whatever his perceived defects here, Trump commands the
attention, affection, and respect of almost as many Americans, perhaps more,
than the candidate of Goldman-Sachs.
Trump is not going to 'win' any of the debates. Trump is marketing the Trump
brand on the biggest stage possible. What actually takes place on stage is
negligible in a world where superficiality is much more important than
substance.
What will happen is that Trump is going to remind the audience that Hillary
does indeed sound very clever and well-grounded. Then, he'll catalogue the
questions: 'How can HRC credibly claim not to know what the initial 'C' means
on a classified document?' etc.
The most recent good poll I saw on HRC identified the voters' principal
concerns with HRC: Syria, Libya, emails – in short, her judgment and her
honesty.
Hillary succeeded in the first debate because she didn't fall over,
cough a lot, and looked alive in that bright, red dress. That isn't enough to
convince voters that she's not the candidate of the past.
As others have noted, the Dukakis title doesn't make any sense to me at all.
She's done.
kidneystones
09.28.16 at 12:30 am
And then there's the health issue (the one that can't be wished away).
The Arizona Republic, Arizona's biggest newspaper (Phoenix), just endorsed
Clinton for President, the first time it has endorsed a Democrat in its
126-year history.
Glen Tomkins
09.28.16 at 1:56 pm
Rich,
"…that no one is really pushing these propaganda lines on people."
That's the very thing, isn't it? That's what US politics has gotten too.
There is a very conventional approach to a national campaign that dictates that
you do messaging, which means that you carefully avoid saying anything with any
public policy entailments. Having the candidate say anything of this sort is
especially to be avoided, because that ties the campaign most concretely to
specifics, and specific public policy your side advocates can be fitted into a
different, hostile, theoretical frame by the other side. Yet candidates have to
say things, it's expected. So they have refined a method that avoids
propagandizing for anything in terms more concrete than "Make America Great
Again", or "Stronger Together", both of which are brilliant at hinting at
whatever good thing you might want them to mean, without pushing any actual
policy.
In that silence from the campaigns themselves step all of the sorts of
sophisticated people such as those of us in the CT commentariat. The media rise
no higher on the intellectual food chain than the attempt to fill the silence
with theorizing about campaigns as horse races, who's winning and why. We here
at CT are a superior sort, so we tend to weave in theories about the actual
supposed subject of politics, public policy. But at all levels of this effort,
we theorize because we are of the species Homo theoreticus, and we must have
theories. The more sophisticated we are the more we need them. We fill the
silence by propagandizing on a DIY, freebie basis.
Not that any of this is new. Swift told us all about it in Tale of a Tub,
the oracle of our age. Think of this campaign as a tub bobbing on the waves.
Worry it as you will, and it just moves to the next wave.
Glen Tomkins: "We here at CT are a superior sort, so we tend to weave in
theories about the actual supposed subject of politics, public policy."
Does
not fit the observables. These theories are not about public policy and are not
good on any theoretical level (even if you consider this goodness to be
possible if it is decoupled from fact and is purely a matter of internal
consistency).
Almost all of these "theories" are based on a simple three-step;
1. HRC is the lesser evil.
2. I can't stand voting for someone purely as the lesser evil: my ego
requires that I affirmatively support someone.
3. Therefore the lesser evil is really kind of good and anyone against it is
bad.
As usual, I find a lot of discussion here about worlds totally unlike the one
that I live in.
We begin from the assumption that Clinton is
standard-bearer of "neoliberalism," and then interpret everything she does as
evidence of that.
Um… people.. she was Secretary of State. Can we really
think of no reason she might favor an agreement that includes the US and east
Asia, but not China, other than subservience to international capital? Can we
think of no reason a Secretary of State might want to encourage fracking in
Bulgaria other than anticipated future contributions from the oil and gas
industry? (Hint: Russia is monopoly supplier of natural gas to Europe, and not
shy about reminding them of that.)
In this imaginary world,
the Democratic Party was once the party of the
working class and old-style liberalism, but, starting with Bill Clinton, they
abandoned this, and now they have lost the loyalty of the working class. In
actuality, the last old-style liberal in the Democratic Party was Mondale, and
he lost the popular vote by eighteen percentage points, more than anyone since.
In foreign policy, we need a new term that we can drain of all meaning,
and so Clinton becomes a "neoconservative," virtually indistinguishable from
Charles Krauthammer, and eager to rain down destruction on the rest of the
world.
Um.. people… destruction has been raining down on Syria for years
now. There have been 400,000 people killed, and, as you may have noticed, a
whole lot of refugees. The left doesn't seem to be overly concerned about this,
other than bitterly oppose any attempts to use military force to do anything
about it.
A no-fly zone? Those neocons will stop at nothing!
If Obama
had carried out his threat over the "red line" by striking at the Syrian air
force, it would have saved many, many lives, but that would be imperialism.
Possibly people at CT, even Americans, have gotten used to thinking of
politics in parliamentary terms, in which platforms actually have some
practical effect, and winning means winning a legislative majority. (That's the
only way a Sanders candidacy would have made sense.) As you know, though, the
US doesn't work that way, and so the question is what can get done. If Clinton
is able to actually carry out the things she is talking about – an increase in
the minimum wage, paid family leave, increased infrastructure spending -- it
will make a much bigger difference in people's lives than bringing back
Glass-Steagall would.
likbez
09.28.16
at 4:45 pm
@80
Rich,
This "HRC is the lesser evil" is a very questionable line of thinking that
is not supported by the facts.
How Hillary can be a lesser evil if by any reasonable standard she is a war
criminal. War criminal like absolute zero is an absolute evil. You just can't
go lower.
Trump might be a crook, but he still did not committed any war crimes. Yet.
Imagine that while George W. Bush was governor of
Texas and president of the United States, various people and companies decided
to write him checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars, just because they
thought he was a great guy. Those people and companies, just coincidentally,
happened to have interests that were affected by the policies of Texas and the
United States. But when he thanked them for their money, Bush never promised to
do anything in particular for them. You would be suspicious, right?
Now, that's roughly what has been happening with the Clinton Foundation.
Various people and companies have been writing checks for millions of dollars
to the Foundation during the same time that Hillary Clinton was secretary of
state and, following that, the most likely next president of the United
States-a title she has held since the day Barack Obama's second term began.
(The Clintons finally decided to
scale back the Foundation
earlier this week.)
... ... ...
So the real question is this: Do you think it would be appropriate for people and companies
affected by U.S. policy to be writing $1 million checks directly to the Clintons? If the answer
is yes, then you should be against any campaign finance rules whatsoever. If the answer is no,
you should be worried about the Clinton Foundation.
Vinny Idol
|
August 25, 2016 at 8:02 pm
|
I disagree whole heartedly with this post. The clinton foundation is a
big deal, because its proof positive that America was founded on Money
laundering, the elite that run this country make and made their money
through money laundering; and no one wants that in the White House. Thats
ok for the rest of America sociery, but not the government where peoples
lives hang on the balance through every speech, law and policy that is
conducted on capitol hill.
The Clintons destroyed Libya, Honduras, Haiti through their money
laundering scheme called the clinton foundation. Theres no justification
for that.
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 26, 2016 at 12:40 am
|
Trump thinks very highly of Reagan, but very lowly of Mexicans, so if
Trump were to win I suspect he will secretly sell some of our nukes, this
finally giving him the financial boost needed to overtake Carlos Slim on
the list of the world's richest men. This 'deal of deals' then also
harkens back to another historical 'deal' (Iran/Contra), and of course
Reagan, while simultaneously eliminating Trump's deepest regret which is
that of being bested by a Mexican. This being the real reason that he
decided to run in the first place.
Probably though, HRC will win. The
problem there being that all of the scrutiny that she has been receiving
for so long, coupled with Bills' infidelities, and other various setbacks
and slights, have left her very angry and bitter. Combining this seething
hatred of all humans, especially men, with the fact that there has never
been a women president to look up to, HRC's only influence is a secretary
who worked for Woodrow Wilson by the name of Mildred Jingowitz, or Ms.
Jingo as she was called. Ms. Jingo stands out for HRC because she
actually wrote the Espionage Act of 1917 and the the Sedition Act of
1918. Those combining to "cover a broader range of offenses, notably
speech and the expression of opinion that cast the government or the war
effort in a negative light or interfered with the sale of government
bonds."
"The Sedition Act of 1918 stated that people or countries cannot say
negative things about the government or the war."
"It forbade the use of "disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive
language" about the United States government, its flag, or its armed
forces or that caused others to view the American government or its
institutions with contempt." Most importantly though, these acts gave the
Government the legal right to prosecute draft dodgers, and …these could
bring an end to at least some of the scrutiny that has plagued HRC for so
long just so long as we remain at war.
So, if you are wondering what any of this has to do with the Clinton
Foundation, well, HRC used the Foundation to facilitate at least one very
large arms deal with at least one Royal Gulfie. But it matters little
whether she used the foundation or not, HRC used her tenure at Foggy
Bottom to arrange a record number of weapons deals, and of course she is
mad as hell and determined to prove just how tough women can be (and
there is of course one man who she respects, H. Kissinger).
Anyway, it doesn't take a historian specializing in the build-up
leading to the two World Wars to figure out the rest. BOOM!!!
I'm a long-time reader. I admire what you and Simon have
done educating us about the financial crisis and its aftermath, and I
agree with most of your political positions, especially related to the
corrupting influence of money in politics. I have seen this first hand
over my years in politics and government, and I believe it is the single
most important issue we face because progress on all others depends on
it.
But in taking yet another hack at Hillary Clinton in this post, you've
contradicted yourself in a way that unravels your argument, while
engaging in false equivalencies and blowing a key fact out of proportion.
First, the internal contradiction:
"Bill and Hillary are getting on in years, they only have one child,
and she is married to a hedge fund manager. When you have that much
money, a dollar in your foundation is as good as a dollar in your bank
account. Once you have all your consumption needs covered, what do you
need money for?"
You imply, here, that the Clintons' wealth and Marc Mezvinsky's hedge
fund income have made the marginal value of another dollar in income de
minimis for the Clintons' personal finances. Then you write,
paraphrasing, that a dollar donated to the Foundation is as good as a
dollar deposited in their personal bank account; therefore, you imply,
money that goes to their foundation is as corrupting as money that goes
into their personal accounts.
You see the problem in claiming that a contribution to the Clinton
Foundation is a powerful incentive for HRC to tilt her foreign policy
positions, right? You just made the case for why a donation to the
Foundation has little personal value to the Clintons:
MV of $ to bank account = 0.
MV of $ to Foundation = MV of $ to bank account.
But you don't proceed to: Therefore, MV of $ to Foundation = 0. So,
according to your logic, there can be no corrupting influence.
You follow this, writing:
"If you're a Clinton, you want to have an impact in the world, reward
your friends, and burnish your legacy. A foundation is an excellent
vehicle for all of those purposes, for obvious reasons. It is also an
excellent way to transfer money to your daughter free of estate tax,
since she can control it after you die."
Your imply that the Clintons give equal weight to their desires to
reward their friends, burnish their legacy, and have an impact on the
world. What evidence do you have of this? Also, you implicitly denigrate
their charitable motives by describing them as a desire "to have an
impact on the world" without a nod to their clear intent to have an
impact that is profoundly constructive. You also speculate, without
providing any support, that the Foundation is a tax avoidance scheme to
enrich their daughter. I think you've crossed a line here.
Now for the false equivalencies:
"Imagine that while George W. Bush was governor of Texas and president
of the United States, various people and companies decided to write him
checks for hundreds of thousands of dollars, just because they thought he
was a great guy. Those people and companies, just coincidentally,
happened to have interests that were affected by the policies of Texas
and the United States. But when he thanked them for their money, Bush
never promised to do anything in particular for them. You would be
suspicious, right?"
Why imagine? We have the real-world case of the Saudis bailing out
George W's Harken Energy while his father was president. Of course, this
is only one example of how the lucrative Bush-Saudi relationship
generated income that went straight into the Bush "coffers".
So you implicitly compare HRC's alleged conflict related to the
family's charity with the Bush family conflict related to their own
personal bank accounts. While HW Bush, as president, made use of his long
friendship with the Saudis for the family's personal gain, HRC gave
access to the likes of the crown prince of Bahrain and Nobel Peace Prize
Winner Muhammad Yunus. Not equivalent. Not even close. I wonder how
routine it is for a Secretary of State to meet with the crown prince of
an oil-producing nation or a Nobel Prize winner versus how routine is it
for foreign oligarchs friendly to a president to bailout his son.
But at least the Saudis were allies of the US. Today, the GOP nominee
has undisclosed but apparently significant business ties to close allies
of the president of our greatest strategic adversary, and expresses his
admiration for an autocrat who is seizing territory in Europe and
terminating his opponents. I've missed your post on this one, though I'm
sure there is one.
One last point: This controversy involved some 85 meetings or
telephone calls HRC granted to Foundation donors. The media have morphed
this into 85 meetings, dropping the "and telephone calls," and made this
out to be a pretty big number. Naive readers and Hillary haters have
accepted it as such. If fact, 85 meetings and telephone calls over four
years are, well, de minimis.
Many of these donors had standing sufficient to get them in the door
whether they gave to the Foundation or not. But let's say all of them
gained access solely as a result of their donations. Over the four years
HRC was Secretary of State, 85 meetings and telephone calls work out to
1.8 meetings/calls per month. Let's make a guess that she met or talked
on the phone with an average of 15 people a day. So, one of every 250
people HRC met or had a phone call with each month, or 21 out of 3000
each year, would have secured their contact with her by donating to the
Foundation. 85 doesn't look so big in context, especially since no one
has presented any evidence of any quid pro quos.
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 26, 2016 at 2:42 am
|
Philip,
The 85 meetings occurred during about half of HRC's term and I've not
heard anyone else dilute things with "phone calls".
Plus, the Bahrainis
were approved for a major arms deal after donating. The Prince tried to
make an appointment with HRC privately, but was made to go through State
Dept. channels before being allowed a meeting.
HRC was also involved in the selling of more weapons in her term than
all of those occurring during the Bush 43 terms combined.
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 26, 2016 at 2:50 am
|
Philip.
Also, there is this:
"You had a situation, that The Wall Street Journal reported, where
Hillary Clinton herself intervened in a case dealing with taxes with UBS,
a Swiss bank, and then, suddenly, after that, UBS began donating big to
the Clinton Foundation. So there are many examples of-I mean, there's oil
companies-that's another one I should mention right now, which is that
oil companies were giving big to the Clinton Foundation while lobbying
the State Department-successfully-for the passage of the Alberta Clipper,
the tar sands pipeline."
David Sarota, interview:
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/8/25/weapons_pipelines_wall_st_did_clinton
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 26, 2016 at 9:40 am
|
Other noteworthy donors to the Clinton Foundation:
$1,000,000-$5,000,000
Carlos Slim
Chairman & CEO of Telmex, largest New York Times shareholder
James Murdoch
Chief Operating Officer of 21st Century Fox
Newsmax Media
Florida-based conservative media network
Thomson Reuters
Owner of the Reuters news service
$500,000-$1,000,000
Google
News Corporation Foundation
Philanthropic arm of former Fox News parent company
$250,000-$500,000
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
Publisher
Richard Mellon Scaife
Owner of Pittsburgh Tribune-Review
$100,000-$250,000
Abigail Disney
Documentary filmmaker
Bloomberg Philanthropies
Howard Stringer
Former CBS, CBS News and Sony executive
Intermountain West Communications Company
Local television affiliate owner (formerly Sunbelt Communications)
$50,000-$100,000
Bloomberg L.P.
Discovery Communications Inc.
George Stephanopoulos
ABC News chief anchor and chief political correspondent
Mort Zuckerman
Owner of New York Daily News and U.S. News & World Report
Time Warner Inc.
Owner of CNN parent company Turner Broadcasting
First, I'd appreciate it if you could provide a cite
supporting the statement that move arms sales occurred during HRC's four
years than during W's eight years. I'd like to look under the cover of
that one.
Also, it's important to note that a lot more people are involved in
approving arms sales than the SoS, including Republicans on the Hill.
Second, the AP touted its original story as being "meetings" but when
you read the story itself you found it was "meetings and phone calls."
Subsequently, the media and commentariat referred to 85 meetings,
dropping reference to phone calls.
Now for the arms sales to Bahrain. This one is especially juicy
because it's an excellent example of how HRC is being tarred.
The US has massive military assets in Bahrain, which hosts the largest
US military outpost in the Gulf. We've been making massive arms sale to
Bahrain for many years. So no surprise that we'd make some when HRC was
SoS.
And considering the strategic importance of Bahrain, there's no
surprise in HRC meeting with the crown prince. The surprise would be if
she declined to do so.
Now, if memory serves, and I encourage you to check me on this, the US
suspended arms sales to Bahrain while HRC was SoS in response to the
Bahrain's suppression of dissent among its Shia minority. Later, we
partially lifted the suspension to allow sales of arms Related to
protecting our huge naval base in Bahrain. I think this decision also
came while HRC was SoS.
So, the arm sales to Bahrain illustrates my objections to the facile
claims that contributions to the CF suggest that HRC is corrupt. These
claims bring one sliver of information to the discussion: so and so
donated money to the CF and then talked to HRC on the phone (or got a
meeting). No evidence is produced that there's a causal relationship
between the two much less a quid pro quo in which the donation and
meeting led HRC to act in an official capacity to benefit the
contributor.
All of the examples I've seen so far, the oil companies, UBS, etc. are
like this. No context, no evidence of a quid pro quo, all inuendo.
publiustex
|
August 26, 2016 at 10:20 am
|
I consider some of these contributors to be unsavory, and I wish they'd
give the Clinton Foundation a lot more money so they'd have less to sink
into GOP House and Senate races.
Philip Diehl
|
August 26, 2016 at 11:05 am
|
Ray LaPan-Love: You left out this quote from the interview with David
Sirota. Context matters.
'DAVID SIROTA: Well, my reaction to it is that
I think that if you look at some of these individual examples, I think
Paul is right that it's hard to argue that their donations to the
foundation got them access. They are - a lot of these people in the AP
story are people who knew her."
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 26, 2016 at 11:21 am
|
Pub,
I can't remember where I saw the comparison between the arms sales of HRC
and the shrub. But, if it comes to me I'll add it later. Meanwhile, here
is a link to lots of related info:
And yes, "no context, no evidence of a quid pro quo", and almost as if
she knew she might run for the prez job.
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 26, 2016 at 11:41 am
|
Sorry Phillip, but gee whiz, am I to assume that nobody else has any
'context' on a story that is difficult to miss. Where does one draw such
lines? And the spin you are hoping for is somewhat unwound by David using
the phrase "hard to argue". That could be interpreted to simply mean that
the CF is good at obfuscating. And as someone who has worked in politics
and even for a large NPO, I can atably assure you
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 26, 2016 at 11:59 am
|
….!!!!!! my cursor got stuck on the previous comment as I tried to use
spell-check.
Anyway, I was trying to comfratably assure you that these organizations
are commonly structured to allow for deceptive practices. The Sierra Club
for example has affiliates that collect donations and then those funds
are used to pay the overhead of the affiliate 'before' any money is
donated to the Sierra Club. Thus, the Sierra club's solicitation costs
are not reflected in the percentage of funds used toward whatever cause.
This is not of course very subtle, and a Foundation such the CF could not
likely get away something this obvious, but…schemes such those exposed by
the Panama Papers should make us all hesitant to assume anything.
I'm a long-time fan of your smart writing and the important work that
you (and Simon) do. But what's with this constant Clinton Derangement
Syndrome? Why look so hard to find some morsel of "scandal" with the
Clintons when there's an entire herd of elephants in the room with the
Republican candidate??
As a wealth manager of many years, I must disagree with your
dismissive assessment of the Clintons' personal philanthropy as a
personal piggy bank. For sure, in a regular family foundation (many of my
clients!) the grants and donations are entirely at the discretion of the
controlling family, and very often it's all about shiny brass plaques and
photo ops with museum directors or mayors. Fine, that's our system, and
at least something gets done. And then the donors die and the plaques
fade. A shawl has no pockets.
But the Clinton operation is unique: they choose specific issues,
partner with competent outside groups, and then direct enormous extra
outside funds - not just their own meager foundation money - to tackle
the problems. This is only possible because of their international
status; not a Gates nor a Slim nor a Zuckerberg could engineer the same.
One can certainly speculate about who got access (a phone call,
seriously?) or who was schmoozed in what way in order to secure their
donations. But to broad-brush the whole of the Clinton philanthropy as
personal corruption is truly unfair. And it sure doesn't make sense when
there's so much worse and genuinely scandalous material on the other side
just waiting to be uncovered.
Keep the faith!
Bruce E. Woych
|
August 27, 2016 at 2:39 pm
|
Note: (from Global Research critique @ (eg:
https://mail.aol.com/webmail-std/en-us/suite
) cited above:
"Philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist, Andre
Vltchek has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. His latest
books are: "Exposing Lies Of The Empire" and "Fighting Against Western
Imperialism". Discussion with Noam Chomsky: On Western Terrorism. Point
of No Return is his critically acclaimed political novel. Oceania – a
book on Western imperialism in the South Pacific. His provocative book
about Indonesia: "Indonesia – The Archipelago of Fear". Andre is making
films for teleSUR and Press TV.
Ray LaPan-Love
|
August 27, 2016 at 3:42 pm
|
Bruce, (been awhile),
High grade stuff there. Yet, I'm not as taken by Caros' comment as you
seem to be. Near the end, this part: "The Clinton family business is
benefiting themselves AND OTHERS by way of their prominence."
To begin with, the Clinton's influence in arming the royal gulfies may
get us all killed, and so his comparison to the Bushs, while apt in a
current sense, it may well be…dangerously premature. Then too, Caro is of
course taking sides as if the Clintons don't fully realize the P.R.
benefits of giving away other peoples money. Which segs the question of
how could the Clintons have put so much time and effort into Hillary's
run, while creating so many pitfalls for themselves? Did they think the
Repubs might get nice? Are they stupid, arrogant maybe? Or just so
corrupt that they just can't stop like so many kleptomaniacs? In any
case, it isn't only Trump's fitness that we should be questioning.
"... Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election systems. So, we've got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight to those who go after us. As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any other attack . We will be ready with serious political, economic and military responses. ..."
"... "We need to respond to evolving threats from states like Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea from networks, criminal and terrorist networks like ISIS. We need a military that is ready and agile so it can meet the full range of threats, and operate on short notice across every domain, not just land, sea, air and space, but also cyberspace". ..."
"... "serious political, economic and military responses" ..."
"... notwithstanding ..."
"... The mainstream The Hill newspaper bannered, "Clinton: Treat cyberattacks 'like any other attack'" , and reported that, "Since many high-profile cyberattacks could be interpreted as traditional intelligence-gathering - something the US itself also engages in - the White House is often in a tricky political position when it comes to its response". That's not critical of her position, but at least it makes note of the crucial fact that if the US were to treat a hacker's attack as being an excuse to invade Russia, it would treat the US itself as being already an invader of Russia - which the US prior to a President Hillary Clinton never actually has been, notwithstanding the routine nature of international cyber espionage (which Clinton has now stated she wants to become a cause of war), which has been, and will continue to be, essential in the present era. ..."
"... The International Business Times, an online-only site, headlined September 1 st , "Clinton: US should use 'military response' to fight cyberattacks from Russia and China" , and reported that a Pentagon official had testified to Congress on July 13 th , that current US policy on this matter is: "When determining whether a cyber incident constitutes an armed attack, the US government considers a broad range of factors, including the nature and extent of injury or death to persons and the destruction of or damage to property. Cyber incidents are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and the national security leadership and the president will make a determination if it's an armed attack". ..."
"... Hillary's statement on this matter was simply ignored by The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, Fox, CNN, The Nation, The Atlantic, Harper's, National Review, Common Dreams, Alternet, Truthout, and all the rest of the US standard and 'alternative news' reporting organizations. Perhaps when Americans go to the polls to elect a President on November 8th, almost none of them will have learned about her policy on this incredibly important matter. ..."
"... Hillary's statement was in line with the current Administration's direction of policy, but is farther along in that direction than the Obama Administration's policy yet is. ..."
"... On Tuesday, June 14 th , NATO announced that if a NATO member country becomes the victim of a cyber attack by persons in a non-NATO country such as Russia or China, then NATO's Article V "collective defense" provision requires each NATO member country to join that NATO member country if it decides to strike back against the attacking country. ..."
"... NATO is now alleging that because Russian hackers had copied the emails on Hillary Clinton's home computer , this action of someone in Russia taking advantage of her having privatized her US State Department communications to her unsecured home computer and of such a Russian's then snooping into the US State Department business that was stored on it, might constitute a Russian attack against the United States of America, and would, if the US President declares it to be a Russian invasion of the US, trigger NATO's mutual-defense clause and so require all NATO nations to join with the US government in going to war against Russia, if the US government so decides. ..."
"... And finally, we did talk about cyber-security generally. I'm not going to comment on specific investigations that are still alive and active, but I will tell you that we've had problems with cyber-intrusions from Russia in the past, from other countries in the past, and, look, we're moving into a new era here, where a number of countries have significant capacities, and frankly we've got more capacity than anybody both offensively and defensively, but our goal is not to suddenly in the cyber-arena duplicate a cycle of escalation that we saw when it comes to other arms-races in the past, but rather to start instituting (9:00) some norms so that everybody's acting responsibly. ..."
"... "neoconservative" ..."
"... Hillary is now the neoconservatives' candidate . (And she's also the close friend of many of them, and hired and promoted many of them at her State Department .) If she becomes the next President, then we might end up having the most neoconservative (i.e., military-industrial-complex-run) government ever. This would be terrific for America's weapons-makers, but it very possibly would be horrific for everybody else. That's the worst lobby of all, to run the country . (And, as that link there shows, Clinton has received over five times as much money from it as has her Republican opponent.) ..."
"... George Herbert Walker Bush knows lots that the 'news' media don't report (even when it has already been leaked in one way or another), and the Clinton plan to destroy Russia is part of that. Will the Russian government accept it? Or will it do whatever is required in order to defeat it? This is already a serious nuclear confrontation . ..."
Hillary Clinton, on September 19th, was endorsed for President, by the most historically important,
intelligent, and dangerous, Republican of modern times.
She was endorsed then by the person who in 1990 cunningly engineered the end of the Soviet Union
and of its Warsaw Pact military alliance in such a way as
to continue the West's war against Russia so as to conquer Russia gradually for the owners of
US international corporations. The person, who kept his plan secret even from his closest advisors,
until the night of 24 February 1990, when he told them that what he had previously instructed them
to tell Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev as the West's future military intentions about Russia if
the USSR were to end, was actually a lie.
He also told them that they were henceforth to proceed forward on the basis that the residual
stump of the former Soviet Union, Russia, will instead be treated as if it still is an enemy-nation,
and that the fundamental aim of the Western alliance will then remain: to conquer Russia (notwithstanding
the end of the USSR, of its communism, and of its military alliances) - that the Cold War is to end
only on the Russian side, not at all, really, on the Western side. (All of that is documented from
the historical record, at that linked-to article.)
This person was the former Director of the US CIA, born US aristocrat, and committed champion
of US conquest of the entire world, the President of the United States at the time (1990):
George Herbert Walker Bush .
He informed the daughter of Robert F. Kennedy, Kathleen Hartington Kennedy Townsend - as she posted
it, apparently ecstatically, on September 19th, to her facebook page after personally having just
met with Mr. Bush - "The President told me he's voting for Hillary!!" She then confirmed this to
Politico the same day, which headlined promptly,
"George H.W. Bush to Vote for Hillary" .
G.H.W. Bush is an insider's insider: he would not do this if he felt that Hillary Clinton wouldn't
carry forward his plan (
which has been adhered-to by each of the US Presidents after him ), and if he felt that Donald
Trump - Bush's own successor now as the Republican US candidate for President - would not carry it
forward. (This was his most important and history-shaping decision during his entire Presidency,
and therefore it's understandable now that he would be willing even to cross Party-lines on his Presidential
ballot in order to have it followed-through to its ultimate conclusion.)
What indications exist publicly, that she will carry it forward? Hillary Clinton has already publicly
stated (though tactfully, so that the US press could ignore it) her intention to push things up to
and beyond the nuclear brink, with regard to Russia:
Russia even hacked into the Democratic National Committee, maybe even some state election
systems. So, we've got to step up our game. Make sure we are well defended and able to take the fight
to those who go after us. As President, I will make it clear, that the United States will
treat cyber attacks just like any other attack . We will be ready with serious political,
economic and military responses.
Russia denies that it did any such thing, but
the US even taps the phone conversations of Angela Merkel and other US allies ; and, of course,
the US and Russia routinely hack into each others' email and other communications; so, even if Russia
did what Clinton says, then to call it "like any other attack" against the United States and to threaten
to answer it with "military responses", would itself be historically unprecedented - which is what
Hillary Clinton is promising to do.
Historically unprecedented, like nuclear war itself would be. And she was saying this in the context
of her alleging that Russia had "attacked" the DNC (Democratic National Committee), and she as President
might "attack" back, perhaps even with "military responses". This was not an off-the-cuff remark
from her - it was her prepared text in a speech. She said it though, for example, on 26 October 2013,
Britain's Telegraph had headlined,
"US 'operates 80 listening posts worldwide, 19 in Europe, and snooped on Merkel mobile 2002-2013'
: US intelligence targeted Angela Merkel's phone from 2002 to 2013, according to new eavesdropping
leaks".
But now, this tapping against Merkel would, according to Hillary Clinton's logic (unless she intends
it to apply only by the United States against Russia), constitute reason for Germany (and
34 other nations ) to go to war against the United States.
Clinton also said there: "We need to respond to evolving threats from states like Russia,
China, Iran, and North Korea from networks, criminal and terrorist networks like ISIS. We need a
military that is ready and agile so it can meet the full range of threats, and operate on short notice
across every domain, not just land, sea, air and space, but also cyberspace".
She also said that the sequester agreement between the Congress and the President must end, because
US military spending should not be limited: "I am all for cutting the fat out of the budget and making
sure we stretch our dollars But we cannot impose arbitrary limits on something as important as our
military. That makes no sense at all. The sequester makes our country less secure. Let's end it and
get a budget deal that supports America's military". She wasn't opposing "arbitrary limits" on non-military
spending; she implied that that's not "as important as our military".
She was clear: this is a wartime US, not a peacetime nation; we're already at war, in her view;
and therefore continued unlimited cost-overruns to Lockheed Martin etc. need to be accepted, not
limited (by "arbitrary limits" or otherwise). She favors "cutting the fat out of the budget" for
healthcare, education, subsidies to the poor, environmental protection, etc., but not for war, not
for this war. A more bellicose speech, especially against "threats from states like Russia, China,
Iran, and North Korea from networks, criminal and terrorist networks like ISIS", all equating "states"
such as Russia and China, with "terrorist networks like ISIS", could hardly be imagined - as if Russia
and China are anything like jihadist organizations, and are hostile toward America, as such jihadist
groups are.
However, her threat to respond to an alleged "cyber attack" from Russia by "serious political,
economic and military responses" , is unprecedented, even from her. It was big news when she
said it, though virtually ignored by America's newsmedia.
The only US newsmedia to have picked up on Clinton's shocking threat were Republican-Party-oriented
ones, because the Democratic-Party and nonpartisan 'news' media in the US don't criticize a Democratic
nominee's neoconservatism - they hide it, or else find excuses for it (even after the Republican
neoconservative President George W. Bush's catastrophic and
lie-based neoconservative invasion of Iraq - then headed by the Moscow-friendly Saddam Hussein
- in 2003, which many Democratic office-holders, such as Hillary Clinton backed).
So, everything in today's USA 'news' media is favorable toward neoconservatism - it's now the
"Establishment" foreign policy, established notwithstanding the catastrophic Iraq-invasion,
from which America's 'news' media have evidently learned nothing whatsoever (because they're essentially
unchanged and committed to the same aristocracy as has long controlled them).
However, now that the Republican Party's Presidential nominee, Donald Trump, is openly critical
of Hillary Clinton's and George W. Bush's neoconservatism, any Republican-oriented 'news' media that
support Trump's candidacy allows its 'journalists' to criticize Clinton's neoconservatism; and, so,
there were a few such critiques of this shocking statement from Clinton.
The Republican Party's "Daily Caller" headlined about this more directly than any other US 'news'
medium,
"Clinton Advocates Response To DNC Hack That Would Likely Bring On WWIII" , and reported, on
September 1st, that "Clinton's cavalier attitude toward going to war over cyber attacks seems to
contradict her assertion that she is the responsible voice on foreign policy in the current election".
The Republican Washington Times newspaper headlined
"Hillary Clinton: US will treat cyberattacks 'just like any other attack'" , and reported that
she would consider using the "military to respond to cyberattacks," but that her Republican opponent
had indicated he would instead use only cyber against cyber: "'I am a fan of the future, and cyber
is the future,' he said when asked by Time magazine during the Republican National Convention about
using cyberweapons". However, Trump was not asked there whether he would escalate from a cyber attack
to a physical one. Trump has many times said that having good relations with Russia would be a priority
if he becomes President. That would obviously be impossible if he (like Hillary) were to be seeking
a pretext for war against Russia.
The mainstream The Hill newspaper bannered,
"Clinton: Treat cyberattacks 'like any other attack'" , and reported that, "Since many high-profile
cyberattacks could be interpreted as traditional intelligence-gathering - something the US itself
also engages in - the White House is often in a tricky political position when it comes to its response".
That's not critical of her position, but at least it makes note of the crucial fact that if the US
were to treat a hacker's attack as being an excuse to invade Russia, it would treat the US itself
as being already an invader of Russia - which the US prior to a President Hillary Clinton never actually
has been, notwithstanding the routine nature of international cyber espionage (which Clinton has
now stated she wants to become a cause of war), which has been, and will continue to be, essential
in the present era.
The International Business Times, an online-only site, headlined September 1 st ,
"Clinton: US should use 'military response' to fight cyberattacks from Russia and China" , and
reported that a Pentagon official had
testified to Congress on July 13 th , that current US policy on this matter is: "When
determining whether a cyber incident constitutes an armed attack, the US government considers a broad
range of factors, including the nature and extent of injury or death to persons and the destruction
of or damage to property. Cyber incidents are reviewed on a case-by-case basis, and the national
security leadership and the president will make a determination if it's an armed attack".
Hillary's statement on this matter was simply ignored by The New York Times, Wall Street Journal,
Washington Post, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, NPR, Fox, CNN, The Nation, The Atlantic, Harper's, National
Review, Common Dreams, Alternet, Truthout, and all the rest of the US standard and 'alternative news'
reporting organizations. Perhaps when Americans go to the polls to elect a President on November
8th, almost none of them will have learned about her policy on this incredibly important matter.
Hillary's statement was in line with the current Administration's direction of policy, but is
farther along in that direction than the Obama Administration's policy yet is.
As
the German Economic News article had noted, but only in passing: "Just a few months ago, US President
Barack Obama had laid the legal basis for this procedure and signed a decree that equates hacker
attacks with military attacks". However, this slightly overstated the degree to which Obama has advanced
"this procedure". On 1 April 2016 - and not as any April Fool's joke - techdirt had headlined
"President Obama Signs Executive Order Saying That Now He's Going To Be Really Mad If He Catches
Someone Cyberattacking Us" and linked to the document, which techdirt noted was "allowing the
White House to issue sanctions on those 'engaging in significant malicious cyber-enabled activities'".
The writer, Mike Masnick, continued, quite accurately: "To make this work, the President officially
declared foreign hacking to be a 'national emergency' (no, really) and basically said that if the
government decides that some foreign person is doing a bit too much hacking, the US government can
basically do all sorts of bad stuff to them, like seize anything they have in the US and block them
from coming to the US". What Hillary Clinton wants to add to this policy is physical, military, invasion,
for practices such as (if Russia becomes declared by the US President to have been behind the hacking
of the DNC) what is actually routine activity of the CIA, NSA, and, of course, of Russia's (and other
countries') intelligence operations.
It wasn't directly Obama's own action that led most powerfully up to Hillary Clinton's policy
on this, but instead NATO's recent action - and NATO has always been an extension of the US President,
it's his military club, and it authorizes him to go to war against any nation that it decides to
have been invaded by some non-member country (especially Russia or China - the Saudis, Qataris, and
other funders behind international jihadist attacks are institutionally prohibited from being considered
for invasion by NATO, because the US keeps those regimes in power, and those regimes are generally
the biggest purchasers of US weapons). I reported on this at The Saker's site, on 15 June 2016, headlining
"NATO Says It Might Now Have Grounds to Attack Russia" . That report opened:
On Tuesday, June 14 th ,
NATO announced that if a NATO member country becomes the victim of a cyber attack by persons
in a non-NATO country such as Russia or China, then NATO's Article V
"collective defense"
provision requires each NATO member country to join that NATO member country if it decides to
strike back against the attacking country.
NATO is now alleging that because
Russian hackers had copied the emails on Hillary Clinton's home computer , this action of someone
in Russia taking advantage of her having privatized her US State Department communications to her
unsecured home computer and of such a Russian's then snooping into the US State Department business
that was stored on it, might constitute a Russian attack against the United States of America, and
would, if the US President declares it to be a Russian invasion of the US, trigger NATO's mutual-defense
clause and so require all NATO nations to join with the US government in going to war against Russia,
if the US government so decides.
So, Obama is using NATO to set the groundwork for Hillary Clinton's policy as (he hopes) America's
next President. Meanwhile, Obama's public rhetoric on the matter is far more modest, and less scary.
It's sane-sounding falsehoods. At the end of the G-20 Summit in Beijing, he held a
press conference September
5th (VIDEO at this link) , in which he was asked specifically (3:15) "Q: On the cyber front,
do you think Russia is trying to influence the US election?" and he went into a lengthy statement,
insulting Putin and saying (until 6:40 on the video) why Obama is superior to Putin on the Syrian
war, and then (until 8:07 in the video) blaming Putin for, what is actually, the refusal of the Ukrainian
parliament or Rada to approve the federalization of Ukraine that's stated in the Minsk agreement
as being a prerequisite to direct talks being held between the Donbass residents and
the Obama-installed regime
in Kiev that's been
trying to exterminate the residents of Donbass . Then (8:07 in the video), Obama got around to
the reporter's question:
And finally, we did talk about cyber-security generally. I'm not going to comment on specific
investigations that are still alive and active, but I will tell you that we've had problems with
cyber-intrusions from Russia in the past, from other countries in the past, and, look, we're moving
into a new era here, where a number of countries have significant capacities, and frankly we've got
more capacity than anybody both offensively and defensively, but our goal is not to suddenly in the
cyber-arena duplicate a cycle of escalation that we saw when it comes to other arms-races in the
past, but rather to start instituting (9:00) some norms so that everybody's acting responsibly.
He is a far more effective deceiver than is his intended successor, but Hillary's goals and his,
have always been the same: achieving what the US aristocracy want. Whereas she operates with a sledgehammer,
he
operates with a scalpel . And he hopes to hand this operation off to her on 20 January 2017.
This is what Hillary's statement that "the United States will treat cyber attacks just like any
other attack" is reflecting: it's reflecting that the US will, if she becomes President, be actively
seeking an excuse to invade Russia. The Obama-mask will then be off.
If this turns out to be the case, then it will be raw control of the US Government by the
military-industrial complex, which includes the arms-makers plus the universities . It's the
owners - the aristocrats - plus their servants; and at least 90% of the military-industrial complex
support Hillary Clinton's candidacy. Like her, they are all demanding that the sequester be ended
and that any future efforts to reduce the US Government's debts must come from cutting expenditures
for healthcare, education, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, and expenditures
on the poor; no cuts (but only increases) for the military. This is based on the conservative theory,
that the last thing to cut in government is the military.
George Herbert Walker Bush knows lots that the 'news' media don't report (even when it has already
been leaked in one way or another), and
the
Clinton plan to destroy Russia is part of that. Will the Russian government accept it? Or will
it do whatever is required in order to defeat it? This is already
a serious nuclear confrontation .
Dunno if this has been posted here but this is part 3: "The following is adapted from the new
book Superpredator: Bill Clinton's Use and Abuse of Black America .
The Evictor-in-Chief
Bill Clinton's crime policies left many poor people with only two options: prison, or homelessness.
by Nathan J. Robinson
"... Informative to follow the link and get more of what Trump said and what Clinton waffles upon.
League of Conservation Voters is a DNC front. ..."
"... Clean coal, like her clean tar sands' pipeline costs more in HGH than just burning low sulfur
stuff. So much needs to stay in the ground, not a Clinton theme. Nor one for LCV! ..."
"... She doesn't pander to the left or to the peacenicks. I bet the debate will all about diversity
and little about economic populism. The center-left dislikes the left, just like in the UK. ..."
Clean coal, like her clean tar sands' pipeline costs more in HGH than just burning low sulfur
stuff. So much needs to stay in the ground, not a Clinton theme. Nor one for LCV!
She doesn't pander to the left or to the peacenicks. I bet the debate will all about diversity
and little about economic populism. The center-left dislikes the left, just like in the UK.
"... While Dems throw younger voters under the bus, they are cozying up to "W"–quite literally. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3806509/Photo-Michelle-Obama-George-W-Bush-hugging-edited.html ..."
"... A whole generation of school kids in their formative years got the message from their parents that Bills behavior was a national embarrassment. So why would they be excited about or vote for Mrs. Clinton? ..."
"... I'm pretty jaded and cynical but that photo of Michelle Obama hugging GWB shocked even me. It's getting scathing comments on Twitter as well (cf @DavidSirota for one). ..."
"... You should probably read the book: Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas. It looks like Michelle was a dangerous, power hungry player from the very beginning. ..."
One thing I never see discussed in the media is the effect of the sorry Clinton/Lewinsky/Impeachment
episode on millennials. As a parent of school kids in the suburbs at that time I can tell you
that I and other parents were none too pleased to see the presidents sexual infidelities on the
evening news and headlined in the paper for all youngsters to see (and emulate?).
A whole generation
of school kids in their formative years got the message from their parents that Bills behavior
was a national embarrassment. So why would they be excited about or vote for Mrs. Clinton?
Jomo–We don't see anything about Billy's former indiscretions in the news anymore.
They'd rather the millennials forget about it.
That's all been carefully swept back into a little box gathering dust in the corner.
How convenient.
'Look over there! It's a Trump!'.
Distractions, distractions…
I lost all respect for Hellary (not that I had much, to begin with) when she 'stood by her
man' following the Monica incident.
She would have impressed me had she planted her foot up his a** all the way up to her cankles,
instead.
I've no doubt part of the 'bargain' of her staying by his side was to get her into the WH.
I've thought that since it happened. Call me Nostradamus.
I'm pretty jaded and cynical but that photo of Michelle Obama hugging GWB shocked even me.
It's getting scathing comments on Twitter as well (cf @DavidSirota for one).
Michelle was the only one I had any respect for… now… POOF like Keyser Soze that respect is
gone.
You should probably read the book: Blood Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas. It looks like Michelle was a dangerous, power hungry player from the very beginning.
"... The trouble is that the candidate they are meant to support does not appear to find that show particularly horrifying ..."
"... People under 40 or 35 grew up under title IX. Electing the wife of a lousy President isnt relevant ..."
"... Then of course, 9/11 would also explain the voting problems. Fear mongering doesn't work when fear mongering has been omnipresent in the lives of millennials for 15 years. ..."
"... Basically, a bunch of Democrats are voting against their interests because they are shallow as they seem. ..."
"... Why the young don't like Hillary? Our friends got blown apart in a war, came home w/ ptsd-missing limbs, getting little care & she wants even more war. Her husband's trade deals destroyed the economy & we know she is pro TPP. ..."
"... She is clearly a liar & has track record of a sell out. She & DNC cheated Bernie & we can't forgive even if he has. ..."
"... The Clintons have been terrible for a long time. The question is why are (did) so many Democrats especially older ones voting against their own interests. ..."
"... I've tried multiple times to explain this to my parents, but they just can't get how much has changed since the 90s, especially for the young. It's key, of course, that they still rely on the New York Times and PBS to get their news. They view "blogs" with reflexive disdain. ..."
"... When I go from hospital room to room at work there are many more older folks (40+) watching fox news, expressing interest in Trump & their hatred of the Clintons. Except in CT where everyone loves their Dems, corrupt or not. This was over last yr working in CT, NY, ME & AZ. I don't see how Clinton can win unless she cheats. ..."
"... So yes, lie, cheat, and steal, those are three things she and her crew excel at. ..."
"... Or, in short form, why the young (and a lot of other people) don't like HIllary: Why would they? The strange media delusion that the dislike needs to be explained, and is moreover terribly puzzling and hard to explain, is itself in greater need of explanation. ..."
"... That Newsweek article you posted on Hillary's millennial "problem" is an amazing read. So satisfying to finally see something in MSM that states obvious truths. Nice little video clip too. ..."
"... Many younger American voters, perhaps a sufficient number of them to seriously imperil Clinton's chances, have significant ideological differences with the candidate. ..."
"... Millennials might vote for Dad or Mom. They are being asked to vote for Granny, who is wobbly, eccentric and does not even live in the same Century as them. ..."
"Here is my own wild take on why millennials don't support Clinton "enough": Many younger American
voters, perhaps a sufficient number of them to seriously imperil Clinton's chances, have significant
ideological differences with the candidate. That's my theory. Many liberal pundits seem unimpressed
by this idea perhaps because it suggests that votes must be earned in a democracy, but it does
have the benefit of the evidence."
And
"The Clinton campaign might be forgiven for imagining these voters would "come home" had it
not spent the weeks since the Democratic Convention fundraising and playing Bush administration
endorsement bingo. The trouble is not that young people are insufficiently familiar with the neoconservative
horror show of their own childhoods. The trouble is that the candidate they are meant to support
does not appear to find that show particularly horrifying ."
And
"There are only so many times one can insist that young voters capitulate to a political party's
sole demand-vote for us!-in exchange for nothing."
I would suggest the ideological differences extend past the 38 age barrier, but
1. People under 40 or 35 grew up under title IX. Electing the wife of a lousy President isnt
relevant
2. No one under 38 voted for Bill Clinton. The youth haven't twisted themselves into voting for
that ass in the first place. Even then Bill's 1996 campaign when he failed to crack 50% against
Mumbly Joe was marked by record low minority turnout, just what is being worried about now. Gee.
3. Then of course, 9/11 would also explain the voting problems. Fear mongering doesn't work when
fear mongering has been omnipresent in the lives of millennials for 15 years.
Basically, a bunch of Democrats are voting against their interests because they are shallow
as they seem.
Why the young don't like Hillary?
Our friends got blown apart in a war, came home w/ ptsd-missing limbs, getting little care & she
wants even more war. Her husband's trade deals destroyed the economy & we know she is pro TPP.
She is pro fracking, pushing it overseas & once in office will promote it here. She is a corporatist bankster & won't release Goldman speeches. We have no jobs, no prospects, large amount of school
debt & must come of age during the second great depression. She is clearly a liar & has track
record of a sell out. She & DNC cheated Bernie & we can't forgive even if he has.
The Clintons have been terrible for a long time. The question is why are (did) so many Democrats
especially older ones voting against their own interests.
Obama enjoys a relative popularity with young people despite being a disaster.
My guess is, that after twelve years of Reagan and Bush, any Democrat was a relief. Unfortunately,
so many in the Democratic Party and in the commentariat came of age during that time, so they
just assume that this is the way that it has to be.
Actually, no, Clinton did not look like a good option in 1992, and certainly wasn't my choice
in the primary. Even then there were a lot of people who only got talked into voting for him in
November on the lesser evil principle, regretted it, and did not vote for him again in 1996.
Plus they turned Ross Perot into a crazy loon because he kept attacking nafta, which was a
big deal at the time, effectively making it a more "manageable" two person race.
Hmmm…….Now that I think about it, that sounds kind of familiar.
Katniss–Looking back, I think when I voted for Ross Perot that was the last time I voted for
someone I actually wanted, rather than just voting the LOTE.
Bernie was the only candidate since I've actually wanted to win. I'm heartsick and mad as hell
he's not in the running.
BTW, I'm still trying to figure out how DWS beat Tim Canova in FL after all the dirty dealings
about DWS came out? More manipulation at the polls?
This is definitely true of my parents (both barely pre-boomers). After watching McGovern flop,
then Carter flail, they both assumed the Clintons were the best a liberal could hope for in this
country. Also my mother admired Hillary for being an unapologetic career woman when, especially
in the South, this was still controversial.
Indeed, having grown up in the age of Reagan and George HW, I basically agreed with them in
the 90s, even though I hoped more would be possible at some point. It wasn't until the financial
crisis (and, importantly, beginning to read NC!) that I began to realize how toxic the Clinton
legacy really was. Also, as a grad student, I was teaching lots of millennials and began to realize
how genuinely screwed they were by what we now all call the neoliberal (and neocon) era.
I've tried multiple times to explain this to my parents, but they just can't get how much has
changed since the 90s, especially for the young. It's key, of course, that they still rely on
the New York Times and PBS to get their news. They view "blogs" with reflexive disdain.
When I told "older" people I would vote for Bernie, now Trump to shake things up-all I got
was a lecture. Clinton's will protect wall street & 401ks. And I think there is a lot of fear
about moving away from the token/chosen candidates.
When I go from hospital room to room at work there are many more older folks (40+) watching fox
news, expressing interest in Trump & their hatred of the Clintons. Except in CT where everyone
loves their Dems, corrupt or not. This was over last yr working in CT, NY, ME & AZ. I don't see
how Clinton can win unless she cheats.
In Philly last time around they had 53 precincts that were without a single non-Obama vote.
Not one. The Black Panthers at the door shooed out the Republican observers and the magic happened,
this time around it will be much easier. And then we might end up with hanging chads on steroids,
with an 8-person Supreme Court that should be a fun-fest.
So yes, lie, cheat, and steal, those are three things she and her crew excel at.
Or, in short form, why the young (and a lot of other people) don't like HIllary: Why would they? The strange media delusion that the dislike needs to be explained, and is moreover terribly
puzzling and hard to explain, is itself in greater need of explanation.
That Newsweek article you posted on Hillary's millennial "problem" is an amazing read. So satisfying to finally see something in MSM that states obvious truths. Nice little video
clip too.
Many younger American voters, perhaps a sufficient number of them to seriously imperil Clinton's
chances, have significant ideological differences with the candidate.
Millennials might vote for Dad or Mom. They are being asked to vote for Granny, who is wobbly,
eccentric and does not even live in the same Century as them.
That Newsweek article you posted on Hillary's millennial "problem" is an amazing read. So satisfying to finally see something in MSM that states obvious truths. Nice little video
clip too.
"Elizabeth Warren Tells Hillary Clinton Not To Hire Wall Street Donors" [
International
Business Times
]. At the Center for American Progress:
"I know that personnel is policy," she told the group. "But let me be
clear - when we talk about personnel, we don't mean advisors who just pay
lip service to Hillary's bold agenda [irony, surely?], coupled with a
sigh, a knowing glance, and a twiddling of thumbs until it's time for the
next swing through the revolving door, serving government then going back
to the very same industries they regulate. We don't mean Citigroup or
Morgan Stanley or BlackRock getting to choose who runs the economy in
this country so they can capture our government."
This,
before
November 8! They must be gritting their teeth in
Brooklyn, as Warren underlines her status as a party baron once more.
"The Clinton Global Initiative wraps up its 12th and final annual meeting
Wednesday amid intense scrutiny about the access its donors received while
Hillary Clinton was the nation's top diplomat" [
McClatchy
].
So I guess they're closing out the fund? And the payouts will come over the
course of a future Clinton administration….
Our endorsement is rooted in respect
for her intellect, experience and courage. ...
In any normal election year, we'd compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the
issues. But this is not a normal election year. A comparison like that would be an empty exercise
in a race where one candidate - our choice, Hillary Clinton - has a record of service and a raft
of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his
plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway. (We will explain in a subsequent
editorial why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern
American history.)
But this endorsement would also be an empty exercise if it merely affirmed the choice of Clinton
supporters. We're aiming instead to persuade those of you who are hesitating to vote for Mrs.
Clinton - because you are reluctant to vote for a Democrat, or for another Clinton, or for a candidate
who might appear, on the surface, not to offer change from an establishment that seems indifferent
and a political system that seems broken. ...
2008 Crisis Deepened the Ties Between Clintons and Goldman Sachs
http://nyti.ms/2cLHnuY
NYT - NICHOLAS CONFESSORE and SUSANNE CRAIG - Sep 24
A blue-ribbon commission had just excoriated Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street banks for
fueling the financial crisis. Prosecutors were investigating whether Goldman had misled investors.
The company was a whipping boy for politicians looking to lay blame for the crash.
But in spring of 2011, Lloyd C. Blankfein, leading one of the nation's most reviled companies,
found himself onstage with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, one of the nation's most admired
public figures at the time. And Mrs. Clinton had come to praise Goldman Sachs.
The State Department, Mrs. Clinton announced that day in an auditorium in its Foggy Bottom
headquarters, would throw its weight behind a Goldman philanthropic initiative aimed at encouraging
female entrepreneurs around the world - a program Goldman viewed as central to rehabilitating
its reputation.
Mrs. Clinton's blessing - an important public seal of approval for Goldman at a time when it
had few defenders in Washington - underscored a long-running relationship between one of the country's
most powerful financial firms and one of its most famous political families. Over 20-plus years,
Goldman provided the Clintons with some of their most influential advisers, millions of dollars
in campaign contributions and speaking fees, and financial support for the family foundation's
charitable programs.
And in the wake of the worst crash since the Great Depression, as the firm fended off investigations
and criticism from Republicans and Democrats alike, the Clintons drew Goldman only closer. Bill
Clinton publicly defended the company and leased office space from Goldman for his foundation.
Mrs. Clinton, after leaving the State Department, earned $675,000 to deliver three speeches at
Goldman events, where she reassured executives that they had an important role to play in the
nation's recovery.
The four years between the end of the financial crisis and the start of Mrs. Clinton's second
White House bid revealed a family that viewed Wall Street's elite as friends and collaborators
even as the public viewed them with suspicion and scorn. ...
So these people think it is a big deal for the Sec of State to appear at a dinner with GS where
the bank starts a program to help women in business throughout the world.
10,000 Women is a program organized by Goldman Sachs with the goal of helping to grow local
economies by providing business education, mentoring and networking, and access to capital to
underserved women entrepreneurs globally. ...
I know about the program. A local charity group I do a little work for has partnered with it.
My question was doe the writers in that Times article mention the program?
If not, it is just another in a long series of attacks on the Clintons with little basis in
fact. I am not a big fan of either of them, but this treatment is beyond the pale.
ilsm -> Fred C. Dobbs... , -1
The NYT board like Mrs. Clinton has no idea about providing for the common defense.
Experience that could not remember nor take responsibility for safeguarding information that
could damage US well being...........
Nor remember the most basic requirements for filing public records.
"... "State Department Delays Records Request About Clinton-Linked Firm Until After The 2016 Election" [ International Business Times ]. "Beacon Global Strategies is a shadowy consulting firm that's stacked with former Obama administration officials, high profile Republicans and a number of Hillary Clinton's closest foreign policy advisers. But beyond its billing as a firm that works with the defense industry, it is unclear for whom specifically the company works, exactly what it does, and if Beacon employees have tried to influence national security policy since the firm's founding in 2013. ..."
"... UPDATE "New York-based Teneo, with 575 employees, markets itself as a one-stop shop for CEOs to get advice on a wide range of issues, including mergers and acquisitions, handling crises and managing public relations. For its services, it generally charges clients monthly retainer fees of $100,000 to $300,000." [ Wall Street Journal , "Teneo, Consulting Firm with Clinton Ties, Eyes $1 Billion IPO"]. Founder Douglas Band was Bill Clinton's body man . One can only wonder what a body man does to become worth $1 billion to, well, the people who made him worth a billion. ..."
"... The donors expect that their support of the Clinton Foundation will help them get access to the State Department, [Doug] Band see above] expects that he can count on [Huma] Abedin to help, and Abedin seems to understand that she needs to be responsive to Band. This would be a lot of effort for powerful people to expend, if it led to nothing at all. ..."
"... UPDATE "Even as the Clintons are touting plans to distance themselves from their foundation and limit its fundraising if Hillary Clinton is elected president, they're planning one last glitzy fundraising bash on Friday to belatedly celebrate Bill Clinton's 70th birthday" [ Politico ]. ..."
"... "Plans called for performances by Wynton Marsalis, Jon Bon Jovi and Barbra Streisand, according to people briefed on the planning. They said that major donors are being asked to give $250,000 to be listed as a chair for the party, $100,000 to be listed a co-chair and $50,000 to be listed as a vice-chair." Sounds lovely! How I wish I could go… ..."
"State Department Delays Records Request About Clinton-Linked Firm Until
After The 2016 Election" [
International Business Times ]. "Beacon Global Strategies is a shadowy consulting
firm that's stacked with former Obama administration officials, high profile
Republicans and a number of Hillary Clinton's closest foreign policy advisers.
But beyond its billing as a firm that works with the defense industry, it is
unclear for whom specifically the company works, exactly what it does, and if
Beacon employees have tried to influence national security policy since the
firm's founding in 2013.
UPDATE "New York-based Teneo, with 575 employees, markets itself as a one-stop
shop for CEOs to get advice on a wide range of issues, including mergers and
acquisitions, handling crises and managing public relations. For its services,
it generally charges clients monthly retainer fees of $100,000 to $300,000."
[
Wall Street Journal , "Teneo, Consulting Firm with Clinton Ties, Eyes $1
Billion IPO"]. Founder Douglas Band was Bill Clinton's
body man
. One can only wonder what a body man does to become worth $1 billion to,
well, the people who made him worth a billion.
"[I]n many of these [Clinton Foundation] episodes you can see expectations
operating like an electrical circuit. The donors expect that their support of
the Clinton Foundation will help them get access to the State Department, [Doug]
Band see above] expects that he can count on [Huma] Abedin to help, and Abedin
seems to understand that she needs to be responsive to Band. This would be a
lot of effort for powerful people to expend, if it led to nothing at all. There
are two obvious possibilities. One is that the State Department actually was
granting important favors to Clinton Foundation donors that the many sustained
investigations have somehow failed to detect. The other, which is more likely,
is that someone, somewhere along the line, was getting played" [
The New Yorker ]. Surely those two possibilities are not mutually exclusive?
And public office is being used for private gain in either case?
UPDATE "Even as the Clintons are touting plans to distance themselves from
their foundation and limit its fundraising if Hillary Clinton is elected president,
they're planning one last glitzy fundraising bash on Friday to belatedly celebrate
Bill Clinton's 70th birthday" [
Politico ].
"Plans called for performances by Wynton Marsalis, Jon Bon Jovi
and Barbra Streisand, according to people briefed on the planning. They said
that major donors are being asked to give $250,000 to be listed as a chair for
the party, $100,000 to be listed a co-chair and $50,000 to be listed as a vice-chair."
Sounds lovely! How I wish I could go…
13. How can we know you won't (again) impulsively damage
relationships with crucial allies to preserve your own ego?
Hillary Clinton added,
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Dopey Prince @Alwaleed_Talal wants to control our U.S.
politicians with daddy's money. Can't do it when I get
elected. #Trump2016
Is such incompetence in messaging a reflection of Hillary Clinton
own confusion? Or are the categories "terrorist and dictator" versus
"crucial allies" solely depending on the size of payments to the
Clinton Foundation?
She is sliding to throwing mud ,. what ever will stick will do
the trick I guess .This started after some polls showing the
Donald ahead a few points .
I recognize election season is always crazy in the states,
especially as an outside observer looking in, but this cycle
seems so far beyond that norm compared even to 4 years ago it
makes me quite uncomfortable. It reeks of a growing desperation
by the elites to me. The 2012 campaigns of the two major parties
were a circus by any measure, but they seem completely measured
and intellectual by this year's standards.
I understand American culture dwells a lot on violence, but
the new standards of political rhetoric disturb me greatly. It
seems most of the country's population is either willfully
ignorant of the destruction their country creates or cheers it
on wildly and willingly. How anybody could advocate carpet
bombing without irony or rebuttal is frightenening. That it
could drum up support - well that's just depressing.
The two most important topics in this election, nuclear
weapons and global warming, both candidates have been decidedly
silent about. It scares me that neither party even attempts to
appeal to the left anymore, except by manipulating them by fear
and non existent 'security' issues. If it's all about PR and
perception management anyways, I wonder why Clinton wears her
right leaning nature and war mongering history on her sleeve?
Maybe content and debate matters less than I assume it does to
the average American voter. Maybe it's totally about spectacle
and personality now and nothing else. Sad, sad days for those
who live in the middle of the Empire but it's hard to be
sympathetic sometimes. It seems the hot new consumer electronic
device gets more of a thorough analysis and debate than does
either major party candidates' platform (if you could even call
it that).
Vote republican and catastrophic, irreversible climate change
is almost guaranteed, with a hearty chance of more war and more
regime change operations (despite attempts to paint the
candidate as 'isolationist').
Vote democrat for more wars and regime change, with the
status quo of environmental destruction happily maintained
(despite the attempts to paint the candidate as an
'environmentalist').
this us election is much more pathetic then usual... witnessing
the standing president refer to putin akin to saddam hussain is
frankly insane, but shows how depraved the usa has gotten...
and, besides that, since when did the average usa person even
know where any place outside the usa was on a map, let alone
having actually been their? oh - i guess it doesn't matter...
as @1 originalone says basically 'putin did it'...
The Obama administration authorized CIA backing of the
rebellion almost before it started. In all likelihood, it
started several years before the revolt, and the authorization
was to provide legal cover for activity that was already
ongoing.
Unfortunately, your observations are sharp,
correct and to the point. All I can weakly offer is something
Ralph Nader said. Ralph Nader once noted that the difference
between the democrats and republicans is the difference between
a car hitting a wall at 60 miles per hour versus 120 miles per
hour. Not so anymore. Now both cars will hit the wall going as
fast as they can. And the passengers will jump for joy at the
speed.
Clinton is neither well-liked nor trusted. She is just a marionette promoted
by neocon cabal. Sanders team has a point that Clinton is like the job candidate
wit the impressive resume who sounds great on paper, but then when you meet her
in person, you realize she's not he right person for the job.
Notable quotes:
"... She has never acknowledged, maybe even to herself, that routing diplomatic emails with classified information through a homebrew server was an outrageous, reckless and foolish thing to do, and disloyal to Obama, whose administration put in place rules for record-keeping that she flouted. ..."
"... And Hillary did not merely fail the ask the right questions. The questions were asked and the answers were given. Joe Biden, Robert Gates and much of the military and intelligence communities advised against the Libya intervention. Hillary just chose to ignore the advice, because she is a radical neoconservative at heart. ..."
"... She volunteered that that the United States should continue to "look for missions" that NATO will support ..."
"... She vows to go around looking for new military adventures. ..."
"... Maureen is right that Hillary has huge character problems. Sure, she can't admit mistakes and compulsively blames others when things go wrong. That's a given. But it's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is that she will take our country down the wrong path, both in terms of domestic and foreign policy. ..."
"... She has had 40-some years to develop this kind of judgment, imagination and long term reflection, and she has proudly, aggressively, mean-spiritedly run the opposite direction every time and viciously attacked anyone who called her on it. It's time to stop this game of "wondering" whether she can change, wondering whether all of these terrible moments were "the real Hillary" or not. They were. Voting someone in as President on the hope that they will be a completely different person once in office then they have been in 40 years is the definition of insanity. ..."
"... it's about her paranoia about secrecy that made her think she could get away with a private email server in one of the nation's most high-profile jobs, or taking huge sums of money for Wall Street speeches she now refuses to release, or doubling-down on her ill-considered, if not ill-informed (as you note), hawkish regime change views by advocating for it again in Libya that has, as a result, turned into an ISIS outpost. ..."
"... Clinton did herself no favors in the debate, drawing even more attention to her dependence on that money and the impossibility of being completely free to make policy without repaying debts. ..."
"... They don't, but it is telling that Bill said that. His chosen exaggeration displays who he sees as Hillary's side in this. When he says, "they are coming for us" he means Wall Street. ..."
"... "Clinton, who talked Obama into it" on Libya and claimed credit, but when it went poorly, she blamed Obama for listening to her, "On Libya, she noted that "the decision was the president's."" That is her claim to experience, and not something we ought to vote to experience again. ..."
"... Hillary is a self-serving, power hungry politician. She is only ever sorry if she fails to get what she wants, or is forced to explain her actions. She feels she is above "the masses." As for her qualifications, job titles alone don't cut it. What did she actually accomplish as a Senator or SecState? Any major laws? Treaties? No. She failed with Russia, Syria and Libya to name just a few. She is not qualified to be president based on qualifications and personality. ..."
... Clinton sowed suspicion again, refusing to cough up her Wall Street speech
transcripts.
... ... ...
Hillary alternately tried to blame and hug the men in her life, divvying
up credit in a self-serving way.
After showing some remorse for the 1994 crime bill, saying it had had "unintended"
consequences, she stressed that her husband "was the president who actually
signed it." On Libya, she noted that "the decision was the president's." And
on her desire to train and arm Syrian rebels, she recalled, "The president said
no."
But she wrapped herself in President Obama's record on climate change and,
when criticized on her "super PACs," said, well, Obama did it, too.
Sanders accused her of pandering to Israel after she said that "if Yasir
Arafat had agreed with my husband at Camp David," there would have been a Palestinian
state for 15 years.
Bernie is right that Hillary's judgment has often been faulty.
She has shown an unwillingness to be introspective and learn from her mistakes.
From health care to Iraq to the email server, she only apologizes at the point
of a gun. And even then, she leaves the impression that she is merely sorry
to be facing criticism, not that she miscalculated in the first place.
... ... ...
She has never acknowledged, maybe even to herself, that routing diplomatic
emails with classified information through a homebrew server was an outrageous,
reckless and foolish thing to do, and disloyal to Obama, whose administration
put in place rules for record-keeping that she flouted.
Advertisement Continue reading the main story Wouldn't it be a relief to
people if Hillary just acknowledged some mistakes?
... ... ...
Clinton accused Sanders of not doing his homework on how he would break up
the banks. And she is the queen of homework, always impressively well versed
in meetings. But that is what makes her failure to read the National Intelligence
Estimate that raised doubts about whether Iraq posed a threat to the U.S. so
egregious.
P. Greenberg El Cerrito, CA
Maureen Dowd fundamentally misunderstands Hillary Clinton's foreign policy
failings. When it comes to Libya, Clinton does not merely need to apologize
for getting distracted by other global issues and "taking her eye off the
ball". The decision to go in was wrong, not the failure to follow through.
And Hillary did not merely fail the ask the right questions. The
questions were asked and the answers were given. Joe Biden, Robert Gates
and much of the military and intelligence communities advised against the
Libya intervention. Hillary just chose to ignore the advice, because she
is a radical neoconservative at heart.
Clinton continues to adhere to the neoconservative approach to foreign
policy. Her choice of words during the Brooklyn debate were significant.
She volunteered that that the United States should continue to "look
for missions" that NATO will support. That says it all. She vows
to go around looking for new military adventures.
Maureen is right that Hillary has huge character problems. Sure,
she can't admit mistakes and compulsively blames others when things go wrong.
That's a given. But it's not the biggest problem. The biggest problem is
that she will take our country down the wrong path, both in terms of domestic
and foreign policy.
And please Maureen, stop denigrating Bernie Sanders with pejorative adjectives
and vague accusations. He has held elective office for 35 years, showing
leadership and good judgment and good values.
Brett Morris California,
She has had 40-some years to develop this kind of judgment, imagination
and long term reflection, and she has proudly, aggressively, mean-spiritedly
run the opposite direction every time and viciously attacked anyone who
called her on it. It's time to stop this game of "wondering" whether she
can change, wondering whether all of these terrible moments were "the real
Hillary" or not. They were. Voting someone in as President on the hope that
they will be a completely different person once in office then they have
been in 40 years is the definition of insanity.
That said, of course she is better than the republicans. But she is the
worst possible candidate for the Democratic Party, especially in this era
where we have a serious opportunity to turn away from Reagan's Overton Window.
And right now we actually have a candidate available who represents our
best ideas. Can't we just ditch her while we have the chance? If she gets
elected, more war is absolutely guaranteed. A one-term Presidency is also
highly likely, because nobody will be on her side. She loses trust and support
the more she exposes herself, every time.
Paul Long island
I agree when you say of Hillary Clinton, "She has shown an unwillingness
to be introspective and learn from her mistakes." That is only part of her
problem because her judgment seems always wrong, despite all the "listening
tours," whether it's about her paranoia about secrecy that made her
think she could get away with a private email server in one of the nation's
most high-profile jobs, or taking huge sums of money for Wall Street speeches
she now refuses to release, or doubling-down on her ill-considered, if not
ill-informed (as you note), hawkish regime change views by advocating for
it again in Libya that has, as a result, turned into an ISIS outpost.
To say she's "sorry" would only confirm her consistently bad judgment since
she has so much to be sorry about. So, what we have instead is a very "sorry"
candidate who, despite her resume and establishment backing, is having immense
trouble overcoming "a choleric 74-year-old democratic socialist" and will
have an even harder time if she's the Democratic nominee in November.
Rima Regas is a trusted commenter Mission Viejo, CA
Hillary isn't sorry. Bill is definitely not sorry. Bernie Sanders isn't
a senator with few accomplishments.
Hillary isn't sorry about anything. She hasn't apologized for the superpredator
comment. Saying she wouldn't say it now is hardly an apology and during
Thursday's debate, she talked about her husband apologizing for it instead
of talking about herself (since that was what she was being asked to do),
when Bill has yet to apologize. (Clips here: http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2bw) If
anything, he doubled down on defending her and himself. When it comes to
mass-incarceration, they both exhibit a kind of moral absenteeism. http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2b7
On money in politics, Clinton did herself no favors in the debate,
drawing even more attention to her dependence on that money and the impossibility
of being completely free to make policy without repaying debts. Debbie
Wasserman Schultz was no help to her this week when in an answer, she included
big money in the "Big Tent" that the democratic party is supposed to be.
http://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2bO
During his entire tenure in both houses of Congress, Sanders has distinguished
himself as one who can work with the other side, propose legislation gets
things done through amendments. There is a yuuuge difference in approach
between Clinton and Sanders and the willingness to trust Sanders over Clinton.
When the choice in front of Americans becomes Trump versus Clinton or Sanders,
Sanders wins by a wider margin. Sanders will take more from Trump.
Mark Thomason is a trusted commenter Clawson, Mich
So Bill claimed Bernie supporters think, "Just shoot every third person
on Wall Street and everything will be fine."
They don't, but it is telling that Bill said that. His chosen exaggeration
displays who he sees as Hillary's side in this. When he says, "they are
coming for us" he means Wall Street.
"Clinton, who talked Obama into it" on Libya and claimed credit,
but when it went poorly, she blamed Obama for listening to her, "On Libya,
she noted that "the decision was the president's.""
That is her claim to experience, and not something we ought to vote to
experience again.
That is important, because she still wants to sink us deeper into it.
Her own adviser on this says, Hillary "does not see the Libya intervention
as a failure, but as a work in progress."
"Like other decisions, it was put through a political filter and a paranoid
mind-set." That is the essence of what makes Hillary so dangerous in a responsible
office. From Iraq in the beginning to Libya now, the homework lady did all
her work and then saw the wrong things and got it wrong.
Joe Pike Gotham City
Hillary is a self-serving, power hungry politician. She is only ever
sorry if she fails to get what she wants, or is forced to explain her actions.
She feels she is above "the masses." As for her qualifications, job titles
alone don't cut it. What did she actually accomplish as a Senator or SecState?
Any major laws? Treaties? No. She failed with Russia, Syria and Libya to
name just a few. She is not qualified to be president based on qualifications
and personality.
Bill
looks
sick
too. Notice
the
extreme
thinness,
and
that
red
waxy
pallor.
I
wonder
if
he's
got
AIDS.
Serve
the
mass-murdering
psychopathic
SOB
right.
Did
you
miss
the
part
about
surveillance
cameras
being
set
up
in
key
places
around
the
compound
to
record
people
engaging
in
child
rape
so
that
it
could
be
used
for
blackmail?
It
may
be
PC
to
say
one's
sex
life
is
personal
and
no
one's
business,
but
when
you
are
a
public
servant
(which
is
all
these
scum-fucking-bags
are
supposed
to
be,
not
elitist
rulers),
then
the
personal
life
becomes
one
of
national
importance.
If
the
sociopathic
rug-muncher
Shitlary
manages
to
steal
what
the
feminazis
will
rebrand
as
the
"Ova
Office,"
you
can
be
damn
sure
that
she
is
very
vulnerable
to
being
blackmailed
for
her
scumbag
husband's
lifetime
of
rape.
She
will
give
the
blackmailers
whatever
the
fuck
they
want
because
she'll
want
her
term
to
be
so
many
years
of
'peace
and
prosperity,'
the
same
lie
the
leftists
used
to
rewrite
the
history
of
the
92-2000.
"... In fact, HRC may be a better prospect for neocons, because they can distract the Dem base with how cool it is for a "strong woman" to send men into battle. Anyone opposed must be a misogynist/sexist pig. By contrast Jeb would be too obvious. ..."
"... "There is no prospect of a non-interventionist president." ..."
"... Exactly. Obama has certainly proved this to be true, for those who might've thought otherwise. And since it is true, if one is going to vote anyway, then the decision won't be made on the basis of not "wanting more wars with terrible outcomes." There will have to be another, different, deciding factor, since that factor would rule out Ms. Clinton AND every other candidate. ..."
"... Yes, I have to second Lysander's view. People - both in and outside the US - must first disabuse themselves of ANY notion that the US is a democratic state, that "changes" in leadership will actually bring about ANY difference in foreign/domestic policy and that the American war criminal ship can be righted by the people utilizing the "democratic" mechanisms at their disposal. ..."
"... Furthermore, after the Obama debacle and his utter betrayal etc of his supporters if anyone thinks someone in the American Establishment is looking out for their peon asses why then they probably also believe that the US was "surprised/caught off guard" - yet again - by ISIS et al in Iraq. ..."
"... I wish Rand Paul had his fathers balls, but he doesnt. Ron was a Libertarian pretending to be a Republican, while Rand is a Republican pretending to be a Libertarian... Rand would be no different than any other Republican or Democratic establishment schmuck. ..."
"... I never did like Ron Pauls economic policy, being left leaning, and I'm doubtful whether he would have actually accomplished anything useful as President, but his NonInterventionism was admirable and I was happy to put his name in in the Rethug primary in 2012 for that reason alone. ..."
"... Mr. Kristol said he, too, sensed "more willingness to rethink" neoconservatism, which he called "vindicated to some degree" by the fruits of Mr. Obama's detached approach to Syria and Eastern Europe. Mr. Kagan, he said, gives historical heft to arguments "that are very consistent with the arguments I made, and he made, 20 years ago, 10 years ago." ..."
"... After all the slaughter these people feel like crowing. They are clearly, as JSorrentine often reminds us, pyschopath butchers. ..."
"... Incidentally, where is the outrage from Samantha Powers about the ISIS massacre in Tikrit? ..."
"... Well, I guess the world just can't talk about how the amazingly rapid rise of ISIS/L and fall of Iraq completely continues the plans of the apartheid genocidal state of Israel's - and their traitorous Zionist partners in the American Establishment - as set out in the Yinon Plan and Clean Break strategies because - HOW FORTUITOUS...I mean, terribly sad and unexpected, sorry - some unlucky Israeli teenagers just happened to be "kidnapped" by "Hamas" just as the ISIS show was kicking off or so that's what the apartheid genocidal state of Israel is telling the world. ..."
"... Shrillary wouldn't be where she is today if she wasn't criminally insane. I want her to become President. She'll redefine the meaning of Eerily Inept (a label coined by Gore Vidal and attached to G Dubya Bush). Her greatest moment was when Lavrov called her out on her RESET button and pointed out, with a chuckle, "You got it wrong. It doesn't say RESET it says SHORT CIRCUIT." ..."
"... Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who argued in favor of arming Syrian rebels, said last week at an event in New York hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, "this is not just a Syrian problem anymore. I never thought it was just a Syrian problem. I thought it was a regional problem. ..."
"... Why, even HILLARY is just SOOOO SURPRISED about people trying to erase boundaries, huh? Funny, she should have read further into yesterday's times where it seems that the Zionist mouthpiece of record was desperately trying to get "out in front" of anyone mentioning that the fracturing of Iraq and the ME was all part of long-time Israeli strategy: ..."
"... In 2006, it was Ralph Peters, the retired lieutenant colonel turned columnist, who sketched a map that subdivided Saudi Arabia and Pakistan and envisioned Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics emerging from a no-longer-united Iraq. Two years later, The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg imagined similar partings-of-the-ways, with new microstates -- an Alawite Republic, an Islamic Emirate of Gaza -- taking shape and Afghanistan splitting up as well. Last year, it was Robin Wright's turn in this newspaper, in a map that (keeping up with events) subdivided Libya as well. ..."
"... As president she's da bomb! ..."
"... Hillary is a loathsome war mongering bitch. She almost had a public orgasm when Libyan leader Quadaffi was tortured and murdered by US supported Libyan rebels. The muder of Chris Stevens was a case of what goes around comes around. ..."
"... A point which nobody else has made as far as I know. To wit there is a big overlap between the banking and Israel lobbies since wealthy Jews account for a hugely disproportionate number of top financial movers and shakers. Anything that helps the financial industry also helps the war mongering Israel and neo con lobbies. The heavily Jewish Fed is another enabler of all that is wrong with America today. ..."
"... I, also agree, with the possible exception of replacing the word "Zionist", with the word "Corporatist", although both can be rightly used. We'll still get the person the 1%ers want us to have. Ain't Oligarchies grand? ..."
"... Hillary's election depends on two things still unknown: her health and whether the Republicans can manage to choose someone sufficiently batshit crazy to make her the best of abysmal alternatives. ..."
"... HRH is a Neo Liberal of Arianne 'Sniff Sniff' Huffington's type, the 'Third Way Up Your Ass' of Globalist NAFTA/TPP Free Trade Neonazi destruction of labor and environmental protections, and in your face with NOOOOO apologies. ..."
"... And Victoria Nuland indicates that she agrees with her husband Robert Kagan's criticism of Obama's foreign policy. ..."
"... Would it be safe to say Hillary's White Trash ? ..."
"... There are some really nice photographs of Hillary being very friendly with bearded famous Libyan Islamists (Gaddafi was still alive then). In combination with Benghazi - I think you probably can connect the people greeting Hillary with what happened there (and today's Iraq) I would not think she has a chance to convince with foreign policy. ..."
"... 'You have a schism between Sunni and Shia throughout the region that is profound. Some of it is directed or abetted by states who are in contests for power there.'" Now, if only he had mentioned the states included and featured the (United) States and Israel. Obama...usually a day late and a dollar short and leading or retreating from behind. ..."
"... I would rank Obama as the most cynical one. He is doing the dark colonial art. You can berate Bush for bombing Iraq (Obama did that with Libya, just as bad), but he did sink American manpower and treasure for all this futile nation building stuff, ie he tried to repair it. ..."
"... Obama tried to double down on the nation building stuff in Afghanistan, even copying the "surge". He is still not out of Afghanistan. ..."
"... He then tried to continue Bush's policy on the cheap, scrapping the nation building stuff and concentrating on shock and awe in Libya. When Russia put a stop to that in Syria he doubled down on the subversion supporting guerilla groups. He is now back in Iraq with allies supporting a "Sunni" insurrection by proxy. After a "color revolution" in Ukraine. ..."
"... It is not "US foreign policy" but the policy of the british empire. If he was running a US foreign policy, he would at least sometimes do something positive for Americans, by accident if nothing more. ..."
"... Economic policy to vote on? Are you joking? Whichever party we elect we get Neoliberalism anyway. ..."
"... "That smile and her gloating about his death made me feel she was some sort of sociopath." Massinissa, you meant psychopath, didn't you? ..."
Here is the reason why Hillary Clinton should never ever become President
of the United States.
A (sympathetic) New York Times profile of neocon Robert Kagan has
this on Clinton II:
But Exhibit A for what Robert Kagan describes as his "mainstream" view of
American force is his relationship with former Secretary of State
Hillary Rodham Clinton, who remains the vessel into which many interventionists
are pouring their hopes. Mr. Kagan pointed out that he had recently
attended a dinner of foreign-policy experts at which Mrs. Clinton was the
guest of honor, and that he had served on her bipartisan group of foreign-policy
heavy hitters at the State Department, where his wife worked as her spokeswoman.
"I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy," Mr. Kagan said,
adding that the next step after Mr. Obama's more realist approach "could
theoretically be whatever Hillary brings to the table" if elected president.
"If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue," he added,
"it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly
her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it
something else."
Want more wars with terrible outcomes and no winner at all? Vote the neocon's
vessel, Hillary Clinton.
Clinton, by the way, is also
a coward,
unprincipled and
greedy. Her achievements as Secretary of State were about zero. Why would
anyone vote for her?
Posted by b on June 16, 2014 at 09:09 AM |
Permalink
I'm afraid you focus too much on elections that have no meaning. It seems
we may be cornered into choosing between HR Clinton and Jeb Bush. The latter,
I'm sure, would earn equal praise from the Kagan clan. There is no prospect
of a non-interventionist president. There is no prospect of a president
that is not a Zionist stooge.
In fact, HRC may be a better prospect for neocons, because they can
distract the Dem base with how cool it is for a "strong woman" to send men
into battle. Anyone opposed must be a misogynist/sexist pig. By contrast
Jeb would be too obvious.
Personally, I don't think she is anyone to worry about gaining the office.
Too much hatred of her by most Americans, from her serial lying to her terrible
foreign policy, to her standing by bent dick, in her lust for power. She
will be backed by feminazis,homonazis and zionazis(Kagan).
Not enough devil worshippers in America,at least not yet,and I believe
Americans,from current events that our traitor MSM will be unable to counter
with their usual BS,that we are down the rabbit hole of idiotic intervention,and
we will end this nonsense,and return to worrying about America,not foreign
malevolent monsters like Israel.
Well,I can at least hope,it springs eternal.
"There is no prospect of a non-interventionist president."
Exactly. Obama has certainly proved this to be true, for those who
might've thought otherwise. And since it is true, if one is going to vote
anyway, then the decision won't be made on the basis of not "wanting more
wars with terrible outcomes." There will have to be another, different,
deciding factor, since that factor would rule out Ms. Clinton AND every
other candidate.
Yes, I have to second Lysander's view. People - both in and outside
the US - must first disabuse themselves of ANY notion that the US is a democratic
state, that "changes" in leadership will actually bring about ANY difference
in foreign/domestic policy and that the American war criminal ship can be
righted by the people utilizing the "democratic" mechanisms at their disposal.
I understand that some speak to how corrupt our institutions are but
there always seems to be a "feel-goodiness" - i.e., we can still fix it
all, boys and girls, if you all just clap your hands LOUDER!! - implicit
in their analyses/prescriptions when there should be nothing but anger,
fear and revulsion towards the fascist war criminal state that we live within.
Furthermore, after the Obama debacle and his utter betrayal etc of
his supporters if anyone thinks someone in the American Establishment is
looking out for their peon asses why then they probably also believe that
the US was "surprised/caught off guard" - yet again - by ISIS et al in Iraq.
"There is no chance of a non-interventionist president"
I wish Rand Paul had his fathers balls, but he doesnt. Ron was a
Libertarian pretending to be a Republican, while Rand is a Republican pretending
to be a Libertarian... Rand would be no different than any other Republican
or Democratic establishment schmuck.
I never did like Ron Pauls economic policy, being left leaning, and
I'm doubtful whether he would have actually accomplished anything useful
as President, but his NonInterventionism was admirable and I was happy to
put his name in in the Rethug primary in 2012 for that reason alone.
Great post, b. I saw the article and felt the same thing. While commentators
are right to say that the foreign policy of the U.S. remains largely untouched
regardless of which candidate or party wins the White House (which the NYT
piece does a fine job illustrating), I do think Hillary is the worst the
Democrats have to offer.
What I found amazing about the story is how neocons are now preening
about as if they have been vindicated:
Mr. Kristol said he, too, sensed "more willingness to rethink" neoconservatism,
which he called "vindicated to some degree" by the fruits of Mr. Obama's
detached approach to Syria and Eastern Europe. Mr. Kagan, he said, gives
historical heft to arguments "that are very consistent with the arguments
I made, and he made, 20 years ago, 10 years ago."
After all the slaughter these people feel like crowing. They are clearly,
as JSorrentine often reminds us, pyschopath butchers.
Incidentally,
where is the outrage from Samantha Powers about the ISIS massacre in Tikrit?
Well, I guess the world just can't talk about how the amazingly rapid
rise of ISIS/L and fall of Iraq completely continues the plans of the apartheid
genocidal state of Israel's - and their traitorous Zionist partners in the
American Establishment - as set out in the
Yinon Plan and Clean Break strategies because - HOW FORTUITOUS...I mean,
terribly sad and unexpected, sorry - some unlucky Israeli teenagers just
happened to be "kidnapped" by "Hamas" just as the ISIS show was kicking
off or so that's what the apartheid genocidal state of Israel is telling
the world.
Yeah, I bet the apartheid genocidal state of Israel probably has just
NO IDEA about what's going on in Iraq what with their harrowing search -
read: collective punishment for the residents of the
illegally occupied territories - for the 3 missing boys who haven't
been ransomed or claimed to have been taken by anyone.
Wait a second...what if it was ISIS/L and NOT Hamas that "kidnapped"
the boys!!!Holy tie-in, Bat-Man!!!!
Then there would be NO WAY that what we're witnessing is the furthering
of the Yinon Plan because the apartheid genocidal Israelis would never instigate
false flag terror to further/distract from their own ends/agenda, would
they?
Nah.
A Qaeda-inspired group calling itself the Islamic State in Iraq and
Syria - Palestine, West Bank claimed responsibility for the kidnappings,
saying it wanted to avenge Israel's killing of three of its group in
the Hebron area late last year and to try to free prisoners from Israeli
jails. The credibility of the claim was not immediately clear.
But clear enough for the Zionist mouthpiece of the NYT to print it, right?
Shrillary wouldn't be where she is today if she wasn't criminally
insane. I want her to become President. She'll redefine the meaning of Eerily
Inept (a label coined by Gore Vidal and attached to G Dubya Bush). Her greatest
moment was when Lavrov called her out on her RESET button and pointed out,
with a chuckle, "You got it wrong. It doesn't say RESET it says SHORT CIRCUIT."
Then he laughed. At her, not with her. She's a sick, intellectually lazy,
dumb, joke. America deserves her.
Former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who argued in
favor of arming Syrian rebels, said last week at an event in New York
hosted by the Council on Foreign Relations, "this is not just a Syrian
problem anymore. I never thought it was just a Syrian problem. I thought
it was a regional problem. I could not have predicted, however,
the extent to which ISIS could be effective in seizing cities in Iraq
and trying to erase boundaries to create an Islamic state."
Why, even HILLARY is just SOOOO SURPRISED about people trying to
erase boundaries, huh? Funny, she should have read further into yesterday's
times where it seems that the Zionist mouthpiece of record was desperately
trying to get "out in front" of anyone mentioning that the fracturing of
Iraq and the ME was all part of long-time Israeli strategy:
In 2006, it was Ralph Peters, the retired lieutenant colonel turned
columnist, who sketched a map that subdivided Saudi Arabia and Pakistan
and envisioned Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite republics emerging from a no-longer-united
Iraq. Two years later, The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg imagined similar
partings-of-the-ways, with new microstates -- an Alawite Republic, an
Islamic Emirate of Gaza -- taking shape and Afghanistan splitting up
as well. Last year, it was Robin Wright's turn in this newspaper, in
a map that (keeping up with events) subdivided Libya as well.
Peters's map, which ran in Armed Forces Journal, inspired conspiracy
theories about how this was America's real plan for remaking the Middle
East. But the reality is entirely different: One reason these maps have
remained strictly hypothetical, even amid regional turmoil, is that
the United States has a powerful interest in preserving the Sykes-Picot
status quo.
This is not because the existing borders are in any way ideal. Indeed,
there's a very good chance that a Middle East that was more politically
segregated by ethnicity and faith might become a more stable and harmonious
region in the long run.
My favorite part of the above column is that it references a previous
column from the Zionist NYT from last year in which a war criminal even
drew up the
new map of the ME!!
Oh, but that war criminal thought SYRIA was going to be the trigger that
allowed for the culmination of the Yinon Plan. Oops!
And then ALSO YESTERDAY in the
NYT everyone's favorite little war Establishment mouthpiece Nicholas
Kristoff had this to say:
The crucial step, and the one we should apply diplomatic pressure to
try to achieve, is for Maliki to step back and share power with Sunnis
while accepting decentralization of government.
If Maliki does all that, it may still be possible to save Iraq. Without
that, airstrikes would be a further waste in a land in which we've already
squandered far, far too much.
DECENTRALIZATION, huh? Why, Nicky, that sounds like what Putin has suggested
for Ukraine, huh? Shhhhhhhh
And of course Mr. Fuckhead Tom Friedman weighs in ALSO YESTERDAY in the
NYT with this:
THE disintegration of Iraq and Syria is upending an order that has defined
the Middle East for a century. It is a huge event, and we as a country
need to think very carefully about how to respond. Having just returned
from Iraq two weeks ago, my own thinking is guided by five principles,
and the first is that, in Iraq today, my enemy's enemy is my enemy.
Other than the Kurds, we have no friends in this fight. Neither Sunni
nor Shiite leaders spearheading the war in Iraq today share our values.
The ME is going to be split up inevitably: check
The US/Israel are JUST NOWHERE to be found: check
Thanks, Tom, you fucking war criminal scum!!!
To review:
Everyone in the Establishment - fake left, right, center, dove, hawk,
blah blah - says that it's just inevitable now that Iraq and the ME will
probably be broken up.
Everyone in the Establishment also agrees that NO ONE could see this
whole ISIS etc shitpile coming, right?
Anyone else get the feeling that this is a coordinated continuation of
the Zionist Plan for the Middle East?
Naahh. Nothing to see here, fuckers!!! Move along!!!!
She ties right in with the whole pink power agenda. She is the woMAN
version and can also be useful for the women=victims, but, no way for the
women/whore
women/victim/whore is quintessentially Pussy Riot
And if you criticize HC you are just a woman hater!
(you know like antisemitic)
Same as Obama- criticize him, you are just a racist
Shuts the complaints right off!
Hillary is a loathsome war mongering bitch. She almost had a public
orgasm when Libyan leader Quadaffi was tortured and murdered by US supported
Libyan rebels. The muder of Chris Stevens was a case of what goes around
comes around.
A point which nobody else has made as far as I know. To wit there
is a big overlap between the banking and Israel lobbies since wealthy Jews
account for a hugely disproportionate number of top financial movers and
shakers. Anything that helps the financial industry also helps the war mongering
Israel and neo con lobbies. The heavily Jewish Fed is another enabler of
all that is wrong with America today.
lysander @ 4: "There is no prospect of a president that is not a Zionist
stooge."
I, also agree, with the possible exception of replacing the word
"Zionist", with the word "Corporatist", although both can be rightly used.
We'll still get the person the 1%ers want us to have. Ain't Oligarchies
grand?
Hillary's election depends on two things still unknown: her health
and whether the Republicans can manage to choose someone sufficiently batshit
crazy to make her the best of abysmal alternatives. I think her health
is the critical variable, as the PTB are going to make sure that the Republican
candidate will come out strongly for privatization of social security and
reversing the 19th amendment. Vote-rigging and gerrymandering will maintain
a sufficiently close election to preserve the simulacrum of a free election.
HRH is a Neo Liberal of Arianne 'Sniff Sniff' Huffington's type,
the 'Third Way Up Your
Ass' of Globalist NAFTA/TPP Free Trade Neonazi destruction of labor and
environmental
protections, and in your face with NOOOOO apologies.
That she is a totally-disjointed Royal is clear in her 'dead broke' claim.
That she is a famous Hectorian, constantly checking which way public opinion
is flowing, then crafting
her confabulated dialogue as screed to her real intents, is well known.
Der Prevaricator.
What should be equally well known, if news got around, Hillary (and UKs
Milliband) grifted
Hamid Karzai $5 BILLION of Americans' last life savings, stolen from US
Humanitarian Aid
to Afghanistan, then made five trips to Kabul for no apparent purpose, before
announcing
that her $-35 MILLION 'dead broke' presidential campaign had been paid off
by 'anonymous
donors'. This is all public record; in the 2009 International Conference
on Afghanistan in
London, right in the conference speeches, framed as 'Karzai's demand', but
in fact, that
speech of Karzai's was written by US State Department. I read the drafts.
'Bicycling'.
Hillary soon had to fly back one more time and grift Karzai an emergency
$3.5 BILLION
theft, after he lost Americans' $5 BILLION while speculating in Dubai R/E
by looting
his Bank of Kabul. Her 'injection of capital' saved the bank from being
audited, and
no doubt saved all the Kaganites from an embarrassing and public episiotomy.
In the end, Hillary retired with a fortune of $50 MILLION, again announced
publicly, which
together with the $-35 MILLION campaign payoff in violation of all US election
regulations,
is exactly 1% of the $8.5 BILLION she grifted to Karzai. She's in the 'One
Percent Club'.
"It's a Great Big Club, ...and you ain't in it!" George 'The Man' Carlin
But who cares? I'll tell you. The Russian know about this grift, certainly
the Israelis
know about this grift, the Millibandits know, the London Karzais know, and
if G-d forbid,
Hillary became HRHOTUS, Americans will be blackmailed down to their underdrawers.
There are some really nice photographs of Hillary being very friendly
with bearded famous Libyan Islamists (Gaddafi was still alive then). In
combination with Benghazi - I think you probably can connect the people
greeting Hillary with what happened there (and today's Iraq) I would not
think she has a chance to convince with foreign policy.
"Well at the risk of being a smartass her achievements were negative,
the American hegemony is in worse condition because of her."
Because of her and it.
Dubhaltach gets it right, and as applied to events inclusive of and after
9-11-2001. The purported masterful seamless garment of conspiracy,
yet it weakened the US and helped get Israel whacked good by Hezbollah.
As for the unmentioned Saudi, it is of course impossible that Saudi could
outplay longterm both the US and Israel longterm.
Just as it was impossible Chalabi could outplay the neocons and help
win Iran the Iraq War. Who is playing catch up and who is
playing masterfully cohesive and unbeatable conspiracy?
Dubhaltach gets it right, the US will be pushed out of the Mideast and
Israel is longterm DOOMED.
Here is Obama in the very recent Remnick interview
"Obama said:
'You have a schism between Sunni and Shia throughout the region
that is profound. Some of it is directed or abetted by states who are in
contests for power there.'" Now, if only he had mentioned the states
included and featured the (United) States and Israel. Obama...usually a
day late and a dollar short and leading or retreating from behind.
I would rank Obama as the most cynical one. He is doing the dark
colonial art. You can berate Bush for bombing Iraq (Obama did that with
Libya, just as bad), but he did sink American manpower and treasure for
all this futile nation building stuff, ie he tried to repair it.
Obama tried to double down on the nation building stuff in Afghanistan,
even copying the "surge". He is still not out of Afghanistan.
He then tried to continue Bush's policy on the cheap, scrapping the
nation building stuff and concentrating on shock and awe in Libya. When
Russia put a stop to that in Syria he doubled down on the subversion supporting
guerilla groups. He is now back in Iraq with allies supporting a "Sunni"
insurrection by proxy. After a "color revolution" in Ukraine.
He just "sold" US foreign policy in a different target group, Hillary
will sell it to her target group, Jeb Bush to his.
It is not "US foreign policy" but the policy of the british empire.
If he was running a US foreign policy, he would at least sometimes do something
positive for Americans, by accident if nothing more.
"That smile and her gloating about his death made me feel she was
some sort of sociopath." Massinissa, you meant psychopath, didn't you?
the following is an excerpt from essay written by James at Winter Patriot:
"... Psychopaths are people without a conscience; without compassion
for others; without a sense of shame or guilt. The majority of people carry
within them the concern for others that evolution has instilled in us to
allow us to survive as groups. This is the evolutionary basis of the quality
of compassion. Compassion is not just a matter of virtue; it is a matter
of survival. Psychopaths do not have this concern for others and so are
a danger to the survival of the rest of us.
Psychopaths, as a homogeneous group, would not survive one or two generations
by themselves. They are motivated only by self interest and would exploit
each other till they ended up killing each other. Which gives one pause
for thought! They are parasites and need the rest of us to survive. In doing
so they compromise the survival of the whole species.
Psychopaths represent approximately between 1% and 20% of the population
in western countries depending on whose research you go by and also depending
on how broad a definition of the condition you adopt. It is generally held,
though, that there is a hard core of between 4-6% or so and maybe another
10 -15% of the population that is functionally psychopathic in that they
will exploit their fellow human being without hesitation.
The hard core are untreatable. They see nothing wrong with who or what
they are. The other 10-15% group may be persuaded to act differently in
a different environment or a different society. The second group act out
of a misguided strategy of survival. I'll concentrate on the hard core 5%
and the singular fact that must be borne in mind with them is that they
are incapable of change for the better. They cannot reform or be reformed.
And you can take that to the bank in every case! They must never be trusted.
Documented liars like those that populate the current Kiev regime
can be confidently assumed to be psychopaths from their behaviour and so
will never negotiate in good faith and will always renege on any deals they
make. The same can be said for the governments of the US and UK who back
them. Historically, they have never made a treaty that they did not subsequently
break."
James' essay is extremely informative wrt group psychopathy... some of
you may want to give it a read:
psychopath: a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal
or violent social behavior.
an unstable and aggressive person. "schoolyard psychopaths will gather around
a fight to encourage the combatants"
Mina, now that I've looked up these links for you, I am confused myself!
Since a sociopath is less of a danger to the rest of us, I prefer to call
TPTB and their puppets psychopaths. Not your bad at all, apparently the
two are so similar as to there being difficulty telling them apart.
btw, I always enjoy your posts ~ not only do I get new info, but often
new sources... which is great. Thanks!
"... Hillary Clinton's National Security Advisers Are a "Who's Who" of the Warfare State ..."
"... The list of key advisers - which includes the general who executed the troop surge in Iraq and a former Bush homeland security chief turned terror profiteer - is a strong indicator that Clinton's national security policy will not threaten the post-9/11 national-security status quo that includes active use of military power abroad and heightened security measures at home. ..."
Hillary Clinton's National Security Advisers Are a "Who's Who" of the
Warfare State By Zaid Jilani, Alex Emmons, and Naomi LaChance
HILLARY CLINTON IS meeting with a new national security "working group"
that is filled with an elite "who's who" of the military-industrial complex
and the security deep state.
The list of key advisers - which includes the general who executed the
troop surge in Iraq and a former Bush homeland security chief turned terror
profiteer - is a strong indicator that Clinton's national security policy
will not threaten the post-9/11 national-security status quo that includes
active use of military power abroad and heightened security measures at
home.
It's a story we've seen before in President Obama's early appointments.
In retrospect, analysts have pointed to the continuity in national security
and intelligence advisers as an early sign that despite his campaign rhetoric
Obama would end up building on - rather than tearing down - the often-extralegal,
Bush-Cheney counterterror regime. For instance, while Obama promised in
2008 to reform the NSA, its director was kept on and its reach continued
to grow.
Obama's most fateful decision may have been choosing former National
Counterterrorism Center Director John Brennan to be national security adviser,
despite Brennan's support of Bush's torture program. Brennan would go on
to run the president's drone program, lead the CIA, fight the Senate's torture
investigation, and then lie about searching Senate computers.
That backdrop is what makes Clinton's new list of advisers so significant.
It includes Gen. David Petraeus, the major architect of the 2007 Iraq
War troop surge, which brought 30,000 more troops to Iraq. Picking him indicates
at partiality to combative ideology. It also represents a return to good
standing for the general after he pled guilty to leaking notebooks full
of classified information to his lover, Paula Broadwell, and got off with
two years of probation and a fine. Petraeus currently works at the investment
firm KKR & Co.
Another notable member of Clinton's group is Michael Chertoff, a hardliner
who served as President George W. Bush's last secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security, and who since leaving government in 2009 has helmed
a corporate consulting firm called the Chertoff Group that promotes security-industry
priorities. For example, in 2010, he gave dozens of media interviews touting
full-body scanners at airports while his firm was employed by a company
that produced body scanning machines. His firmalso employs a number of other
ex-security state officials, such as former CIA and NSA Director Michael
Hayden. It does not disclose a complete list of its clients - all of whom
now have a line of access to Clinton.
Many others on the list are open advocates of military escalation overseas.
Mike Morell, the former acting director of the CIA, endorsed Clinton last
month in a New York Times opinion piece that accused Trump of being an "unwitting
agent of the Russian Federation." The Times was criticized for not disclosing
his current employment by Beacon Global Strategies, a politically powerful
national-security consulting firm with strong links to Clinton. Three days
later, Morell told Charlie Rose in a PBS interview that the CIA should actively
assassinate Russians and Iranians in Syria.
During his time at the CIA, Morell was connected to some of the worst
scandals and intelligence failures of the Bush administration. In his book,
he apologizes for giving flawed intelligence to Colin Powell about Iraq's
supposed weapons of mass destruction, but defends the CIA torture program
as legal and ethical.
Jim Stavridis, a former NATO supreme allied commander Europe on Clinton's
advisory group, told Fox News Radio in July, when he was being vetted by
Clinton as a possible vice presidential nominee, that "we have got to get
more aggressive going into Syria and Iraq and go after [ISIS] because if
we don't they're going to come to us. It's a pretty simple equation." He
said he would "encourage the president to take a more aggressive stance
against Iran, to increase our military forces in Iraq and Syria, and to
confront Vladmir Putin" over his moves in Crimea.
The New York Times reported in 2011 that Michael Vickers, a former Pentagon
official on Clinton's new list, led the use of drone strikes. He would grin
and tell his colleagues at meetings, "I just want to kill those guys."
Others on the list played a role in the targeted killing policies of
the Obama administration, including Chris Fussell, a top aide to Gen. Stanley
McChrystal, and now a partner with him at his lucrative consulting firm,
the McChrystal Group....
Bill Clinton made multiple trips to Epstein's private island, Little St
James (pictured), between 2002 and 2005
However, the people attending the lavish residence are
likely do not go there to discuss "cutting edge scientific
and medical research" as the Epstein VI Foundation would
like you to believe, but rather go there to experience
full-on sexual encounters with underage girls as young as
fourteen.
That's right, just like a scene out of the
Hollywood blockbuster film Eyes Wide Shut, starring Tom
Cruise, from wild parties to prostitution, orgies and even
underage sex,
Little St. James
reportedly has it all and is seemingly
a gathering point frequented by prominent jet-setters, and
it is all being exposed. The cat is out of the bag so to
speak.
Back in 2005 police conducted an 11-month-long undercover
investigation on Jeffery Epstein and his estate after the
mother of a 14-year-old girl went to police after suspecting
her daughter was paid $300 for at least one sexual act on
the island in which she was ordered to strip, leaving on
just her panties while giving Epstein a massage.
Although police found tons of photos of young women on
the island and even interviewed eyewitnesses, Epstein was
hit with a mere slap on the wrist after "pleading to a
single charge of prostitution." Epstein later served
13-months of his 18-month service in jail.
In 2008 Epstein was hit again, this time with a $50
million civil suit after another victim, a woman, made a
filing in a federal court claiming that she was "recruited"
by Epstein to give him a "massage" but was essentially
forced into having sexual intercourse with him for $200,
which was payable upon completion.
Additionally it is important to point out that Bill
Clinton has been mentioned by the press often over the years
- and not just for his controversial relationship with
Monica Lewinsky, but rather his friendship with Jeffery
Epstein.
In fact, flight records indicate that ol' Billy-boy would
frequent the island paradise around the 2002 and 2005 era,
while Hillary, Bill's wife, was a Senator in New York.
The Daily Mail
wrote about
one woman's experience on the island:
'I remember asking Jeffrey what's Bill Clinton doing
here kind of thing, and he laughed it off and said well
he owes me a favor,' one unidentified woman said in the
lawsuit, which was filed in Palm Beach Circuit Court.
The woman went on to say how orgies were a regular
occurrence and she recalled two young girls from New
York who were always seen around the five-house compound
but their personal backstories were never revealed.
"At least one woman on the compound was there
unwillingly" and was an actual sex slave, according to the
Daily Mail.
The woman was allegedly forced to have sex with
"politicians, businessmen, royalty, [and] academics" at the
retreat and was just one of "more than 40 women" that have
come forth with claims against Epstein, showing the vast
scale of the man's dark operations, which aren't limited
only to 'Orgy Island.'
Moreover Epstein was invited to Chelsea Clinton's wedding in
2010, amongst 400 other guests, demonstrating his close
friendship with the Clinton family.
To top it all off
"Prince Andrew was allegedly one of the house's visitors. On
Friday, the Duke of York was
named
in a federal lawsuit filed against Epstein, whom
the FBI once reportedly linked to 40 young women. Filed in
2008 in the Southern District of Florida, the $50 million
lawsuit
claimed
Epstein had a "sexual preference and obsession
for underage minor girls gained access to primarily
economically disadvantaged minor girls in his home, sexually
assaulted these girls", as
reported
by the Washington Post.
Manthong
bamawatson
May 29, 2016 6:10 PM
Hey,
I thought that
his personal life did not matter.
Damn, would I
love to see one of those teeny
boppers come forward and finger the
former f'r-in-chief.
He was on
Epstein's "Lolita Express" something
like 26 times.
philipat
Chris Dakota
May 29, 2016 11:56 PM
If Epstein needs to restock merchandise, ISIS now have a bargain line in sex slaves.
Wait
until
the
scumbag
'whose
cultural
identity
must
not
be
named'
has
another
high-power
orgy
and
then
let
the
navy
use
it
for
target
practice.
Crash
Overide
HowdyDoody
May 30,
2016
7:15 PM
Rumor is
Epstein
recorded
a lot of
the
sexual
acts
without
people
knowledge.
Now the idea that Hillary can beat Trump looks pretty questionable. Probably
corrupt honchos at DNC now realized that by sinking Sanders they sunk the Party.
Notable quotes:
"... "The people don't want a phony Democrat." – President Harry Truman, Address at the National Convention Banquet of the Americans for Democratic Action, 1952 ..."
"... Totally 'liberating' these Truman quotes for FB electioneering. Corporate 'crapification' of both Republican and Democratic parties is complete, since the most authentic – like it or not – candidates in this election are not party members per usual (Trump and Sanders). Think we may already have our third party… the Up Yours party! ..."
"... Trump's support sure looks like a big middle finger salute to the party establishment more than anything else. ..."
"... You have forgotten the rules: when it is close to fifty fifty but Clinton has the advantage it is a clear victory for Clinton, when Sanders has the advantage it must be a tie! Especially for the Bezos Gazette and the Grey Lady's fish wrap. ..."
"... - Poll: Clinton would easily beat Trump How shameless is that? ..."
"... I mainly only listen to local NPR programs, the NPR classical/jazz station (local), and some of the weekend non-news shows. I avoid NPR Faux Nooz Lite like the plague. ..."
"... It's now owned by the corporations anyway. ..."
"... Post owner Jeff Bezos was rated "Worst boss in the world" by the ITUC (International Trade Union Confederation), ..."
"... Amazon was awarded a $16.5 million contract with the State Department the last year Clinton ran it. ..."
"... The lower and middle classes do all the work and the upper, leisure Class, live in the lap of luxury. The lower class does the manual work; the middle class does the administrative and managerial work and the upper, leisure, class live a life of luxury and leisure. ..."
"... Number one among the Nuremberg principles and charter of the United Nations: no aggressive war. So yes perhaps the MSM should be painting that little mustache on Hillary rather than Trump. Trump seems eager to build walls to keep the rest of the world out. By contrast the 20th century fascists were all militarists and big believers that "war is the health of the state." When the media go on and on about Trump as fascist it could be a case of what the psychologists call projection. ..."
"... That said, there has always been an authoritarian bully boy quality to the modern Republican party and Trump seems quite willing to appeal to it. But it was always there–the unfortunate result of our transition from republic to empire. Perhaps our bloated and far too powerful military establishment is to blame. Politicians are always in danger of temptation by this "ring of power." ..."
"... murdering people a central tenet of one's life? ..."
"... Reading through some of the specific polls that fivethirtyeight uses, it's interesting that some of them don't try to catch it. They outsource the demographic projection to some other group, for example, or they do things like saying landlines are close enough to a good approximation that they don't need to include cell phones. And something else about the polls, nearly all of them were conducted before the Democratic debate in Michigan, which seems kind of odd then to base any predictions off of them unless one assumes debates held in the very location of the election are irrelevant (which itself is interesting). ..."
"... Yeah, I think Clinton's general election pitch is pretty straightforward. She's the pragmatic Republican protecting us from Trumpomania. No Good Democrat would prefer Hitler over a Republican, after all! ..."
"... Banner ad from the HC campaign on my email site today "Stand with Hillary to fight Trump." ..."
Yesterday was one of those days when there was a settlement.
"It is a pity that Wall Street, with its ability to control all the wealth
of the nation and to hire the best law brains in the country, has not produced
some statesmen, some men who could see the dangers of bigness and of the
concentration of the control of wealth. Instead of working to meet the situation,
they are still employing the best law brains to serve greed and self-interest.
People can only stand so much and one of these days there will be a settlement."
– Senator Harry S. Truman, Congressional Record, 1937
"The people don't want a phony Democrat." – President Harry Truman,
Address at the National Convention Banquet of the Americans for Democratic
Action, 1952
Totally 'liberating' these Truman quotes for FB electioneering. Corporate
'crapification' of both Republican and Democratic parties is complete, since
the most authentic – like it or not – candidates in this election are not
party members per usual (Trump and Sanders). Think we may already have our
third party… the Up Yours party!
You have forgotten the rules: when it is close to fifty fifty but
Clinton has the advantage it is a clear victory for Clinton, when Sanders
has the advantage it must be a tie! Especially for the Bezos Gazette and
the Grey Lady's fish wrap.
Here is similar grossly biased "reporting": On The Hill's home page today
there is an article link:
Poll: Clinton would easily beat Trump
Sanders also tops Trump in a hypothetical general election matchup.
From the article itself:
Democrat Hillary Clinton would defeat Republican presidential rival
Donald Trump by double digits in a hypothetical general election matchup,
according to a poll released Wednesday.
Clinton would edge out Trump by 13 points in a one-on-one
vote, 51 percent to 38 percent , in the latest NBC News/Wall
Street Journal survey.
Trump, the controversial GOP front-runner, would lose even more soundly
to Bernie Sanders should the Independent Vermont senator secure the
Democratic nomination.
Sanders bests Trump by 18 points, 55 to 37 percent.
Sanders picked up a surprise win over Clinton in Michigan on
Tuesday, though Clinton expanded her overall delegate lead.
I mainly only listen to local NPR programs, the NPR classical/jazz
station (local), and some of the weekend non-news shows. I avoid NPR Faux
Nooz Lite like the plague. A lot of their stenographers also work for
Fox (really). It's a pointless exercise in futility to waste my valuable
time and brain cells listen to Faux Nooz National Propaganda Radio.
NPR here in san diego said it was a win for hill because she got more delegates
when missippi and michigan are added together…
...Comments re sanders
not having congressional support are actually even more true with trump,
he will face considerable obstruction, while clinton will take the reins
from obama on the fly and drive the buggy full tilt down the road to neo
libbercon utopia
...Capitalism is essentially the same as every other social system since
the dawn of civilisation.
The lower and middle classes do all the work and the upper, leisure
Class, live in the lap of luxury. The lower class does the manual work;
the middle class does the administrative and managerial work and the upper,
leisure, class live a life of luxury and leisure.
The nature of the Leisure Class, to which the benefits of every system
accrue, was studied over 100 years ago.
"The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions",
by Thorstein Veblen.
(The Wikipedia entry gives a good insight. It was written a long time
ago but much of it is as true today as it was then. This is the source of
the term conspicuous consumption.)
We still have our leisure class in the UK, the Aristocracy, and they
have been doing very little for centuries.
The UK's aristocracy has seen social systems come and go, but they all
provide a life of luxury and leisure and with someone else doing all the
work.
Feudalism – exploit the masses through land ownership
Capitalism – exploit the masses through wealth (Capital)
Today this is done through the parasitic, rentier trickle up of Capitalism:
a) Those with excess capital invest it and collect interest, dividends
and rent.
b) Those with insufficient capital borrow money and pay interest and rent.
All this was much easier to see in Capitalism's earlier days.
Malthus and Ricardo never saw those at the bottom rising out of a bare
subsistence living. This was the way it had always been and always would
be, the benefits of the system only accrue to those at the top.
It was very obvious to Adam Smith:
"The Labour and time of the poor is in civilised countries sacrificed
to the maintaining of the rich in ease and luxury. The Landlord is maintained
in idleness and luxury by the labour of his tenants. The moneyed man is
supported by his extractions from the industrious merchant and the needy
who are obliged to support him in ease by a return for the use of his money.
But every savage has the full fruits of his own labours; there are no landlords,
no usurers and no tax gatherers."
Like most classical economists he differentiated between "earned" and
"unearned" wealth and noted how the wealthy maintained themselves in idleness
and luxury via "unearned", rentier income from their land and capital.
We can no longer see the difference between the productive side of the
economy and the unproductive, parasitic, rentier side. This is probably
why inequality is rising so fast, the mechanisms by which the system looks
after those at the top are now hidden from us.
In the 19th Century things were still very obvious.
1) Those at the top were very wealthy
2) Those lower down lived in grinding poverty, paid just enough to keep
them alive to work with as little time off as possible.
3) Slavery
4) Child Labour
Immense wealth at the top with nothing trickling down, just like today.
This is what Capitalism maximized for profit looks like.
Labour costs are reduced to the absolute minimum to maximise profit.
The beginnings of regulation to deal with the wealthy UK businessman
seeking to maximise profit, the abolition of slavery and child labour.
The function of the system is still laid bare.
The lower class does the manual work; the middle class does the administrative
and managerial work and the upper, leisure, class live a life of luxury
and leisure.
The majority only got a larger slice of the pie through organised Labour
movements.
By the 1920s, mass production techniques had improved to such an extent
that relatively wealthy consumers were required to purchase all the output
the system could produce and extensive advertising was required to manufacture
demand for the chronic over-supply the Capitalist system could produce.
They knew that if wealth concentrated too much there would not be enough
demand.
Of course the Capitalists could never find it in themselves to raise
wages and it took the New Deal and Keynesian thinking to usher in the consumer
society.
In the 1950s, when Capitalism had healthy competition, it was essential
that the Capitalist system could demonstrate that it was better than the
competition.
The US was able to demonstrate the superior lifestyle it offered to its
average citizens.
Now the competition has gone, the US middle class is being wiped out.
The US is going third world, with just rich and poor and no middle class.
Raw Capitalism can only return Capitalism to its true state where there
is little demand and those at the bottom live a life of bare subsistence.
Capitalism is a very old system designed to maintain an upper, Leisure,
class. The mechanisms by which parasitic, rentier, "unearned", income are
obtained need to kept to an absolute minimum by whatever means necessary
(legislation, taxation, etc ..)
Michael Hudson's book "Killing the Host" illustrates these problems very
well.
When you realise the true nature of Capitalism, you know why some kind
of redistribution is necessary and strong progressive taxation is the only
way a consumer society can ever be kept functioning. The Capitalists never
seem to recognise that employees are the consumers that buy their products
and services and are very reluctant to raise wages to keep the whole system
going.
A good quote from John Kenneth Galbraith's book "The Affluent Society",
which in turn comes from Marx.
"The Marxian capitalist has infinite shrewdness and cunning on everything
except matters pertaining to his own ultimate survival. On these, he is
not subject to education. He continues wilfully and reliably down the path
to his own destruction"
Marx made some mistakes but he got quite a lot right.
Jeez, no one told me that global employees are the global consumers.
So as we all increase profits by cutting labour costs we are effectively
cutting our own throats.
You got it.
Number one among the Nuremberg principles and charter of the United
Nations: no aggressive war. So yes perhaps the MSM should be painting that
little mustache on Hillary rather than Trump. Trump seems eager to build
walls to keep the rest of the world out. By contrast the 20th century fascists
were all militarists and big believers that "war is the health of the state."
When the media go on and on about Trump as fascist it could be a case of
what the psychologists call projection.
That said, there has always been an authoritarian bully boy quality
to the modern Republican party and Trump seems quite willing to appeal to
it. But it was always there–the unfortunate result of our transition from
republic to empire. Perhaps our bloated and far too powerful military establishment
is to blame. Politicians are always in danger of temptation by this "ring
of power."
Really, this is one of Earth's oldest taboos, and yet it has become cool
to flaunt your not-caring-about it like that is some badge of honor, and
better qualifies you for office. How about if say kindness, and honesty,
and "first, do no harm," were exalted into the same high positions? Everything
would be flipped on its head, and in my opinion, we'd be a lot better for
it. It's not silly.
I was in the bag for Bernie from day one, but I like to look ahead and
see what I'm getting myself into. My own expectations of B. Obama were quite
low in 2008 but he managed to underperform them (while the Republicans came
through in grand style).
So what does a thoughtful person see ahead with a President Bernie? Can
we cast a clear eye? How does this play out?
I'm thinking of looking to possible comparisons to previous (J. Carter,
'76) and current (J. Corbyn across the pond, in progress) cases of, well,
political outsider from the left end up at the head of the table (and maybe
some similar qualities of temperament), and what happened then.
If memory serves (and please set me straight if it doesn't) Carter, always
something of a loner, had a hard time getting traction with Congress, as
well as considerably confusion and derision from the (nascent, burgeoning)
neo-con right that came after, and from within his own party, and the press.
I believe I see a similar overall pattern (again, correct me) for Corbyn,
only more so: press is skeptical to derisive, and Labor is still procession
what it all really means for them (how much of this is sheer denial of inevitable
transformation and how much is stubborn inertial durability is not clear
to me). Lessons here might serve not only to anticipate some obvious pitfalls,
but perhaps to sidestep (or even strategically use) some of them.
A Bernie presidency would represent a huge challenge for the Dem establishment,
not completely different from what the Republican party is going through
but with different specifics (and also a later start). Without a continuing
and active grassroots network (writing, marching, contributing, putting
up candidates, etc), I think Bernie would be dead in the water come 2017.
And accepting a largely negative reaction from business, how much will be
a unified front, and what kind of internecine squabbling could take place?
Can a post-presidential grassroots activist network flip Congress in
two years (it took the Tea Party 4-6)? I don't think Sanders has a second
term without significant success in his first? The stakes are even higher;
2020 is a census year, as in: redistricting time.
Also, the disenfranchised usually get hit the hardest when systems shift
gears (for example, loss of some good policies in the ACA rollout, not to
mention the website). Given a hostile business front that will try to punish
the vulnerable, what is the blowback on a $15 minimum wage.
Thoughts? Links? Take your time, no rush (yet). Lambert?
Reading through some of the specific polls that fivethirtyeight uses,
it's interesting that some of them don't try to catch it. They outsource
the demographic projection to some other group, for example, or they do
things like saying landlines are close enough to a good approximation that
they don't need to include cell phones. And something else about the polls,
nearly all of them were conducted before the Democratic debate in Michigan,
which seems kind of odd then to base any predictions off of them unless
one assumes debates held in the very location of the election are irrelevant
(which itself is interesting).
For example, to pick on the YouGov poll that underestimated younger voter
support for Sanders. It was conducted a week ago, and the poll found that
1/3 of Dem primary voters had not firmly decided on their candidate at that
time. YouGov also included a sample that was 30% for those under 45, whereas
exit polling from CNN suggests actual turnout for those under 45 was more
like 45%. And it gave a 32 point advantage to Sanders in the under 30 crowd,
whereas CNN's exit poll suggested an actual spread of more like 62 points.
When things go as expected, the various assumptions and simplifications
hold. But that very bias makes it virtually impossible to predict discontinuous
change, since by definition, that is assumed away by the modeling.
But isn't the takeaway there that she lost the independents in large
numbers? How does she win a general election without young voters and independents?
My guess is she would pivot in her usual clumsy manner away from the more
left-leaning positions she's been pushed to take, and go back to her comfort
zone as a center-right Rockefeller-style Republican with a (D) after her
name.
I am less concerned that she is screwed than that the Dem establishment
would rather screw us all over in order to protect their comfortable positions
in the power structure.
Yeah, I think Clinton's general election pitch is pretty straightforward.
She's the pragmatic Republican protecting us from Trumpomania. No Good Democrat
would prefer Hitler over a Republican, after all!
Independents have been breaking hard for Sanders (not just in Michigan).
In CNN's exit polling, for example, in SC – a state Clinton won by a huge
margin – Sanders still actually won voters under 30 (by 8 points) and Independents
(by 7 points). Go to a state that was competitive, like Massachusetts, and
it's a 30 point spread for voters under 30 and a 33 point spread on Independents.
CNN didn't even do exit polling in places like Minnesota and Kansas. In
Oklahoma, Sanders won under 30 voters by 65 points and Independents by 48.
"... She was a horrible secretary of state. Explain to me why the US had to ruin a harmless country like Libya. ..."
"... "Among the principal concerns in Washington, London and Paris were the increasing Chinese and Russian economic interests in Libya and more generally Africa as a whole. China had developed $6.6 billion in bilateral trade, mainly in oil, while some 30,000 Chinese workers were employed in a wide range of infrastructure projects. Russia, meanwhile, had developed extensive oil deals, billions of dollars in arms sales and a $3 billion project to link Sirte and Benghazi by rail. There were also discussions on providing the Russian navy with a Mediterranean port near Benghazi. ..."
"... Gaddafi had provoked the ire of the government of Nicolas Sarkozy in France with his hostility to its scheme for creating a Mediterranean Union, aimed at refurbishing French influence in the country's former colonies and beyond. ..."
"... Moreover, major US and Western European energy conglomerates increasingly chafed at what they saw as tough contract terms demanded by the Gaddafi government, as well as the threat that the Russian oil company Gazprom would be given a big stake in the exploitation of the country's reserves" ..."
"... History shows that what flows in Hillary's political veins is new Democrat, Rubinite, Peterson, Wall Street dominated blood. ..."
"... Clinton, then Bush, and now Obama have increasingly shielded their official actions from the public. And what should be obvious to anyone paying attention is that they are doing so to hide their actions from a public that would object, because at a minimum, they are unethical, or because they are illegal. ..."
"... Nothing, absolutely nothing, in Hillary's past offers any a glimmer of anything different. Democracy requires transparency so that the public is properly informed and has oversight with which to hold people accountable. Obama promised to have the most transparent administration in history. He lied. Nothing she says today suggests Hillary would change this, and her past points to her making it worse. ..."
"... I do not know how old you are but younger Bernie supporters will not vote for Killary Clinton. I do not know any people under 30 that will vote for Clinton. ..."
"... Clinton's only path to victory in the General is to carry southern states that the Democrats always lose. She is going to get killed in the Rust Belt. Trump knows how to talk to disgruntled white voters. The only one who will stop him is Bernie since they are going after the same voter. ..."
Secretary Hillary Clinton is asking Democratic voters to believe that she
has experienced a "Road to Damascus" conversion from her roots as a leader of
the "New Democrats" – the Wall Street wing of the Democratic Party.
... ... ...
Hillary and Obama made sure that they did not even have to risk their "lap
dog" developing a spine. No IG was their ideal world.
...The idea that the State Department IG, appointed by President Obama, is
"partisan" in the sense of being "anti-Clinton" is facially bizarre in that
Obama is a strong supporter of Hillary.
HRC is, and always has been, bad news. She shouldn't have even run for
prez the first time. She was a horrible secretary of state. Explain
to me why the US had to ruin a harmless country like Libya. I hope
the indictment comes down very soon, so Bernie can just be presumed the
Democratic nominee.
"Among the principal concerns in Washington, London and Paris were
the increasing Chinese and Russian economic interests in Libya and more
generally Africa as a whole. China had developed $6.6 billion in bilateral
trade, mainly in oil, while some 30,000 Chinese workers were employed in
a wide range of infrastructure projects. Russia, meanwhile, had developed
extensive oil deals, billions of dollars in arms sales and a $3 billion
project to link Sirte and Benghazi by rail. There were also discussions
on providing the Russian navy with a Mediterranean port near Benghazi.
Gaddafi had provoked the ire of the government of Nicolas Sarkozy
in France with his hostility to its scheme for creating a Mediterranean
Union, aimed at refurbishing French influence in the country's former colonies
and beyond.
Moreover, major US and Western European energy conglomerates increasingly
chafed at what they saw as tough contract terms demanded by the Gaddafi
government, as well as the threat that the Russian oil company Gazprom would
be given a big stake in the exploitation of the country's reserves"
The past is prologue. History shows that what flows in Hillary's
political veins is new Democrat, Rubinite, Peterson, Wall Street dominated
blood. I agreed with her when she spoke of a vast right wing conspiracy,
as it was obvious to anyone paying attention, and I could understand the
Clinton's defensive secrecy given the relentlessly personal assaults they
were under. But I object to the epidemic of secrecy that has infested what
should be the public sphere of our government.
Clinton, then Bush, and now Obama have increasingly shielded their
official actions from the public. And what should be obvious to anyone paying
attention is that they are doing so to hide their actions from a public
that would object, because at a minimum, they are unethical, or because
they are illegal.
Nothing, absolutely nothing, in Hillary's past offers any a glimmer
of anything different. Democracy requires transparency so that the public
is properly informed and has oversight with which to hold people accountable.
Obama promised to have the most transparent administration in history. He
lied. Nothing she says today suggests Hillary would change this, and her
past points to her making it worse.
The "unlikeability" factor of Hillary Clinton, and her husband Bill,
grows ever deeper in the American public. She drips with a uncouth and meglomaniacal
drive to be president. I am not sure she can win an election, even with
many voters pulling the lever for her in fear of the greater evil. I am
not sure she is the lesser evil, and I think others may feel the same way
election time.
Mmmmmf it's hard not to think she's the lesser of two evils when she's
running against a candidate who's openly deranged–and I can guarantee she
will be running against such a one, even before the Republicans pick one
to nominate. All of theirs are deranged. They had a "deep bench," and they
were all deranged. If Hillary inspires a large number of voters–and I'm
a Sanders fan, but apparently she does–maybe they'll all come out and vote
a straight D ticket, which might help us in that Home for
the Deranged which is our Congress. And I doubt that Hillary would nominate
another Scalia, Alito or Thomas. She probably wouldn't know where to look,
for one thing. Did I mention that I'm a Sanders fan?
care to list all of Trumps left wing positions? single payer – nope he's
not for that anymore, read his actual healthcare proposals. a few social
issues like abortion? oh maybe but he keeps changing positions there as
well (truthfully I don't' see these issues as really being right or left
at all, but in the American political system they usually are seen that
way) opposition to trade deals? … ok maybe that.
I'm not sure Kasich is deranged, but he is a warmonger for sure, then
so is Hillary. Rubio might not be deranged but he's a neocon and a neophyte.
I do not know how old you are but younger Bernie supporters will
not vote for Killary Clinton. I do not know any people under 30 that will
vote for Clinton. I attend a local community college (prepping for
grad school) outside of Philadelphia in an area that Killary will easily
carry thanks to a lot of older feminists that still use the feminist card
to justify their vote.
Clinton's only path to victory in the General is to carry southern
states that the Democrats always lose. She is going to get killed in the
Rust Belt. Trump knows how to talk to disgruntled white voters. The only
one who will stop him is Bernie since they are going after the same voter.
The Libertarians have their convention in July, and they might put up
an interesting nominee. Could be Jesse Ventura or McAffee of net security
and Belize escape fame. Ventura would be a good prez, in my opinion.
That's where Bernie can really do some good. He can't snap his fingers
and have medicare for all, but he can put in SEC heads, SecTreasury, and
economic advisers that make sense, like Bill Black, yes, who put some bankers
in jail after the S&L debacle under Reagan. Iceland put 13 bankers in jail
recently. Here in the cowardly US they just pay a fine amounting to a small
percentage of what they stole. No problem for them at all. Just a cost of
doing business.
"... I asked Amnesty spokeswoman Sharon Singh, whether Amnesty had ever made a similar request for foreign governments to detain Bill Clinton and Al Gore when they traveled abroad? She sent me a press release Amnesty had put out in 1999 calling for an investigation of alleged war crimes during the Kosovo war but could not provide a single example of any time Amnesty had demanded the arrest of Clinton or Gore. ..."
A true story: Several years ago, the CIA informed the White House counterterrorism
adviser that it had located a wanted Islamic terrorist and requested White House
guidance for how to proceed. The counterterrorism adviser recommended "extraordinary
rendition" - snatching the terrorist in a covert operation and secretly whisking
him away for interrogation in a foreign country. A White House lawyer demanded
a meeting with the president to argue that this would be a violation of international
law. In the Oval Office, the lawyer and the counterterrorism adviser argued
their cases, when suddenly the vice president walked in. Hearing the lawyer's
objections, he said: "Of course it's a violation of international law, that's
why it's a covert action. The guy is a terrorist. Go grab his ass.' " The rendition
was authorized.
The vice president in question was not Dick Cheney, nor was the president
George W. Bush. Rather, they men who decided to carry out the first extraordinary
rendition of a terrorist target - over the legal objections of the White House
counsel's office - were Al Gore and Bill Clinton, according a description of
the meeting by the counterterrorism adviser, Richard Clarke, in his memoir,
"
Against All Enemies ."
This episode is worth recalling in light of Amnesty International's
call for the arrest of former President George W. Bush during his recent
visit to Ethiopia, Tanzania and Zambia for alleged "crimes under international
law" relating to his administration's RDI (Rendition, Detention and Interrogation)
program. Yet it was the Clinton administration that pioneered what Amnesty considers
the "illegal" practice of extraordinary rendition, which the organization claims
"usually involve[s] multiple human rights violations." Indeed, Gore himself
acknowledged that such renditions were "a violation of international law" but
counseled the president to go ahead anyway - sending captured terrorists to
be interrogated by the intelligence services of regimes with questionable human
rights records.
I asked Amnesty spokeswoman Sharon Singh, whether Amnesty had ever made a
similar request for foreign governments to detain Bill Clinton and Al Gore when
they traveled abroad? She sent me a press release Amnesty had put out in 1999
calling for an investigation of alleged war crimes during the Kosovo war but
could not provide a single example of any time Amnesty had demanded the arrest
of Clinton or Gore.
... ... ...
Amnesty's call for Bush's arrest was a blatantly partisan act - and it wasn't
the first time the group had done so. Last October, when Bush traveled to British
Columbia, the group
demanded that Canada arrest him as well , declaring Canada's failure to
do so would "demonstrate contempt for fundamental human rights."
This is Christopher Hitchens biting analysis from previous Presidential elections,
but still relevant
Notable quotes:
"... The last time that Clinton foreign-policy associations came up for congressional review, the investigations ended in a cloud of murk that still has not been dispelled. ..."
"... the real problem is otherwise. Both President and Sen. Clinton, while in office, made it obvious to foreign powers that they and their relatives were wide open to suggestions from lobbyists and middlemen. ..."
"... If you recall the names John Huang, James Riady, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, and others, you will remember the pattern of acquired amnesia syndrome and stubborn reluctance to testify, followed by sudden willingness on the part of the Democratic National Committee to return quite large sums of money from foreign sources. Much of this cash had been raised at political events held in the public rooms of the White House, the sort of events that featured the adorable Roger Tamraz , for another example. ..."
"... It found that the Clinton administration's attitude toward Chinese penetration had been abysmally lax (as lax, I would say, as its attitude toward easy money from businessmen with Chinese military-industrial associations). ..."
"... Many quids and many quos were mooted by these investigations (still incomplete at the time of writing) though perhaps not enough un-ambivalent pros . You can't say that about the Marc Rich and other pardons-the vulgar bonanza with which the last Clinton era came to an end. Rich's ex-wife, Denise Rich, gave large sums to Hillary Clinton's re-election campaign and to Bill Clinton's library, and Marc Rich got a pardon. ..."
"... Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, convicted of bank fraud, hired Hillary Clinton's brother Tony and paid him $250,000, and they got a pardon. Carlos Vignali Jr. and Almon Glenn Braswell paid $400,000 to Hillary Clinton's other brother, Hugh , and, hey, they , respectively, got a presidential commutation and a presidential pardon, too. ..."
"... Does this sibling and fraternal squalor have foreign-policy implications, too? Yes. Until late 1999, the fabulous Rodham boys were toiling on another scheme to get the hazelnut concession from the newly independent republic of Georgia. There was something quixotically awful about this scheme-something simultaneously too small-time and too big-time-but it also involved a partnership with the main political foe of the then-Georgian president (who may conceivably have had political aspirations), so once again the United States was made to look as if its extended first family were operating like a banana republic. ..."
"... In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own. ..."
"... Who can say with a straight face that this is true of a woman whose personal ambition is without limit; whose second loyalty is to an impeached and disbarred and discredited former president; and who is ready at any moment, and on government time, to take a wheedling call from either of her bulbous brothers? This is also the unscrupulous female who until recently was willing to play the race card on President-elect Obama and (in spite of her own complete want of any foreign-policy qualifications) to ridicule him for lacking what she only knew about by way of sordid backstairs dealing. What may look like wound-healing and magnanimity to some looks like foolhardiness and masochism to me. ..."
It was apt in a small way that the first
endorser of Hillary Rodham Clinton for secretary of state should have been
Henry Kissinger. The last time he was nominated for any position of responsibility-the
chairmanship of the 9/11 commission-he accepted with many florid words about
the great honor and responsibility, and then he withdrew when it became clear
that he would have to disclose the client list of Kissinger Associates. (See,
for the article that began this embarrassing process for him, my Slate
column "The
Latest Kissinger Outrage.")
It is possible that the Senate will be as much of a club as the undistinguished
fraternity/sorority of our ex-secretaries of state, but even so, it's difficult
to see Sen. Clinton achieving confirmation unless our elected representatives
are ready to ask a few questions about conflict of interest along similar lines.
And how can they not? The last time that Clinton foreign-policy associations
came up for congressional review, the investigations ended in a cloud of murk
that still has not been dispelled. Former President Bill Clinton has recently
and rather disingenuously offered to submit his own foundation to scrutiny (see
the
work of my Vanity Fair colleague Todd Purdum on the delightful friends
and associates that Clinton has acquired since he left office), but
the real problem is otherwise. Both President and Sen. Clinton, while in
office, made it obvious to foreign powers that they and their relatives were
wide open to suggestions from lobbyists and middlemen.
Just to give the most salient examples from the Clinton fundraising scandals
of the late 1990s: The House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight published
a list of witnesses called before it who had either "fled
or pled"-in other words, who had left the country to avoid testifying or
invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination. Some Democratic members
of the committee said that this was unfair to, say, the Buddhist nuns who raised
the unlawful California temple dough for then-Vice President
Al Gore, but however fair you want to be, the number of those who found
it highly inconvenient to testify fluctuates between 94 and 120. If you
recall the names John Huang, James Riady, Johnny Chung, Charlie Trie, and others,
you will remember the pattern of acquired amnesia syndrome and stubborn reluctance
to testify, followed by sudden willingness on the part of the Democratic National
Committee to return quite large sums of money from foreign sources. Much of
this cash had been raised at political events held in the public rooms of the
White House, the sort of events that featured the adorable
Roger Tamraz, for another example.
Related was the result of a House select
committee
on Chinese espionage in the United States and the illegal transfer to China
of advanced military technology. Chaired by Christopher Cox, R-Calif., the committee
issued a
report
in 1999 with no dissenting or "minority" signature. It found that the Clinton
administration's attitude toward Chinese penetration had been abysmally lax
(as lax, I would say, as its attitude toward easy money from businessmen with
Chinese military-industrial associations).
Many quids and many quos were mooted by these investigations
(still incomplete at the time of writing) though perhaps not enough un-ambivalent
pros. You can't say that about the Marc Rich and other pardons-the vulgar
bonanza with which the last Clinton era came to an end. Rich's ex-wife, Denise
Rich, gave large sums to Hillary Clinton's re-election campaign and to Bill
Clinton's library, and Marc Rich got a pardon.
Edgar and Vonna Jo Gregory, convicted of bank fraud,
hired Hillary Clinton's brother Tony and paid him $250,000, and they
got a pardon. Carlos Vignali Jr. and Almon Glenn Braswell paid $400,000 to Hillary
Clinton's other brother,
Hugh, and, hey, they, respectively, got a presidential commutation
and a presidential pardon, too. In the Hugh case, the money was returned
as being too embarrassing for words (and as though following the hallowed custom,
when busted or flustered, of the Clinton-era DNC). But I would say that it was
more embarrassing to realize that a former first lady, and a candidate for secretary
of state, was a full partner in years of seedy overseas money-grubbing and has
two greedy brothers to whom she cannot say no.
Does this sibling and fraternal squalor have foreign-policy implications,
too? Yes. Until late 1999, the fabulous Rodham boys were toiling on another
scheme to get the hazelnut concession from the newly independent republic of
Georgia. There was something quixotically awful about this scheme-something
simultaneously too small-time and too big-time-but it also involved a partnership
with the main political foe of the then-Georgian president (who may conceivably
have had political aspirations), so once again the United States was made to
look as if its extended first family were operating like a banana republic.
China, Indonesia, Georgia-these are not exactly negligible countries on our
defense and financial and ideological peripheries. In each country, there are
important special interests that equate the name Clinton with the word pushover.
And did I forget to add what President Clinton pleaded when the revulsion at
the Rich pardons became too acute? He claimed that he had concerted the deal
with the government of Israel in the intervals of the Camp David "agreement"!
So anyone who criticized the pardons had better have been careful if they didn't
want to hear from the Anti-Defamation League. Another splendid way of showing
that all is aboveboard and of convincing the Muslim world of our evenhandedness.
In matters of foreign policy, it has been proved time and again, the
Clintons are devoted to no interest other than their own. A president absolutely
has to know of his chief foreign-policy executive that he or she has no other
agenda than the one he has set. Who can say with a straight face that this
is true of a woman whose personal ambition is without limit; whose second loyalty
is to an impeached and disbarred and discredited former president; and who is
ready at any moment, and on government time, to take a wheedling call from either
of her bulbous brothers? This is also the unscrupulous female who until recently
was willing to play the race card on President-elect Obama and (in spite of
her own complete want of any foreign-policy qualifications) to ridicule him
for lacking what she only knew about by way of sordid backstairs dealing. What
may look like wound-healing and magnanimity to some looks like foolhardiness
and masochism to me.
Christopher Hitchens (1949-2011) was a columnist for Vanity Fair and
the author, most recently, of
Arguably, a collection of essays.
"... The two lead families of the Democratic Party hate each other. ..."
"... Barack Obama comes off as narcissistic, lazy, and shielded from reality by advisor Valerie Jarrett, effectively the shadow president since 2009. ..."
"... I get the feeling the Clintons shrewdly used this book to get their version of events into play. ..."
"... The new news is the medical stuff. Hillary's health problems have been more serious than generally noted. And Bill's heart condition is serious; Klein quotes his doctor, by name, telling him the disease is progressive, i.e. it will continue to get steadily worse. Bill's obsession with sealing his own legacy by putting Hillary in the White House has become single-minded. It's suggested this is the primary thing he wants to get done before he dies. ..."
"... You see Obama good at campaigning and manipulating, but not much else. ..."
"... There's lots of dirt about both couples. Bill still womanizes intensively; you wonder if he'll die `in the saddle' like Nelson Rockefeller did. A guy with a bad heart condition? ..."
"... He and Hillary lead separate lives, talking daily on the phone but rarely in each other's presence, and Hillary tells friends he'll have little presence in her White House should she be elected. ..."
"... some presidential couples become closer in the White House, where they finally have physical proximity after years of separation on the campaign trail, but this didn't happen with the Obamas, who are effectively estranged. ..."
"... The same day, the Wall Street Journal had a front page story about Hillary distancing herself from the Obama administration. This is exactly what the book says she would do - it's half revenge, and half good politics, as seen by Bill Clinton, with the Obama administration in a tailspin on any number of fronts. ..."
The two lead families of the Democratic Party hate each other.
Edward Klein documents why and how in this entertaining and fast moving
book. It's a good political beach read.
It's mostly about three elections: that of 2008, where Barack Obama came
from behind to knock off front-runner Hillary Clinton for the nomination,
with charges and countercharges of race-card-playing in the South Carolina
primary; 2012, where Bill Clinton made a whizbang nominating speech for
someone he can't stand and Hillary drank the Kool-Aid in agreeing to lie
about Benghazi - `it was a spontaneous riot caused by a video' - to seal
Obama's reelection; and the 2016 election, where Obama promised Clinton
he'd support Hillary in exchange for their carrying his water, then reneged
on it.
There are tons of details and fly-on-the-wall accounts of conversations.
The Clintons come off much better than the Obamas do. We know most of the
Clintons' dirt already and, as a nation, don't seem to care too much, but
meanwhile they seem to have a clue about how to run the country, while the
Obamas don't. Barack Obama comes off as narcissistic, lazy, and shielded
from reality by advisor Valerie Jarrett, effectively the shadow president
since 2009.
I get the feeling the Clintons shrewdly used this book to get their
version of events into play. Klein found leakers near the Obamas who
are unhappy with them, but many Clinton sources appear to be lifelong friends
seemingly given the green light to talk for this book - people who wouldn't
jeopardize their relationship to do so. And for many of the quotations,
there would be no question in the Clintons' minds who had given them - people
party to conversations where only one or two others were present. So it
stands to reason the anonymous sources don't mind the Clintons knowing.
The Clintons, heavily covered for over 20 years, may realize there isn't
much that can hurt them that hasn't already been printed. We all know about
Monica, Clinton's womanizing, the financial scandals dating back to Arkansas
days, Hillary's temper and so on. And a lot of the inside poop here is either
flattering - Bill Clinton as political mastermind, say - or humanizing.
It's remarkable that the Clintons stay together after all they've been through,
but they seem politically fascinated with each other. And it's remarkable
how many times Hillary initially tells Bill off about something, only to
agree later that he's right and go ahead with it. Quite cute, say, is the
anecdote about how Bill convinced Hillary to "have some work done" on her
face after leaving the State Department, by first doing it himself.
The new news is the medical stuff. Hillary's health problems have
been more serious than generally noted. And Bill's heart condition is serious;
Klein quotes his doctor, by name, telling him the disease is progressive,
i.e. it will continue to get steadily worse. Bill's obsession with sealing
his own legacy by putting Hillary in the White House has become single-minded.
It's suggested this is the primary thing he wants to get done before he
dies.
The Obamas seem more on the defensive and more paranoid. You don't get
any sense of Klein's sources spinning the narrative back in their direction.
Barack comes across as a narcissist stemming from a deepset insecurity about
his lack of experience pre-presidency. He's someone who doesn't read much
beyond popular novels but thinks he's brilliant. He's visibly bored with
the dull business of running the country. He doesn't prepare in advance
for big international conferences, who he'll meet and what they'll talk
about; he figures he'll just wing it. Detractors (like Hillary) call his
administration "rudderless".
He's threatened by Bill Clinton, who not only isn't intimidated by him
but tries to lecture him. (There's a priceless account of a dinner between
the two couples - the strained conversations, Obama ignoring Clinton by
reading his Blackberry under the table, Obama sneaking out and coming back
a while later smelling of cigarettes.) He's shielded from much by Valerie
Jarrett, who surrounds him with sycophants and upon whom he relies too much.
She has her own room in the presidential quarters and is the only outsider
who eats with the family. He thinks he can move the world with his speeches.
You see Obama good at campaigning and manipulating, but not much
else. Michelle more or less invites herself and friends to Oprah Winfrey's
Hawaii estate for a joint birthday party, in part to draw her back into
the Obamas' camp and keep her out of Hillary's. The weeklong stay goes fine,
but Oprah resists any political rapprochement, and even starts promoting
Hillary not long afterwards.
Obama picks Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg (a third Democratic family as
powerful as the Obamas or Clintons) as ambassador to Japan, a way-too-late
thanks for Kennedy family support in 2008 - and, apparently, just to get
her halfway around the world from Hillary's candidacy.
It amazes me that the Obamas would work this hard to undermine their
own party's frontrunner for the 2016 nomination. The Clintons will have
raised a billion dollars for the run.
There's lots of dirt about both couples. Bill still womanizes intensively;
you wonder if he'll die `in the saddle' like Nelson Rockefeller did. A guy
with a bad heart condition?
His penthouse over the Clinton Library in Little Rock is his bachelor
pad - Hillary avoids Little Rock - and effectively the Playboy Mansion South,
the scene of many swinging parties. Klein suggests that the town not only
shields its favorite son from scrutiny, but that its women, married and
single alike, line up to sleep with him. Klein quotes one person saying
Clinton will hit on married women even in front of their own husbands. (You'd
think in Arkansas this would get a man shot, but then most other men there
don't enjoy lifelong Secret Service protection.) He and Hillary lead
separate lives, talking daily on the phone but rarely in each other's presence,
and Hillary tells friends he'll have little presence in her White House
should she be elected.
Klein notes some presidential couples become closer in the White
House, where they finally have physical proximity after years of separation
on the campaign trail, but this didn't happen with the Obamas, who are effectively
estranged. Michelle Obama, of whom White House staffers are terrified,
will burst in suddenly on her husband if he's in a room with other women;
she's suspicious of him, believing he'd like to emulate Clinton's ways.
Her post-White House plans, according to this book, don't include him. She
and Valerie Jarrett, who plans to follow her, envision a high life of globetrotting
funded by wealthy donors where they sit on corporate boards and don't have
to do much work.
Barack Obama wants to retain control of the party, but Bill Clinton already
sees him losing his clout and political capital.
The real question mark goes back to Bill Clinton's health. If he dies
- a guy with this bad a heart condition? Waitresses and Little Rock matrons,
think about it - some think Hillary, relying upon his advice forever, may
not go ahead with a presidential run. It often sounds like more his obsession
than hers, other than the first-woman-president thing. The family foundation's
reins have been handed to Chelsea, in part to take pressure off Bill, and
she is being positioned as his replacement as Mom's closest advisor and
confidante. Others think Chelsea would encourage her mother to run if Bill
dies because it's what he would have wanted. You get the feeling that Hillary,
for all her ambition, doesn't have all that much fire in the belly - that
it's Bill who's given her the vision, encouraged her, pushed her, made her
see a path through obstacles, and been willing to fight battles large and
small where she would have been more inclined to go along, get along and
acquiesce.
Truly surreal is the ending. Bill tells an appalled Hillary, in front
of friends, exactly how to stage his funeral if he dies before the election:
what to wear (widow's weeds), where to do it (Arlington, he's a former commander
in chief.) If properly done, he said, the video footage will be worth a
couple of million votes." Not for nothing do they call him the smartest
political mind of his time.
PS The day before I filed this, I saw a story online at Business Insider
quoting an unnamed Clinton confidante attacking this book as lies, all lies,
nothing but lies. The story didn't specifically rebut anything or cite any
specific error in the book; it reprised a finding of an error in one of
Klein's previous books. It suggests to me, though, this book is right, if
the attack against it is as unspecific as "lies, lies, nothing but lies."
Perhaps the Clinton camp is doing some preventive public fulminating so
that they can deny the unflattering or unfavorable parts of it. I still
think they planted a lot of this.
The same day, the Wall Street Journal had a front page story about
Hillary distancing herself from the Obama administration. This is exactly
what the book says she would do - it's half revenge, and half good politics,
as seen by Bill Clinton, with the Obama administration in a tailspin on
any number of fronts.
"... Valerie Jarrett is the third partner in the Obama marriage. She is the mother figure Obama turns to for solace while she is Michelle';s closet confidant. This tiger lady calls the shots influencing the POTUS and his power spouse. ..."
"... Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have serious health problems they seek to disguise. Hillary and Bill have both had extensive cosmetic surgery. ..."
Blood Feud is a political hardball slammed into the guts of the two most powerful
couples in the Democratic Party. Ed Klein who won fame for his earlier ":The
Amateur": book about the Obama dysfunctional White House has returned with another
blockbuster rich with gossip and political junkie insider poop.
Among the
revelations of Mr Klein":
The Clintons and Obamas loathe one another.
The Clintons worked hard for Obama to be re-elected in 2008. They anticipated
that this support would result in Obama';s support for Hillary in her anticipated
2016 quest for the POTUS. This deal has not seen fruition. The Clintons
accuse Obama of lying and a lack of loyalty to the Clintons.
Michelle Obama wears the pants in the family as Barack is an uxorious
husband. Michelle has considered a run for the Illinois Senate seat but
is wary of this political race due to the hard work it would entail.
Valerie Jarrett is the third partner in the Obama marriage. She
is the mother figure Obama turns to for solace while she is Michelle';s
closet confidant. This tiger lady calls the shots influencing the POTUS
and his power spouse.
Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have serious health problems they
seek to disguise. Hillary and Bill have both had extensive cosmetic surgery.
Bill Clinton continues his adulterous ways.
Look for a Hillary run for president in 2016 in a campaign masterminded
by Bill. Both Clintons are eager to return to the White House.
Oprah Winfrey feels betrayed by the Obamas and has little to do with
them. She will probably support Hillary in 2016 as will Caroline and the
Kennedy family.
Hillary and the State Department screwed up the Benghazi terrorist attack
and covered up to protect their butts.
Obama has proven to be a weak chief executive who is unable to work
well with congressional leaders. Obama is not well respected in the Democratic
Party.
Edward Klein has done yeoman-like work in presenting this short but very
revealing look into the lives of the Clintons and Obamas.
All readers who want to learn more about the kind of people leading our nation
should read this book and have their eyes opened.
Recommended and controversial. Read it and decide what you think!
"... Fink has also promoted the privatization of Social Security, while mocking the idea of retiring at 65, which is easy for a business executive who sits at a desk all day to say, rather than working on an assembly line or as a waiter. ..."
"... Well it's dog eat dog and I gotta think about my own needs at this stage. Ergo, here I stay. And someone younger will have to wait. Not great. If I felt more secure about SS & Medicare, I would be more willing to retire sooner, rather than later. But not the way things look now. ..."
"... He was more than mildly successful in his own landscaping business after being forced out, but the way he was treated will forever remind me of what advantage some corporations will try to get away with, and has always persuaded me not to invest in my own company's, less protected 401(k) selections ..."
"... Never heard of this parasite, so thanks for the heads up. I'm sure HRC will find some very useful role for him in her admin. ..."
"... BlackRock is a blight. Ugh. Just gets worse by the day. ..."
"... Don't count out Jamie, nor Victoria Nuland as Secretary of State. ..."
"... Some role too for Samantha Powers. Ugh. ..."
"... The reason I will never ever vote for HRC is that every single thing that comes out of her mouth is horse manure. It's so easy for her to say, "I will raise taxes on the rich", for example, knowing full well that later she can just say "we tried, but it was not politically possible" due to any of a hundred reasons. ..."
"... Her campaign promises now are totally meaningless. I'm interested in possible third party candidates McAffee and Jesse Ventura, who could actually win the election, but if I have a choice between the Donald and the Hildabeast, I will choose Trump. ..."
Fink has also promoted the privatization of Social Security,
while mocking the idea of retiring at 65, which is easy for a business
executive who sits at a desk all day to say, rather than working on
an assembly line or as a waiter.
Yes, I know this is Dayen's quote and not Yves'.
But I'm disturbed every time I see this argument about "desk work" vs
"manual labor" WRT working longer. Its true of course but fails to recognize
that many who sit behind desks are also being forced out of their jobs (and
yes, this includes "business executives" too) well before 65, have little
chance of being hired for anything else and thus don't really have a choice
to work longer. Unless you're part of the super elite you're not much better
off than the manual laborer when it comes to staying employed past your
mid to late fifties, let alone your mid to late sixties.
I'm extremely lucky (and know it and am grateful) to have what is viewed
as a "desk job" as I approach my golden years. I am able to and plan to
keep working possibly into my early '70s. Why? Well for one thing: because
I can. For another, to save as much as possible just in case. Child of Depression
Era parents, yadda yadda. And if I can pass on something to my nieces and
nephews… well good.
The problem as I see it is not so much that I am able to continue working
into my 70s but that my ability to do so, combined with that sinking feeling
that I really should and need to due to current circumstances, is that I
am preventing someone younger from ascending the ladder. And at this time,
someone would definitely be hired or promoted to take my place.
Well it's dog eat dog and I gotta think about my own needs at this
stage. Ergo, here I stay. And someone younger will have to wait. Not great.
If I felt more secure about SS & Medicare, I would be more willing to retire
sooner, rather than later. But not the way things look now.
Can't find the details but I think I recall some startling tid bits about
W.T. Grant advising Reagan's commission on overhauling military retirement
pay (part of which was greatly increasing allowances for food clothing and
housing that were not included in retirement pay calculations). We had the
odd situations of retirees that retired early enough (grandfathered, I think),
that got higher retirement pay (based on 50% of base pay which, for them,
was a far higher percentage of their total pay) than those of us who retired
later, at higher total pay, but a lower percentage of base pay, such that
the earlier retirees cost of living raises outpaced our keeping up with
inflation).
After the deed was done, I thought I heard that only four or five W.T.
Grant employees that had built up substantial seniority that would have
provided healthy retirement pay were able to remain employed until they
reached 65 years of age (and that they were essentially senior executives
at or near the top).
The more common case seemed to be like my friend's father, a master of
many trades, seemingly a most effective employee in any position assigned,
as well as being a well regarded President of the Lions Club and active
in other civic minded organizations, promoted into a management position
at Uniroyal, seemingly to exempt him from union protection. They found his
capabilities "inadequate" at 17.5 years, just when he would have started
accumulating substantial retirement benefits.
He was more than mildly successful in his own landscaping business
after being forced out, but the way he was treated will forever remind me
of what advantage some corporations will try to get away with, and has always
persuaded me not to invest in my own company's, less protected 401(k) selections
(in my case, the once great Kodak).
The reason I will never ever vote for HRC is that every single thing
that comes out of her mouth is horse manure. It's so easy for her to say,
"I will raise taxes on the rich", for example, knowing full well that later
she can just say "we tried, but it was not politically possible" due to
any of a hundred reasons.
Her campaign promises now are totally meaningless. I'm interested
in possible third party candidates McAffee and Jesse Ventura, who could
actually win the election, but if I have a choice between the Donald and
the Hildabeast, I will choose Trump.
"... ...Bill Clinton was not just being entertained by prostitutes with his brother Roger ... he, Roger and Dan Lasater were partying with HIGH SCHOOL GIRLS when Clinton was a married governor in his early 30's. I don't know what the age of consent is in Arkansas, but Clinton and Co. were getting pretty damn close... ..."
"... The sleaziest pair to lie, cheat, and steal their way to political power. Sad to realize this country has turned stupid and apathetic while ignoring the current Bonnie and Clyde ruining our country. I approve of the Ceaucescu method of removing evil. ..."
"... And it's critical that ANYONE who votes in our next election read this book. Because Hillary Clinton is one of the most evil players on the world state today, and this book proves it. Just google 'mena arkansas clinton bush', or 'hillary rape lawyer'...there's so much info here in this book and on the web from court documents, newspaper reports that are never mentioned in the mainstream more than once (they got quashed), FOIA results. ..."
"... Wow. This book is just incredible. The Oklahoma City bombing, Waco, Vince Foster, Jerry Parks, Barry Seal, an international Cocaine trade, the airport at Mena - the list of Bill Clinton's acts of corruption and criminality goes on and on. ..."
"... And don't get the wrong idea: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is not some tabloid sensationalist; he's a legitimate and well-respected journalist for London's Daily Telegraph and every charge here is substantiated by facts: photographs, declassified FBI documents, interviews with eyewitnesses, and so on and so on, an avalanche of facts. ..."
"... This book is best read in conjunction with Terry Reed's book " Compromised: Clinton, Bush and the CIA " to get the full picture of just how much Bill Clinton was willing to sell his soul for a shot at the White House. ..."
"... Here's this Brit's take on America's ruling class: "The American Elite, I am afraid to say, is almost beyond redemption. Moral relativism has set in so deeply that the gilded classes have become incapable of discerning right from wrong." That was back in 1997. It's only gotten worse since. The day the "almost" in that sentence disappears, that's the day a second American Revolution will start. And when it does, justice will finally catch up with Bill and Hillary. ..."
...Bill Clinton was not just being entertained by prostitutes with
his brother Roger ... he, Roger and Dan Lasater were partying with HIGH
SCHOOL GIRLS when Clinton was a married governor in his early 30's. I don't
know what the age of consent is in Arkansas, but Clinton and Co. were getting
pretty damn close...
The sleaziest pair to lie, cheat, and steal their way to political power.
Sad to realize this country has turned stupid and apathetic while ignoring
the current Bonnie and Clyde ruining our country. I approve of the Ceaucescu
method of removing evil.
This one is dated but
not the conduct of the Clintons. It seems whatever they do, nothing seems
to stick. Both being lawyers, they know the law and politics and how to
avoid arrest.
To say I loved
this book would be completely amiss. I hated the info I read in this book,
but I'm not that stupid that I would ignore it either. Because anyone who
has done any research into these two characters, realizes that everything
in this book is unfortunately, true.
And it's critical that ANYONE who votes in our next election read
this book. Because Hillary Clinton is one of the most evil players on the
world state today, and this book proves it. Just google 'mena arkansas clinton
bush', or 'hillary rape lawyer'...there's so much info here in this book
and on the web from court documents, newspaper reports that are never mentioned
in the mainstream more than once (they got quashed), FOIA results.
Folks, we are in serious trouble if this woman gets elected. If you thought
it was bad with George Bush 1 and 2, or Clinton 1. Just wait. Because if
Hillary or Jeb get elected, you might as well get out of this country while
you've got the chance. They will put the final nail in the coffin of what
was the great United States of America.
Do something about it! Vote for ANYONE OTHER THAN DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN.
Wow. This book is just incredible. The Oklahoma City bombing, Waco,
Vince Foster, Jerry Parks, Barry Seal, an international Cocaine trade, the
airport at Mena - the list of Bill Clinton's acts of corruption and criminality
goes on and on.
And don't get the wrong idea: Ambrose Evans-Pritchard is not some
tabloid sensationalist; he's a legitimate and well-respected journalist
for London's Daily Telegraph and every charge here is substantiated by facts:
photographs, declassified FBI documents, interviews with eyewitnesses, and
so on and so on, an avalanche of facts.
Ultimately, there is no smoking gun here. Evans-Pritchard got as close
as he could with the available facts out there. The evidence here is mostly
circumstantial. But circumstantial as it is, the cumulative effect is devastating.
Yes, the federal government knew about the Oklahoma City Bombing in advance.
Yes, Vince Foster was murdered and his body subsequently placed in Fort
Marcy Park in an amateurish attempt to make it look like a suicide. Yes,
Bill Clinton knew all about the international drug trade going on out of
the airport in Mena, Arkanasas and looked the other way (for a price). And
so on and so on.
This book is best read in conjunction with Terry Reed's book "Compromised:
Clinton, Bush and the CIA" to get the full picture of just how much
Bill Clinton was willing to sell his soul for a shot at the White House.
And one of the truly disquieting things this book drives home to the
reader is that the very institutions we look to to prosecute crimes and
expose injustices - the Department of Justice, the FBI, the mainstream media
- seem all to have been co-opted long ago by the White House and corrupted
in the process. Read this book and, at times, you'll think you're living
in the old Soviet Union - and, in a sense, you are.
Here's this Brit's take on America's ruling class: "The American
Elite, I am afraid to say, is almost beyond redemption. Moral relativism
has set in so deeply that the gilded classes have become incapable of discerning
right from wrong." That was back in 1997. It's only gotten worse since.
The day the "almost" in that sentence disappears, that's the day a second
American Revolution will start. And when it does, justice will finally catch
up with Bill and Hillary.
The whole thing smells to high heaven. The only reason to trust that there are no direct quid
pro quos is, perversely, that there are so many donations and so many speeches and interactions
that they all begin to seem normal.
Yes, there may be smoke and no fire, in the legal sense, but let us not pretend there are no
issues here.
"... Does it get money because of the Clintons involvement in raising money? Undoubtedly, without their participation it can't raise anywhere near that amount of money, and the reason is that their high public profile means that people believe that by giving to them they can influence policy, ..."
Low level personnel in the US government are expected to reject gifts, or if culturally they cannot,
then they turn them over to their agency, unless it is something like a coffee or a sandwich.
There is an expectation that people are going to not just not actually corrupt their job by doing
favors for people who give them gifts or do them favors, but that they will avoid the appearance of
corruption that is generated by accepting gifts.
The supreme court doesn't agree with that anymore. Anyone can accept any kind of bribe as long as
they don't let it influence their actions. You can't see the desk for the treasure that's being dumped
onto political tables to fund campaigns and line their personal pockets.
This is a foreign practice, one that is corrupt and should be rooted out nationally. Accepting gifts
creates a corrupting environment, no matter what the recipient does, because EVERYONE understands that
the gift is intended to influence policy or gain access so that the person can influence policy. The
person giving the gift knows it, or they wouldn't give it, the person receiving the gift knows it, but
"deep down in their honest hearts" they're not going to allow it to influence their work and decisions?
No of course not. Buying access is the same as putting a stack of cash into someone's pocket to get
them to vote one way or another on a bill of interest.
Does the Clinton foundation do good work? Sure. Does it get money because of the Clintons involvement
in raising money? Undoubtedly, without their participation it can't raise anywhere near that amount
of money, and the reason is that their high public profile means that people believe that by giving
to them they can influence policy, even if those people are not in office (through backchannels
and whispers and introductions).
Does every person donating to the Clinton foundation want to influence policy, or are they primarily
motivated by wanting to fund it's good works? This is impossible to tell. Even someone as prominent
and perhaps morally blameless Elie Wiesel isn't there to eat cookies and have tea and talk about the
weather if he's in Hillary Clinton's office. That is not what he is there for. That kind of meeting
is not purely a social call, it's an effort to influence policy, whether it is related to statements
on the Armenian genocide or the Sudan or god knows what.
Is he a person that she should meet with, whether he gives a donation to her foundation or not? Maybe
that is her job. Probably most of these meetings are that way. That's why public officials are expected
to put investments and charities into trusts and blinds and under separate management when they're in
office, to help establish the boundary between their public responsibilities and their private interests
including their charitable interests.
It doesn't matter to me whether she did anything that she shouldn't have done, legally. The letter
of the law is insufficient to dictate the actions of moral people. Is it disqualifying? She's already
been disqualified in my mind, this is just another thing.
Is it disturbing and annoying to me to see the double standard where promoters are willing to weasel
and explain away whatever the Clintons have done that for any person on the other side of the aisle
would be moral issues that disqualify them from office?
"... A top aide to Hillary Clinton at the State Department agreed to try to obtain a special diplomatic passport for an adviser to former President Bill Clinton in 2009, according to emails released Thursday, raising new questions about whether people tied to the Clinton Foundation received special access at the department. ..."
"... The exchange about the passport, between Mr. Band and Huma Abedin, who was then a top State Department aide to Mrs. Clinton, was included in a set of more than 500 pages of emails made public by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group that sued for their release. ..."
"... "Need get me/justy and jd dip passports," Mr. Band wrote to Ms. Abedin on July 27, 2009, referring to passports for himself and two other aides to Mr. Clinton, Justin Cooper and John Davidson. ..."
"... Traveling with a former president does not convey any special diplomatic status, the State Department indicated in a statement regarding the emails. "Diplomatic passports are issued to Foreign Service officers or a person having diplomatic or comparable status," the statement said. ..."
"... "Any individuals who do not have this status are not issued diplomatic passports," it said, adding that "the staff of former presidents are not included among those eligible to be issued a diplomatic passport." ..."
A top aide to Hillary Clinton at the State Department agreed to try to obtain a special diplomatic
passport for an adviser to former President Bill Clinton in 2009, according to emails released Thursday,
raising new questions about whether people tied to the Clinton Foundation received special access
at the department.
The request by the adviser, Douglas J. Band, who started one arm of the Clintons' charitable foundation,
was unusual, and the State Department never issued the passport. Only department employees and others
with diplomatic status are eligible for the special passports, which help envoys facilitate travel,
officials said.
... ... ...
The exchange about the passport, between Mr. Band and Huma Abedin, who was then a top State Department
aide to Mrs. Clinton, was included in a set of more than 500 pages of emails made public by Judicial
Watch, a conservative legal group that sued for their release.
"Need get me/justy and jd dip passports," Mr. Band wrote to Ms. Abedin on July 27, 2009, referring
to passports for himself and two other aides to Mr. Clinton, Justin Cooper and John Davidson.
... ... ...
But a person with knowledge of the issue, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that the
three men were arranging to travel with Mr. Clinton to Pyongyang less than a week later for the former
president's secret negotiations. Mr. Clinton already had a diplomatic passport as a former president.
... ... ...
Traveling with a former president does not convey any special diplomatic status, the State Department
indicated in a statement regarding the emails. "Diplomatic passports are issued to Foreign Service officers or a person having diplomatic or
comparable status," the statement said.
"Any individuals who do not have this status are not issued diplomatic passports," it said, adding
that "the staff of former presidents are not included among those eligible to be issued a diplomatic
passport."
The emails released by Judicial Watch also include discussions about meetings between Mrs. Clinton
and a number of people involved in major donations to the Clinton Foundation.
In one exchange in July 2009, Ms. Abedin told Mrs. Clinton's scheduler that Mr. Clinton "wants
to be sure" that Mrs. Clinton would be able to see Andrew Liveris, the chief executive of Dow Chemical,
at an event the next night. Dow Chemical has been one of the biggest donors to the Clinton Foundation,
giving $1 million to $5 million, records show.
Ms. Abedin arranged what she called "a pull-aside" for Mr. Liveris to speak with Mrs. Clinton
in a private room after she arrived to give a speech, according to the emails, which did not explain
the reason for the meeting.
The person with knowledge of the issue said that this email chain also related to Mr. Clinton's
North Korea trip because Mr. Liveris had offered to let Mr. Clinton use his private plane.
A separate batch of State Department documents
released by Judicial Watch last month also revealed contacts between the State Department and Clinton
Foundation donors. In one such exchange, Mr. Band sought to put a billionaire donor in touch with
the department's former ambassador to Lebanon.
Donald J. Trump, Mrs. Clinton's Republican opponent, has seized on the documents, saying they
revealed a "pay to play" operation.
If you are implying that Hillary Clinton supports the center left, you have
clearly not been paying attention her entire career, or to the careers of those
with whom she has surrounded herself. Even with today's ridiculously shifted
Overton window, there is nothing "left" about being an oligarch or a war criminal.
Can't speak for NC as a whole, but in my opinion, NC writers are criticizing
the person likely to win the election. These issues of corruption need to be
hashed out and handled well before inauguration.
Perhaps NC is providing a bit of balance, given the rest of the MSM has about
11 anti-Trump pieces for every 2 anti-HRC ones?
And having browsed through the FBI interview notes with Clinton, her defence against serious wrongdoing
is that she is a mixture of forgetful and incompetent. Is this really the best the Dems can do?
Good question, this NC reader is just pretty fed up with the status quo (maybe
others want to chime in):
– Unlimited immunity from prosecution for banking executive criminals
– More shiny new undeclared "nation-building" and "RTP" wars
– Globalist trade deals that enshrine unaccountable corporate tribunals over
national sovereignty, environmental and worker protection, and self-determination
– America's national business conducted in secrecy at the behest of corporate
donors to tax-exempt foundations
– Paid-for quid-pro-quo media manipulation of candidate and election coverage
– Health care system reform designed to benefit entrenched insurance providers
over providing access to reasonable-cost basic care.
Based on the above I'd say the 11:2 ratio looks about right.
"... "When I was the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush," You knew exactly where this article was going once you read the first 14 words. ..."
"... The author was chief ethics lawyer for the George W. Bush Administration. Why does that bother me? I realize this guy's term was from 2005 to 2007 and the Abu Ghraib story pretty much broke in early 2005, ..."
"... How much did the Clinton campaign pay for this Op-Ed? 'Every one does it' and 'it's not illegal'. 'It's how business is done.' How about doing a real in-depth investigation on the Clinton Foundation and perceived favors to donors NYT, instead of more opinion? ..."
"... Clearly a planted article. Nice try. Is everyone aware that the Foundation paid off Clinton's '08 campaign debt? They gave $400,000 and considered "payment for the campaign's mailing lists" ..."
"... According to former Justice Department Deputy Assistant Attorney General Shannen Coffin, there are at least three different categories of federal laws which may be implicated. ..."
"... One, the ethics and government act, which says you can't use a public office for private gain for yourself or even for a charity. So in giving special access to the donors for the Clinton Foundation, the ethics and government act is implicated. So perhaps Mr. Painter is a bit hasty dismissing such claims. ..."
"... If it was only about getting a government post or an arranged meeting, I would agree. But this seems different because significant amounts of money changed hands as a result of State Department intervention. And a lot of that money ended up at the Foundation or as speaking fees to Bill Clinton. How is this not seen as foreign donations effecting an American election - which I believe is illegal. ..."
"... Mr. Painter: You say "There is little if any evidence that federal ethics laws were broken by Mrs. Clinton". So if there is even "little" evidence that the laws were broken, then shouldn't American electorate consider it when making their election day decisions? ..."
"... You did not mention that there was no independent investigation on this subject, so there is no way to know whether there was "little" or "significant" or "overwhelming" evidence that the laws were broken. ..."
"... And finally, even if the written laws were not broken, what about the immorality of what Clintons did? Has morality been completely removed from the public square in this once great country? ..."
"... If there was no evidence of corruption at the Clinton Foundation, then why did Bill Clinton's speaking fees increase astronomically (from roughly $100,000 to $850,000) during Hillary's tenure at the State Department? ..."
"... as the neocons and neolibs in power withdraw from the govt's former "general welfare" Constitutional role and concentrate on enriching themselves and their friends - it would pay for citizens to become more aware of how the sector works. ..."
"... the system they devised inevitably empowers some groups more than others. Since democratic theory defines government officials as representatives of the voters, it encourages constituents to influence the decisions of those agents. Ideally, politicians should not favor the interests of some groups over others, but reality dictates otherwise. ..."
"... In the contest for influence, money inevitably plays a major, although not always decisive, role. In an effort to limit this role, we have developed both formal and informal methods to constrain human greed. The law prohibits bribery, for example. To discourage subtler forms of influence-buying, we have developed codes of ethics that pressure officials to limit financial connections with groups or individuals who might seek their help. ..."
"... Public opinion can serve as a powerful tool to enforce these codes. This explains the informal requirement that a president divest herself of financial connections that might affect her decisions. If Clinton rejects this tradition, she will undermine an important method of limiting the influence of moneyed interests in government. We have too few such tools as it is. ..."
"... Our laws are relatively stringent and prevent the crassest forms of corruption, and our culture makes lesser but legal offenses dangerous politically. But to imagine that any government, anywhere, could function without either those sorts of alliances or some equally corruptible strongman central oversight is is as naive and dangerously idealistic. ..."
"... How would someone feel if they found out that a doctor who prescribed them a medication is also paid large sums by a pharmaceutical company to promote the drug? Or, if the doctors owns substantial amount of stock in the company? Appearances do matter and it is likely that such conflicts do impact judgement. These kinds of allowances are being cleaned up across the country, at least in medicine. ..."
"... I am fine if they get higher salaries, but it is time to clean up the political corruption and crony capitalism. It is a shame that we hold our politicians to such incredible low standards and it is not a surprise that so many people don't bother to vote. ..."
"... It doesn't matter how good or bad the work of the Clinton Foundation is. That is not the question. The question is the motivation of many who contribute to the foundation. Are they motivated by altruism or is donating in a big way a ploy to gain access to Mrs. Clinton. ..."
"... I doubt that Clinton breached a fundamental legal boundary. However, the Clinton's have always seen the bright line and have decided to test the boundaries. From using police to secure women while governor to taking money from Walmart to major financial institutions to the email scandal, the Clinton's do it again and again and blame a vast right wing conspiracy. The Clinton foundation used Doug Band as a bag man securing commercial contracts for Bill and Hilary while he had a senior role at the foundation (flashing red lights). Huma took money off the state department books as did other Clinton confidants (flashing red lights), etc. They can't help themselves. Are these actives illegal? Probably not. However, we seek to be inspired by our leaders, we want leaders who are better than the average, better than us. ..."
"... When Bill can trot off to Russia, get 750k for a speech at the same time that business interests of the donor is before the State Department, it smells. The crux of the matter is the rotten judgement. ..."
"... You want a POTUS who has good judgement. The relentless chasing of a buck mixed with the appearance of impropriety, real or imagined, is the problem. When mixed with her poor judgement on the emails and her poor judgement on invading Iraq and disrupting Libya, you have a problem which explains her low approval rating. She is just fortunate that she has Trump to run against. ..."
"... If we look back to the Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky scandal, those that were screaming the loudest for justice were having extramarital affairs during the "investigation". Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, Henry Hyde. And then there was Dennis Hastert. ..."
"... You bring up yet another problem with Hilary. She has covered for her sexual predator husband for decades, including harassing and publicly shaming her husband's sexual assault victims. And there are many going back to his Oxford days. How is that ok? ..."
"... The Trumpster won the Republican nomination precisely because of voter disgust over the in-crowd culture of politicians and donors. Bernie Sanders came close to winning the Democratic nomination for much of the same reason. Hilary and her entire family need to wake up fast if she has any hope or desire to get elected. We all know where Hilary's money is coming from. Does Hilary know where her voters are coming from and where they are now? ..."
"... To put this in a nutshell, The Clinton's self-enriching behavior- and use of public office for private gain - is troubling in the extreme ..."
"... During her tenure as Secretary of State (as reported by the AP) of the 154 non-official meetings at least 85 of those individuals were private-sector donors who contributed up to $156 million to Clinton Foundation initiatives. ..."
"... The report comes on top of other far more incriminating investigations revealing the appearance of quid pro quo with foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation. Perhaps the worst example was when investors who profited from the Clinton State Department's approval of a deal for Russia's atomic energy agency's acquisition of a fifth of America's uranium mining rights subsequently pumped money into the Clinton Foundation. ..."
"... I hate to say this but the Clintons are America's version of Russian Oligarchs - and their Foundation almost a glorified form of money laundering. I can only pray that in 2020, us Dems may find a better president ,and that the Clintons be soon forgotten. ..."
"... Without seeing the 30,000 deleted emails, how is anyone qualified to say no laws were broken? Besides, who cares what the chief ethics lawyer for a president who authorized torture thinks? ..."
This is not the typical foundation funded by family wealth earned by
an industrialist or financier. This foundation was funded almost entirely by donors, and to the
extent anyone in the Clinton family "earned" the money, it was largely through speaking fees for
former President Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton when she was not secretary of state. This
dependence on donations - a scenario remarkably similar to that of many political campaigns -
means that the motivations of every single donor will be questioned whenever a President Clinton
does anything that could conceivably benefit such donors.
... ... ...
This kind of access is the most corrupting brand of favoritism and
pervades the entire government. Under both Republican and Democratic presidents, top
ambassadorial posts routinely go to campaign contributors. Yet more campaign contributors hound
these and other State Department employees for introductions abroad, preferred access and
advancement of trade and other policy agendas. More often than not the State Department does
their bidding.
... ... ...
The problem is that it does not matter that no laws were broken, or
that the Clinton Foundation is principally about doing good deeds. It does not matter that
favoritism is inescapable in the federal government and that the Clinton Foundation stories are
really nothing new. The appearances surrounding the foundation are problematic, and it is and
will be an albatross around Mrs. Clinton's neck.
... ... ...
As for Chelsea Clinton, anti-nepotism laws, strengthened after
President Kennedy appointed his brother Robert as attorney general, could prevent her mother from
appointing her to some of the highest government positions. But she could give her mother
informal advice, and there are a great many government jobs for which she would be eligible. She
does not need the Clinton Foundation to succeed in life.
Richard W. Painter, a professor of law at the University of
Minnesota, was the chief White House ethics lawyer from 2005 to 2007.
Majortrout, is a trusted commenter Montreal 2 days ago
"When I was the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush," You knew
exactly where this article was going once you read the first 14 words.
chichimax, albany, ny 2 days ago
I have a hard time focusing on this article. The author was chief ethics lawyer for the
George W. Bush Administration. Why does that bother me? I realize this guy's term was from
2005 to 2007 and the Abu Ghraib story pretty much broke in early 2005, but, thinking
about those other lawyers for that Bush and what they said was okay, it really gives me the
creeps to think about focusing on anything this guy might say about ethics. Just sayin'.
Lori, San Francisco 2 days ago
How much did the Clinton campaign pay for this Op-Ed? 'Every
one does it' and 'it's not illegal'. 'It's how business is done.' How about doing a real
in-depth investigation on the Clinton Foundation and perceived favors to donors NYT, instead
of more opinion?
If the foundation is so squeaky clean there should be no problem.
Or has Hilary made it clear you won't get a front row seat at her next mythical press
conference? Or has she threatened to stop sending you the press releases from her campaign you
report as news?
Ange, Boston 2 days ago
Clearly a planted article. Nice try. Is everyone aware that
the Foundation paid off Clinton's '08 campaign debt? They gave $400,000 and considered
"payment for the campaign's mailing lists"
Crabby Hayes, Virginia 2 days ago
According to former Justice Department Deputy Assistant
Attorney General Shannen Coffin, there are at least three different categories of federal laws
which may be implicated.
One, the ethics and government act, which says you can't use
a public office for private gain for yourself or even for a charity. So in giving special
access to the donors for the Clinton Foundation, the ethics and government act is implicated.
So perhaps Mr. Painter is a bit hasty dismissing such claims.
Randy, Largent 2 days ago
If it was only about getting a government post or an arranged
meeting, I would agree. But this seems different because significant amounts of money changed
hands as a result of State Department intervention. And a lot of that money ended up at the
Foundation or as speaking fees to Bill Clinton. How is this not seen as foreign donations
effecting an American election - which I believe is illegal.
Isa Ten, CA 2 days ago
Mr. Painter: You say "There is little if any evidence that
federal ethics laws were broken by Mrs. Clinton". So if there is even "little" evidence that
the laws were broken, then shouldn't American electorate consider it when making their
election day decisions?
You did not mention that there was no independent
investigation on this subject, so there is no way to know whether there was "little" or
"significant" or "overwhelming" evidence that the laws were broken.
Your main argument is that "everyone" does that. Perhaps, it is
time to change that and Trump is the man who can do it. Is it fear of this kind of change that
frightens so many NeverTrumpsters into rejecting him?
And finally, even if the written laws were not broken, what
about the immorality of what Clintons did? Has morality been completely removed from the
public square in this once great country?
David Keltz, Brooklyn 2 days ago
If there was no evidence of corruption at the Clinton Foundation, then why did Bill
Clinton's speaking fees increase astronomically (from roughly $100,000 to $850,000) during
Hillary's tenure at the State Department?
Did he suddenly become more sought after, nearly 8 or 9 years after his presidency? If
there was no evidence of corruption, then why did Hillary Clinton use her authority to appoint
herself onto the Haiti Relief Fund Board, where her sole relief efforts entailed asking people
not to donate to the Red Cross, but to the Clinton Foundation?
John D., Out West 2 days ago
One thing that comes through loud & clear in the comments: a lot
of people don't have a clue how non-profit organizations work. For a sector that's responsible
for most of the good things in this country these days - as the neocons and neolibs in
power withdraw from the govt's former "general welfare" Constitutional role and concentrate on
enriching themselves and their friends - it would pay for citizens to become more aware of how
the sector works.
James Lee, Arlington, Texas August 31, 2016
The framers of our Constitution had no illusions about the weaknesses of human nature. They
carefully crafted our charter of government to pit the officials of each branch against each
other, to obstruct the kind of collusion that could undermine the foundations of a free
society.
Despite their best efforts, however, the system they devised inevitably empowers some
groups more than others. Since democratic theory defines government officials as
representatives of the voters, it encourages constituents to influence the decisions of those
agents. Ideally, politicians should not favor the interests of some groups over others, but
reality dictates otherwise.
In the contest for influence, money inevitably plays a major, although not always
decisive, role. In an effort to limit this role, we have developed both formal and informal
methods to constrain human greed. The law prohibits bribery, for example. To discourage
subtler forms of influence-buying, we have developed codes of ethics that pressure officials
to limit financial connections with groups or individuals who might seek their help.
Public opinion can serve as a powerful tool to enforce these codes. This explains the
informal requirement that a president divest herself of financial connections that might
affect her decisions. If Clinton rejects this tradition, she will undermine an important
method of limiting the influence of moneyed interests in government. We have too few such
tools as it is.
confetti, MD August 31, 2016
I don't think that favoritism in political life will ever go
away, for the simple reason that political power isn't attained in a vacuum. It requires
sturdy alliances by definition, and those are forged via exchange of valued items - material
goods, policy compromises, position, status, assistance and other durable support. Our
laws are relatively stringent and prevent the crassest forms of corruption, and our culture
makes lesser but legal offenses dangerous politically. But to imagine that any government,
anywhere, could function without either those sorts of alliances or some equally corruptible
strongman central oversight is is as naive and dangerously idealistic.
Of course the Clintons wheeled and dealed - but well within the
law.
I'm more interested in what end that served and the real
consequences than the fact that it occurred. In their case, an effective charity that aided
many very vulnerable people was sustained, and no demonstrable compromises that negatively
affected global policies occurred.
It's the Republicans and truly sold out Democrats, who have
forever been deep in the pocket of big money and whose 'deals' in that department cause
tangible harm to the populace, that I'm more concerned with. This is their smoke and mirrors
show.
Alexander K., Minnesota August 31, 2016
How would someone feel if they found out that a doctor who prescribed them a medication
is also paid large sums by a pharmaceutical company to promote the drug? Or, if the doctors
owns substantial amount of stock in the company? Appearances do matter and it is likely that
such conflicts do impact judgement. These kinds of allowances are being cleaned up across the
country, at least in medicine.
It is time that conflict of interest for politicians at all levels is taken seriously by
the public. I am fine if they get higher salaries, but it is time to clean up the
political corruption and crony capitalism. It is a shame that we hold our politicians to such
incredible low standards and it is not a surprise that so many people don't bother to vote.
Great editorial.
Michael Belmont, Hewitt, New Jersey 2 days ago
It doesn't matter how good or bad the work of the Clinton
Foundation is. That is not the question. The question is the motivation of many who contribute
to the foundation. Are they motivated by altruism or is donating in a big way a ploy to gain
access to Mrs. Clinton. The AP analysis suggests that is just what went on. At the very
least it looks bad. Appearances are everything in politics.
Hillary doesn't need to appear to be unethical should she
be elected. Bad enough she has Bill by her side. She doesn't need a special prosecutor
investigator distracting her presidency with an influence peddling scandal. Like it or not,
Republicans will be hunting for her political hide. Hillary doesn't need to paint a bulls-eye
for them.
Chris, 10013 2 days ago
I doubt that Clinton breached a fundamental legal boundary. However, the Clinton's have
always seen the bright line and have decided to test the boundaries. From using police to
secure women while governor to taking money from Walmart to major financial institutions to
the email scandal, the Clinton's do it again and again and blame a vast right wing conspiracy.
The Clinton foundation used Doug Band as a bag man securing commercial contracts for Bill and
Hilary while he had a senior role at the foundation (flashing red lights). Huma took money off
the state department books as did other Clinton confidants (flashing red lights), etc. They
can't help themselves. Are these actives illegal? Probably not. However, we seek to be
inspired by our leaders, we want leaders who are better than the average, better than us.
In the Clintons, we have highly competent, experienced, politicians who have repeated
shown deep ethical problems. She is the best candidate by far. It's unfortunate that our
future President never learned what ethics are.
Robert, Minneapolis 2 days ago
An interesting article. It is probably true that many, if not most, politicians are
influence sellers to a degree. I suspect that the Clintons are just better at it. It is fair
to say that we do not know if laws have been broken. But it is also fair to say that
appearances matter, and that the Clintons are very good at lining their own pockets at the
same time the foundation does it's good work.
When Bill can trot off to Russia, get 750k for a speech at the same time that business
interests of the donor is before the State Department, it smells. The crux of the matter is
the rotten judgement.
You want a POTUS who has good judgement. The relentless chasing of a buck mixed with
the appearance of impropriety, real or imagined, is the problem. When mixed with her poor
judgement on the emails and her poor judgement on invading Iraq and disrupting Libya, you have
a problem which explains her low approval rating. She is just fortunate that she has Trump to
run against.
Madelyn Harris, Portland, OR 2 days ago
So glad to see many NYT readers here recognize the hypocrisy in this opinion piece. The
message is "All of them do it, it's mostly legal, though it's distasteful and problematic.
However, Hillary is the only one who should stop doing it because it looks bad."
The loudest voices of this partisan attack should be under the same scrutiny and be
compelled to practice what they preach. If we look back to the Bill Clinton and Monica
Lewinsky scandal, those that were screaming the loudest for justice were having extramarital
affairs during the "investigation". Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingston, Henry Hyde. And then there
was Dennis Hastert.
Let's start looking into the personal emails of Paul Ryan, Jason Chaffetz, Donald Trump,
Trey Gowdy, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz. Imagine what we would find! Legal, but ethically
problematic exchanges and clearly illegal exchanges that would justify imprisonment. If they
ask for justice, we should provide it.
Lori, San Francisco 2 days ago
You bring up yet another problem with Hilary. She has covered for her sexual predator
husband for decades, including harassing and publicly shaming her husband's sexual assault
victims. And there are many going back to his Oxford days. How is that ok?
John D., Out West 2 days ago
An excellent piece, actually tethered to reality and non-profit law and practice ...
finally! Yes, all the Clinton clan needs to divorce themselves from the foundation, and I'm
not sure why they would wait until after the election to do so.
It seems the loudest critics are of the tribe that created campaign finance law as it
stands today, with the CU case having created a legal system of bribery across the board in
government. C'mon guys, be consistent, or it's the big H word for you!
RNW, Albany, CA 2 days ago
When it comes to ethics and public officials, appearances do in indeed MATTER! Cronyism and
conflicts of interest might elicit a big yawn from the political class, their fellow travelers
and camp followers but arouse anger and indignation from voters. Remember those guys?
We're the ones that politicians suddenly remember every few years with they come. hats in
hand, begging for donations and, most of all, our votes. (The plea for donations is a farce.
Except for a few outliers, they don't really need or want OUR donations.)
The Trumpster won the Republican nomination precisely because of voter disgust over the
in-crowd culture of politicians and donors. Bernie Sanders came close to winning the
Democratic nomination for much of the same reason. Hilary and her entire family need to wake
up fast if she has any hope or desire to get elected. We all know where Hilary's money is
coming from. Does Hilary know where her voters are coming from and where they are now?
Tembrach, Connecticut 2 days ago
I preface this by saying that I am proud Democrat & will vote for Mrs. Clinton, as Mr.
Trump is beyond the pale of decency
To put this in a nutshell, The Clinton's self-enriching behavior- and use of public
office for private gain - is troubling in the extreme
During her tenure as Secretary of State (as reported by the AP) of the 154 non-official
meetings at least 85 of those individuals were private-sector donors who contributed up to
$156 million to Clinton Foundation initiatives.
The report comes on top of other far more incriminating investigations revealing the
appearance of quid pro quo with foreign donors to the Clinton Foundation. Perhaps the worst
example was when investors who profited from the Clinton State Department's approval of a deal
for Russia's atomic energy agency's acquisition of a fifth of America's uranium mining rights
subsequently pumped money into the Clinton Foundation.
Mrs Clinton rightly condemns Trump for playing footsy with Putin. But pray tell, what
exactly was this?
I hate to say this but the Clintons are America's version of Russian Oligarchs - and
their Foundation almost a glorified form of money laundering. I can only pray that in 2020, us
Dems may find a better president ,and that the Clintons be soon forgotten.
Thought Bubble, New Jersey 2 days ago
Without seeing the 30,000 deleted emails, how is anyone qualified to say no laws were
broken? Besides, who cares what the chief ethics lawyer for a president who authorized torture
thinks?
More than half of the people who managed to score a personal one on one meeting with Hillary Clinton
while she was Secretary of State donated money to the Clinton Foundation, either as an individual
or through a company where they worked. "Combined, the 85 donors contributed as much as $156 million.
At least 40 donated more than $100,000 each, and 20 gave more than $1 million," the Associated Press
reported.
Does that make Hillary corrupt? Yes. It does.
At this writing, there is
no evidence that anyone received any special favors as a result of their special access to Clinton.
Not that treats were not requested. They were. (The most amusing was Bono's
request to stream his band's music into the international space station, which was mercifully
rejected.)
That's irrelevant. She's still corrupt.
Clinton's defenders like to point out that neither she nor her husband
draw a salary from their foundation. But that's a technicality.
The Clintons
extract millions of dollars in travel expenditures, including luxurious airplane accommodations
and hotel suites, from their purported do-gooder outfit. They exploit the foundation as a patronage
mill, arranging for it to hire their loyalists at extravagant six-figure salaries. Charity Navigator,
the Yelp of non-profits, doesn't bother to issue a rating for the Clinton foundation due to the pathetically
low portion of money
($9 million out of $140 million in 2013) that makes its way to someone who needs it.
"It seems like the Clinton Foundation operates as a
slush fund for the Clintons," says Bill Allison of the Sunlight Foundation, a government watchdog
group.
As a measure of how institutionally bankrupt American politics is, all this
crap is technically
legal. But that doesn't mean it's not corrupt.
Public relations experts
caution politicians like the Clintons that the
appearance of impropriety is almost as bad as its actuality. If it looks
bad, it will hurt you with the polls. True, but that's not really the point.
The point is: access is corruption.
It doesn't matter that the lead singer of U2 didn't get to live out his rocker
astronaut fantasy. It's disgusting that he was ever in a position to have it
considered. To put a finer point on it, ethics require that someone in Hillary
Clinton's position never, ever take a meeting or correspond by email or offer a
job to someone who donated money to her and her husband's foundation. Failure
to build an unscalable wall between government and money necessarily creates a
corrupt quid pro quo:
"Just got a call from the Clinton Foundation. They're
shaking us down for a donation. Should we cough up a few bucks?"
"Hillary could be president someday. Chelsea could end up in the Senate. It
couldn't hurt to be remembered as someone who threw them some money when they
asked."
This, I 100% guarantee you, was the calculus when Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to Hillary for a one- or two-hour speech. She doesn't have anything new to say that everyone hasn't already heard million times before. It's not like she shared any valuable stock tips during those talks. Wealthy individuals and corporations pay politicians for one thing: access.
Ted Rall, syndicated writer and the cartoonist for ANewDomain.net, is the author of the
book "Snowden," the biography of the NSA whistleblower.
The bizarre thing is that any elected politician dumb enough to take
Kissenger's advice has not prospered. Nixon was impeached, Ford defeated, and
when Carter was dumb enough to take Kissenger's advice about letting the Shah
of Iran into the US, his presidency went into meltdown. Why would anyone listen
to him? putting aside the question that he is a war criminal.
Yes, since we know that for Clinton, his war criminal credentials fall
into the "feature not a bug" category, the question is why the smartest,
most qualified candidate
evuh
would not see pattern of failure
attendant on those who tie their wagon to his star.
Like so many Clinton failures (from both), it wasn't the fault of the
advisor, but those taking the advice didn't do it exactly the way Henry K
told them to do it. Think Welfare Reform, Libya, etc. All the fault of
those putting the plans into operation.
Smartest people in the room, gravitating toward each other understand
how their brilliance can be misunderstood.
"Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign raised an eye-popping $143 million
in August for her candidacy and the Democratic Party, the best showing of her
campaign, her team said Thursday"
And yet my spam folder yesterday contained 46 (count 'em) pleas for
donations from HillaryClinton.com, sent over the last ten days, including the
one I read that said "Just send us a dollar."
And yes, since there was absolutely NO "unsubscribe" link on the emails I
initially received from the Clinton Cult, I did consign all further
communication to spam, thank you very much.
I'm sure they were just trying to make sure that 'eye-popping' amount
isn't from the fewest donors in history. By about the fourth one of those I
finally determined they really didn't need me to donate money they just
needed to be able to count me as a donor
Following right after that link is the withdrawal of $$$ for airtime from
Ted Strickland's campaign. Not some House race, not even a unlikely Senate
attempt, but they don't have enough money to hammer on somebody who not only
is chasing a big prize but actually already
won
the damn race once
already.
And you can convince me that it is 100% likely Strickland will lose. But
if you don't support him, you don't allow an alternative view to be
developed and used to hammer the winner during his term. Isn't that how you
play politics? You don't just show up around election, play nice, and if
polls – yeech, polls – don't go your way you just go home.
But the Democrats don't even want those kinds of victories. They want
1) The Executive Branch
2) No other branch of government so they can
blame what they don't (or worse, do) do – haha, if you read that right you
get "dodo" – on the other side.
Ms Clinton has an insane amount of money. And what she spends it on
(herself) and what she doesn't (anybody else) is what tells you what you
need to know.
The article on the difficulty of taking over the Democratic Party hits the
nail on the head, but it misses the Michels-ian problem: organizations have a
tendency (but not this is a tendency, not a rule or fate) towards increasing
oligarchy over time, and organizational members are socialized to trust and
obey party leadership. Factional dissidents within the Dems have to contend not
only with the party oligarchy and its formidable resources, the decentralized
and sprawling nature of the organization, but with a membership that barely
participates but, when it does, turns out when and how the leadership wants.
The Militant Labour tendency example isn't perfect – entryism into a
Parliamentary party is easier than our party system – but it speaks volumes. To
get a hearing from the party membership you can only criticize so much of the
organization itself; if you and a faction entered and created a "Destroy the
Dems" faction you'd be ignored or hunted out of the party, especially if you
pointedly attacked the Dems oligarchy and were openly hostile to their
officials, platform and the president – though I would argue you'd need exactly
a "Destroy the Dems" faction to succeed in smashing the party oligarchy and
changing the culture.
Keep in mind I do say this as a Green and a person who did his PhD on
inner-party democracy (or lack thereof). Lack of democracy is a persistent
theme in studies of parties for the last century.
It would make more sense to really unite the left around electoral reform in
the long run and push for proportional representation at the state/local level
for legislatures and city councils. While it would probably be preferable for
democracy's sake to have one big district elected with an open-list vote, in
the US context we'd probably go the German route of mixed-member proportional
that combines geographical single-member districts with proportional voting.
Speculating very freely: Could there be a flow of goods we don't know
about? Like containers full of opioids? Or is there a capital flow that
shouldn't exist, but does? Money laundering from those same opioids? Money
laundering generally? The Bezzle? Readers?
There's an enormous amount of people in the USA who are working on some kind
of black market. You don't have ten million unemployed men who are simply
sitting idle all the time.
Those people will never report that they are making money on the black
market.
For instance, there's going to be an enormous amount of weed leaving
Colorado and Washington and transported to other states. Whatever used to be
traveling over the border, we can now produce domestically. Which is great,
don't get me wrong, but until it's legalized in all fifty states, it doesn't
show up on the books. Doing this is as easy as staying in CO for a few weeks,
buying your maximum each day, then going a few states over and selling.
If you are implying that Hillary Clinton supports the center left, you
have clearly not been paying attention her entire career, or to the careers
of those with whom she has surrounded herself. Even with today's
ridiculously shifted Overton window, there is nothing "left" about being an
oligarch or a war criminal.
Can't speak for NC as a whole, but in my opinion, NC writers are
criticizing the person likely to win the election. These issues of
corruption need to be hashed out and handled well before inauguration.
Perhaps NC is providing a bit of balance, given the rest of the MSM has
about 11 anti-Trump pieces for every 2 anti-HRC ones?
And having browsed through the FBI interview notes with Clinton, her
defence against serious wrongdoing is that she is a mixture of forgetful and
incompetent. Is this really the best the Dems can do?
Good question, this NC reader is just pretty fed up with the status quo
(maybe others want to chime in):
– Unlimited immunity from prosecution
for banking executive criminals
– More shiny new undeclared
"nation-building" and "RTP" wars
– Globalist trade deals that enshrine
unaccountable corporate tribunals over national sovereignty, environmental
and worker protection, and self-determination
– America's national
business conducted in secrecy at the behest of corporate donors to
tax-exempt foundations
– Paid-for quid-pro-quo media manipulation of
candidate and election coverage
– Health care system reform designed to
benefit entrenched insurance providers over providing access to
reasonable-cost basic care.
Based on the above I'd say the 11:2 ratio
looks about right.
In reality we have a center leans extreme right Democratic candidate and
a left, right and center Republican candidate. One has a clear record of
supporting and increasing conservative policies in American and the other
has given speeches that have been all over the spectrum.
But hey, you keep trying to shame people who don't give a fig about
useless and false labels but are vastly interested in the normalization of
corruption.
I personally would like to see the reform/ takeover the Democratic party
squad concede that third parties don't have a level playing field(which may
indeed be why they consistently fail) and then help work to fix the problem.
A starting point would be opening every single primary to every voting age
individual or forcing the private parties to pay for their own darn soiree.
It's the democratic way to settle the debate on whether or not it will be
easier to reform the DNC or use a third party to enact progressive policy.
(Sigh ."Exhibit "A" for "why I'm not a Republican" anymore .)
A law mandating that AG workers get paid overtime just like about everyone
else is not a "tax".
The excuses they come up with for justifying the status quo are also a
treat:
-No O/T pay because it's "Seasonal Work", and farmers can't spread their
harvest labor over the whole year? (But nothing said about the months when the
labor is making zero bucks, when the seasonal workers aren't on the payroll)
– Can't find additional help because of "labor shortages"? Easy enough to
fix. PAY MORE MONEY. Why don't "free market" principles ever apply to labor?
-A "regressive tax on poor people"? Maybe they wouldn't be so poor, if they
were paid for their O/T.
-Encouraging automation because "labor costs too much". Au contraire. It's
the other way around. Development of automation (and the skills/jobs needed to
design build and support these machines) is slowed, because labor is too cheap.
And finally, "a $1Billion tax" ..assuming their calculations are correct (a
big if, figures don't lie but liars figure):
.a billion dollar nationwide tax amounts to ( ..one billion divvied by
300 million, carry the one .) .about four bucks a year per person. OMG, I
might have to skip that McNuggets Value Meal (that will also be made by robots
instead of "overpaid" labor) once a year.
People like this are so full of s##t, their eyes are brown.
I'm actually thankful to the folks running ZH some months ago they made
a (likely mobile-driven) change to their site layout, with result that it no
longer renders readably in my default browser, a legacy FF version, dating
from just before the Mozilla weenies decided to remove the 'image display'
toggle from the user preferences menu (disabling bandwidth-hogging image
rendering is really useful in a shared-WiFi context and when you want to
focus on textual content). So now I'm not even tempted to quick-scan the
site's inane alarmist headlines for yuks.
Whether Clinton's strategy of trying to peel off a small percentage of Republicans to win the
presidency will actually work remains to be seen. There seems to be scant evidence in the polls that
a significant amount of Republicans will support her; Clinton's advantage mostly stems from the fact
that black and Hispanic Americans understandably oppose Trump in historic numbers. But if the strategy
hinders Democrats from retaking Congress, the damage is going to be seen for years.
"Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has run an unusually cheap
campaign in part by not paying at least 10 top staffers, consultants and
advisers, some of whom are no longer with the campaign, according to a
review of federal campaign finance filings" [
Reuters
].
"[N]ot compensating top people in a presidential campaign is a departure
from campaign finance norms." Hirohito Award candidate, there.
"Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign raised an eye-popping $143
million in August for her candidacy and the Democratic Party, the best
showing of her campaign, her team said Thursday" [
Agence
France Presse
]. Ka-ching. And not doubling down. Squaring down.
Good question, this NC reader is just pretty fed up with the status quo (maybe others want
to chime in):
– Unlimited immunity from prosecution for banking executive criminals
–
More shiny new undeclared "nation-building" and "RTP" wars
– Globalist trade deals that
enshrine unaccountable corporate tribunals over national sovereignty, environmental and worker
protection, and self-determination
– America's national business conducted in secrecy at
the behest of corporate donors to tax-exempt foundations
– Paid-for quid-pro-quo media
manipulation of candidate and election coverage
– Health care system reform designed to
benefit entrenched insurance providers over providing access to reasonable-cost basic care.
Based on the above I'd say the 11:2 ratio looks about right.
Really enjoyed Atrios easy-breezy
summation
of Clinton Foundation / State Department skullduggery…
"…a bit unseemly in that way that the sausage factory is a bit gross, but it
basically seems to fall in 'this is how things work' territory as far as I can
tell…"
Breezy is right. It does lead me to ask if this were not the Clinton
Foundation but was the Bush Foundation or the Rubio Foundation or…would this
still be just be the way things work? I do not think so.
Don't get me wrong I have great admiration for Atrios (he is right on the
money regarding Social Security and self-driving cars), but the double
standard where both Obama and Clinton are concerned is strong at Eschaton,
and I'm sorry to say with him as well.
Accepting this as the way things work is just accepting that corruption
is the norm and there is nothing to be done about it. So unless you are
willing to shut up about supposed misdeeds of all elected officials and
political candidates because this is the way it is done, you need to get the
f*ck over the idea that this is NORMAL and ACCEPTABLE.
And I don't see that happening over there, or at Daily Kos, or… once the
subject is out is out of the tribe.
I can understand the "it's OK when
our people
do it" double
standard. Family/tribe/team, we are all trained to do that. What I don't
understand is how one could ever arrive at Clinton Foundation = our
people prerequisite to applying it in this instance. WT actual F?
I think you are coming at this from far too realistic a point of
view. You aren't looking at this as the Foundation is a tool, like a
speech or a fundraiser, in order to provide
wealthy
worthy
individuals/groups/corporations/nations a means to expedite access to
the government official, in this case Clinton. You think of it as a
false charity. But for the greasing the wheels is normal operating
procedure, what this was was a gift to open more avenues for the
wheels to be greased. It's up to you…or me…or even the people of Flint
among others to use that opportunity.
Breezy is right. It does lead me to ask if this were not the
Clinton War With Russia
but was the
Bush War With Iraq
or the
Rubio War With Syria
or…would this still be just
be the way things work? I do not think so.
Don't get me wrong I have great admiration for Atrios (he is right on
the money regarding Social Security and self-driving cars), but the
double standard where both Obama and Clinton are concerned is strong at
Eschaton, and I'm sorry to say with him as well.
Accepting this as the way things work is just accepting that
endless and new wars
is the norm and there is nothing to be done
about it. So unless you are willing to shut up about supposed
endless new wars
of all elected officials and political
candidates because this is the way it is done, you need to get the f*ck
over the idea that this is NORMAL and ACCEPTABLE.
And I don't see that happening over there, or at Daily Kos, or… once
the subject is out is out of the tribe.
Excellent interview. I've bookmarked Ortel's website and am looking
forward to his forthcoming writings. I was not aware of the differences
between laws regulating charities versus other forms of organizations, so
the interview as a starting point was very useful for me.
Agreeing with the 50 former Republican security officials who have called Trump "dangerous," Wolfowitz
ultimately admitted that he has no choice but to vote for Clinton.
"I wish there were somebody I could be comfortable voting for," he continued. "I might have to
vote for Hillary Clinton, even though I have big reservations about her."
Wolfowitz served as deputy secretary leading up to and during the Iraq war, a regime Trump has
been highly critical of since it began. Clinton, on the other hand. voted for the war, a point that
has been widely criticized by her opponents
Hillary Clinton's pay-for-play scandal is threatening to derail her campaign.
Public outrage follows revelations that the Foundation took foreign cash during
Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State, that Clinton aide Huma Abedin was
helping Foundation donors get favors and access from the State Department, and
that Clinton aide Cheryl Mills was doing assignments for the Clinton Foundation
while on the State Department payroll.
In a letter Monday to Foundation president Donna Shalala, Priebus demands
transparency.
"I am writing to you to call on the Clinton Foundation and all of the entities
under its umbrella to release all correspondence its officials had with the State
Department during Hillary Clinton's tenure as secretary of state," Priebus added.
As I am sure you are well aware, a spate of recent news reports involving
the Clinton Foundation's relationship with the Clinton State Department has
renewed serious concerns about conflicts of interest and whether donors to the
foundation benefitted from official acts under then-Secretary Clinton.
"It isn't just "suspicious." It's influence peddling, which is corrupt
by definition. And there's a whole infrastructure, institutional and technical, to support it." Lambert Strether of
Corrente.
Notable quotes:
"... here you have Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton having this Clinton Foundation, with billions of dollars pouring into it from some of the world's worst tyrannies ..."
"... Bill and Hillary Clinton are being personally enriched by those same people, doing speeches, for many hundreds of thousands of dollars, in front of them, at the same time that she's running the State Department, getting ready to run for president, and soon will be running the executive branch. ..."
"... the problem here is that the Clintons have essentially become the pioneers of eliminating all of these lines, of amassing massive wealth from around the world, and using that to boost their own political power, and then using that political power to boost the interests of the people who are enriching them in all kinds of ways. ..."
[W]hat Donna Brazile said in that video that you played is nothing short of laughable. It's not
questioned when Republicans do favors for their donors? Of course it is. In fact, it's been a core,
central critique of the Democratic Party, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, for years, that
Republicans are corrupt because they serve the interest of their big donors. One of the primary positions
of the Democratic Party is that the Citizens United decision of the Supreme Court has corrupted politics
because it allows huge money to flow into the political process in a way that ensures, or at least
creates the appearance, that people are doing favors for donors.
And so, here you have Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton having this Clinton Foundation, with billions
of dollars pouring into it from some of the world's worst tyrannies, like Saudi Arabia and the United
Arab Emirates and Qatar and other Gulf states, other people who have all kinds of vested interests
in the policies of the United States government. And at the same time, in many cases, both Bill and
Hillary Clinton are being personally enriched by those same people, doing speeches, for many hundreds
of thousands of dollars, in front of them, at the same time that she's running the State Department,
getting ready to run for president, and soon will be running the executive branch. …
And so, the problem here is that the Clintons have essentially become the pioneers of eliminating
all of these lines, of amassing massive wealth from around the world, and using that to boost their
own political power, and then using that political power to boost the interests of the people who
are enriching them in all kinds of ways. And of course questions need to be asked, and suspicions
are necessarily raised, because this kind of behavior is inherently suspicious. And it needs a lot
of media scrutiny and a lot of attention, and I'm glad it's getting that.
"... We, as black people, have to reexamine the relationship. We're being pimped like prostitutes
and they're the big pimps pimping us politically… promising us everything and we get nothing in return.
We gotta step back now as black people and we gotta look at all the parties and vote our best interests.
..."
"... Barack Obama, our president, served two terms… the first black president ever… but did our
condition get better? Did financially, politically, academically with education in our community… did
things get better? Are our young people working more? ..."
"... If having the Black working community start totally hammering the Dems becomes "cool" the Dem's
are screwed for a long time. ..."
"... Obama trashed all of America, blacks and whites, while transferring millions of jobs overseas
to Bangladesh, China, Mexico, etc. ..."
... following interview with New Black Panther Quanell X requires no further commentary – he breaks
it down quite succinctly:
Let me say this to the brothers and sisters who listened and watched that speech… We may not
like the vessel [Donald Trump] that said what he said, but I ask us to truly examine what he said.
Because it is a fact that for 54 years we have been voting for the Democratic Party like no
other race in America. And they have not given us the same loyalty and love that we have given
them. We, as black people, have to reexamine the relationship. We're being pimped like prostitutes
and they're the big pimps pimping us politically… promising us everything and we get nothing in
return. We gotta step back now as black people and we gotta look at all the parties and vote our
best interests.
...
I want to say and encourage the brothers and sisters… Barack Obama, our president, served
two terms… the first black president ever… but did our condition get better? Did financially,
politically, academically with education in our community… did things get better? Are our young
people working more?
I've said that repeatedly. The question for hillary isn't what does the survey show, but how many
will actually be motivated enough to go vote. They may not show up and pull the lever for trump
this go round, but they may be curious enough to see what happens to just stay home and let things
work themselves out to see what the result will be
"... On numerous occasions we have recognized Congress' legitimate interest in preventing the money that is spent on elections from exerting an "'undue influence on an officeholder's judgment"' and from creating "4he appearance of such influence,"' beyond the sphere of quid pro quo relationships. I ..."
"... Corruption can take many forms. Bribery may be the paradigm case. But the difference between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind. And selling access is not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one's behalf. ..."
"... Corruption operates along a spectrum, and the majority's apparent belief that quid pro quo arrangements can be neatly demarcated from other improper influences docs not accord with the theory or reality of politics. ..."
On numerous occasions we have recognized Congress' legitimate interest in preventing the money that
is spent on elections from exerting an "'undue influence on an officeholder's judgment"' and from
creating "4he appearance of such influence,"' beyond the sphere of quid pro quo relationships. Id.,
at 150; see also. e.g., id., at 143-144. 152-154; Colorado II, 533 U. S.. at 441; Shrink Missouri.
528 U. S., at 389.
Corruption can take many forms. Bribery may be the paradigm case. But the difference
between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind. And selling access is
not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one's behalf.
Corruption operates along a spectrum, and the majority's apparent belief that quid pro quo arrangements
can be neatly demarcated from other improper influences docs not accord with the theory or reality
of politics.
It certainly does not accord with the record Congress developed in passing BCRA. a record
that stands as a remarkable testament to the energy and ingenuity with which corporations, unions,
lobbyists, and politicians may go about scratching each other's backs - and which amply supported
Congress' determination to target a limited set of especially destructive
"... Hillary will win, and it will be more than business as usual. Influence peddling and pay to play will accelerate. The neocon money will flow into the system and foreign policy will be a debacle. We may very well be approaching WWIII. ..."
"... Under a Clinton II presidency, long-term international turmoil and confrontation lie ahead no matter what their family foundation may attempt to achieve. ..."
If Clinton gets elected, she will be under investigation prior to the inauguration. The Republicans
will use their hold on the house to start several investigations on November 9.
However, the GOP (continuing a party tradition) will cruise right past several true issues,
and lock onto the one thing they believe will hold the most shock value. This will turn out to
not be provable, or not be all that interesting to anyone but die-hard GOP supporters, and she
will exit the investigations as powerful, if not more so, than before.
There are plenty of reasons to investigate the Clinton machine, but if you expect this clown
show to do it competently I have a bridge to sell you…
No this one is backfiring already as most of the donors were people HRC would have met anyway,
including Nobel Peace winners! and the 89 out of 154 people has not been released. And the article
does not note any mischief but that there were meetings!
Or that there are a ton of other government officials have spouses that run well run charities.
Matt Yglesias has de-bunked this one a lot and my guess disappears relatively quickly.
This is as worthless evidence as Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11.
Hillary will win, and it will be more than business as usual. Influence peddling and pay to
play will accelerate. The neocon money will flow into the system and foreign policy will be a
debacle. We may very well be approaching WWIII.
The economy will continue to hollow out due to central bank hubris, government stimulus, and
non-free trade deals. Income inequality will get worse. The middle class will continue to shrink.
After leaving office, Bill Clinton could have devoted his energies to Habitat for Humanity (like
Jimmy Carter) or thrown his energies into helping an existing organisation (like the Bill & Melinda
Gates foundation). He didn't, because he wanted the "fruits" of his philanthropic work to accrue
to him and his family. And so it is not unreasonable to ask exactly what those fruits are, especially
those gained while Hillary Clinton was serving as the nation's chief diplomat.
Under a Clinton II presidency, long-term international turmoil and confrontation lie ahead
no matter what their family foundation may attempt to achieve.
The two sources of her problems are beginning to merge much as two weather depressions might
collide and become a hurricane. One is the already well-trodden matter of her use of a private
email server while Secretary of State. The other relates to the Clinton Foundation and whether
donors received preferential access to her while she served in that post.
Two bombs dropped on the Clinton campaign at once on Monday. First it emerged that the FBI has
collected and delivered to the State Department almost 15,000 new emails not previously seen and
a federal judge ordered the department to accelerate their release to the public. Meanwhile, a
conservative group called Judicial Watch released details of still more emails detailing exactly
how donors to the foundation set about trying to get Ms Clinton's attention.
... ... ...
Questions have been swirling for weeks about whether or not Ms Clinton was drawn into giving
special favours to some of her husband's pals in return for their giving generously to the
charitable foundation he set up after leaving the presidency – a pay and play arrangement. On
Monday, Judicial Watch unveiled details that showed exactly how that might have happened thanks
to emails it had accessed through the courts sent to and from Huma Abedin, a close Clinton
confidante and her deputy chief of staff during her four years at the State Department.
... ... ...
In attempt to forestall the trouble that is already upon his wife, Mr Clinton announced this
week that should she win the presidency, several things will change at his Foundation. First and
foremost it would cease to take money from any foreign governments and donors and only from
US-based charities and individuals. He would also step down from the foundation entirely and
cease personally to raise funds for it.
...many voters are simply afraid that with Ms Clinton in the White House the whole tawdry
cycle will just start all over again and nothing else with get done in Washington
It was only one in a long parade of late-August fundraisers Ms Clinton has attended, but it
stands out for the generosity required of those who attended. The price of admission for the
20-odd guests who obliged was a stunning $200,000. That was double the $100,000 charged for
guests who mingled recently with Ms Clinton in Omaha at the home of Susan Buffett, the daughter
of Warren Buffett, the veteran investment oracle.
... ... ...
As of Monday, she and Mr Kaine had harvested no less than $32 million for the Hillary Victory
Fund, which will be distributed to her campaign, the Democratic National Committee and state
parties. A lot of was raised in last week as Ms Clinton hopscotched from party to party on
Martha's Vineyard and Cape Code in Massachusetts.
On August 5th, Michael Morell, a former acting Director of the CIA, pilloried GOP presidential
candidate Donald Trump, concluding that he was an "unwitting agent of Russia." Morell, who entitled
his New York Times op-ed "I Ran the CIA and now I'm endorsing Hillary Clinton," described the
process whereby Trump had been so corrupted. According to Morell, Putin, it seems, as a wily ex-career
intelligence officer, is "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit
them. That is exactly what he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities
In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting
agent of the Russian Federation."
So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United
States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington
but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because
there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded
and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were,
respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many
more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey,
Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few
in the Congress. All are
major recipients
of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter
what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.
And then there are the Clintons.
One only has to go back to Bill's
one-sided pro-Israeli
diplomacy
at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the
widely condemned January 2001
last minute pardon
of
Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize
that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The
only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described
as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have
been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests
since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely
cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering
to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise
to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.
=====
So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United
States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington
but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because
there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded
and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were,
respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many
more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey,
Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few
in the Congress. All are
major recipients
of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter
what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.
And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's
one-sided pro-Israeli
diplomacy
at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the
widely condemned January 2001
last minute pardon
of
Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize
that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved. The
only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be described
as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they have
been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests
since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely
cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering
to Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise
to political prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.
Neocons will support Hillary breaking the ranks of Republican Party, as she is one of them:
"The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned. "The party cannot be saved, but
the country still can be."
Notable quotes:
"... Donald Trump calls the Iraq War a lie-fueled fiasco, admires Vladimir Putin and says he would be a "neutral" arbiter between Israel and the Palestinians. When it comes to America's global role he asks, "Why are we always at the forefront of everything?" ..."
"... Even more than his economic positions, Trump's foreign policy views challenge GOP orthodoxy in fundamental ways. But while parts of the party establishment are resigning themselves or even backing Trump's runaway train, one group is bitterly digging in against him: the hawkish foreign policy elites known as neoconservatives. ..."
"... In interviews with POLITICO, leading neocons - people who promoted the Iraq War, detest Putin and consider Israel's security non-negotiable - said Trump would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy and vowed never to support him. So deep is their revulsion that several even say they could vote for Hillary Clinton over Trump in November. ..."
"... "Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin," said Eliot Cohen, a former top State Department official under George W. Bush and a strategic theorist who argues for a muscular U.S. role abroad. Trump's election would be "an unmitigated disaster for American foreign policy," Cohen said, adding that "he has already damaged it considerably." ..."
"... In a March 1 interview with Vox, Max Boot, a military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations who backed the Iraq War and often advocates a hawkish foreign policy, said that he, too, would vote for Clinton over Trump. "I'm literally losing sleep over Donald Trump," he said. "She would be vastly preferable to Trump." ..."
"... The letter was signed by dozens of Republican foreign policy experts, including Boot; Peter Feaver, a former senior national security aide in George W. Bush's White House; Robert Zoellick, a former deputy to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; and Dov Zakheim, a former Bush Pentagon official; and Kori Schake, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a former Bush State Department official. ..."
"... Kristol and Abrams have advised Florida senator Marco Rubio, the preferred choice of several neoconservatives, who admire his call for "moral clarity" in foreign policy and strong emphasis on human rights and democracy. ..."
"... Alarm brewing for months in GOP foreign policy circles burst into public view last week, when Robert Kagan, a key backer of the Iraq War and American global might, wrote in the Washington Post that a Trump nomination would force him to cross party lines. ..."
"... "The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned. "The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be." ..."
Donald Trump calls the Iraq War a lie-fueled fiasco, admires Vladimir Putin and says he would
be a "neutral" arbiter between Israel and the Palestinians. When it comes to America's global role
he asks, "Why are we always at the forefront of everything?"
Even more than his economic
positions, Trump's foreign policy views challenge GOP orthodoxy in fundamental ways. But while parts
of the party establishment are resigning themselves or even backing Trump's runaway train, one group
is bitterly digging in against him: the hawkish foreign policy elites known as neoconservatives.
In interviews with POLITICO, leading neocons - people who promoted the Iraq War, detest Putin
and consider Israel's security non-negotiable - said Trump would be a disaster for U.S. foreign policy
and vowed never to support him. So deep is their revulsion that several even say they could vote
for Hillary Clinton over Trump in November.
"Hillary is the lesser evil, by a large margin," said Eliot Cohen, a former top State Department
official under George W. Bush and a strategic theorist who argues for a muscular U.S. role abroad.
Trump's election would be "an unmitigated disaster for American foreign policy," Cohen said, adding
that "he has already damaged it considerably."
Cohen, an Iraq war backer who is often called a neoconservative but said he does not identify
himself that way, said he would "strongly prefer a third party candidate" to Trump, but added: "Probably
if absolutely no alternative: Hillary."
In a March 1
interview with Vox, Max Boot, a military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations who backed
the Iraq War and often advocates a hawkish foreign policy, said that he, too, would vote for Clinton
over Trump. "I'm literally losing sleep over Donald Trump," he said. "She would be vastly preferable
to Trump."
Cohen helped to organize an open letter signed by several dozen GOP foreign policy insiders -
many of whom are not considered neocons - that
was published Wednesday night by the military blog War on the Rocks. "[W]e are unable to support
a Party ticket with Mr. Trump at its head," the letter declared. It cited everything from Trump's
"admiration for foreign dictators" to his "inexcusable" support for "the expansive use of torture."
The letter was signed by dozens of Republican foreign policy experts, including Boot; Peter
Feaver, a former senior national security aide in George W. Bush's White House; Robert Zoellick,
a former deputy to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice; and Dov Zakheim, a former Bush Pentagon official;
and Kori Schake, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a former Bush State Department
official.
Several other neocons said they find themselves in an impossible position, constitutionally incapable
of voting for Clinton but repelled by a Republican whose foreign policy views they consider somewhere
between nonexistent and dangerous - and disconnected from their views about American power and values
abroad.
"1972 was the first time I was old enough to vote for president, and I did not vote. Couldn't
vote for McGovern for foreign policy reasons, nor for Nixon because of Watergate," said Elliott Abrams,
a former national security council aide to George W. Bush who specializes in democracy and the Middle
East. "I may be in the same boat in 2016, unable to vote for Trump or Clinton."
Weekly Standard Editor Bill Kristol, something of a dean of Washington neoconservatives,
said he would seek out a third option before choosing between Trump and Clinton.
"If it's Trump-Clinton, I'd work with others to recruit a strong conservative third party candidate,
and do my best to help him win (which by the way would be more possible than people think, especially
when people - finally - realize Trump shouldn't be president and Hillary is indicted)," Kristol wrote
in an email.
Kristol and Abrams have advised Florida senator Marco Rubio, the preferred choice of several
neoconservatives, who admire his call for "moral clarity" in foreign policy and strong emphasis on
human rights and democracy.
Alarm brewing for months in GOP foreign policy circles burst into public view last week, when
Robert Kagan, a key backer of the Iraq War and American global might,
wrote in the Washington Post that a Trump nomination would force him to cross party lines.
"The only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton," Kagan warned. "The party cannot be
saved, but the country still can be."
In an interview, Kagan said his opposition to Trump "has nothing to do with foreign policy."
Is that Huma in a blue dress under the Resolute desk?
Pairadimes d Here2Go •Aug 27, 2016 9:14 PM
Ramirez is a genius.
zeronetwork d debtor of last resort •Aug 27, 2016 8:15 PM
The thought process Donald has started is not going to fade very soon. Still
few weeks before election. I am sure Donald got some more cards in his sleeve.
are we there yet •Aug 27, 2016 8:36 PM
I have a solution for Hillary's in-continuance and mobility declining problems.
The chair behind the presidents desk should be a wheelchair with a bedpan.
Otherwise the term 'campaign trail' will take on a whole new meaning.
"... But the party's latest generation of "New Democrats" - self-described "moderates" who are funded by Wall Street and are aggressively trying to steer the party to the right - have noticed this trend and are now fighting back. Third Way, a "centrist" think tank that serves as the hub for contemporary New Democrats, has recently published a sizable policy paper, " Ready for the New Economy ," urging the Democratic Party to avoid focusing on economic inequality. Former Obama chief of staff Bill Daley, a Third Way trustee, recently argued that Sanders' influence on the primary "is a recipe for disaster" for Democrats. ..."
"... The DLC's goal was to advance "a message that was less tilted toward minorities and welfare, less radical on social issues like abortion and gays, more pro-defense, and more conservative on economic issues," wrote Robert Dreyfuss in a 2001 article in The American Prospect . "The DLC thundered against the 'liberal fundamentalism' of the party's base - unionists, blacks, feminists, Greens, and cause groups generally." ..."
"... Within the DLC, populism was not merely out of favor; it was militantly opposed. The organization had virtually no grassroots supporters; it was funded almost entirely by corporate donors. Its executive council, Dreyfuss reported , was made up of companies that donated at least $25,000 and included Enron and Koch Industries. A list of its known donors includes scores of the United States' most powerful corporations, all of whom benefit from a Democratic Party that embraces big business and is less reliant on labor unions and the grassroots for support. ..."
"... The height of the DLC's triumph may well have been in the 1990s, when it claimed President Bill Clinton as its most prominent advocate, celebrating his disastrous welfare cuts (which were supported by Hillary Clinton as the first lady), his support for the North American Free Trade Agreement and his speech declaring that the "era of big government is over." These initiatives had the DLC's footprint all over them. ..."
"... The DLC's prescribed Third Way also found a home on Downing Street in England. Tony Blair, a major Clinton ally, was a staunch advocate of the DLC, adopted its strategies and lent his name to its website. According to the book Clinton and Blair: The Political Economy of the Third Way , he said in 1998 that it "is a third way because it moves decisively beyond an Old Left preoccupied by state control, high taxation and producer interests." ..."
"... When Bill Clinton left the White House, Hillary Clinton entered the Senate. She quickly became a major player for the DLC, serving as a prominent member of the New Democratic Caucus in the Senate, speaking at conferences on multiple occasions and serving as chair of a key initiative for the 2006 and 2008 elections. ..."
"... She also adopted the DLC's hawkish military stance. The DLC was feverishly in favor of Bush's "war on terror" and his invasion of Iraq. Will Marshall, one of the group's founders, was a signatory of many of the now infamous documents from the Project for the New American Century, which urged the United States to radically increase its use of force in Iraq and beyond. ..."
"... The DLC led efforts to take down Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, citing his opposition to the war in Iraq as an example of his weakness. Two years later, the organization played a similar role against Ned Lamont's antiwar challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman, which the DLC decried as "The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism." ..."
"... However, the DLC's influence eventually waned . A formal affiliation with the organization became something of a deal breaker for some progressive voters. When Barack Obama first ran for the Senate in 2004, he had no affiliation with the DLC. So, when they wrongly included him in their directory of New Democrats, he asked the DLC to remove his name. In explaining this, he also publicly shunned the organization in an interview with Black Commentator. "You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in the DLC," he wrote when pressed by the magazine . "That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC." ..."
"... When the DLC closed, it records were acquired by the Clinton Foundation, which DLC founder Al From called an "appropriate and fitting repository." To this day, the Clinton Foundation continues to promote the work of the DLC's founding members. In September 2015, the foundation hosted an event to promote From's book The New Democrats and the Return to Power ..."
"... Citizens United ..."
"... So while the DLC may be a dirty word among many progressives, this didn't stop Obama from appointing New Democrats to key posts in his White House. The same Bill Daley who works for a hedge fund and is on the board of trustees for Third Way was also President Obama's White House chief of staff . And, as was noted above, he is now actively trying to influence the Democratic Party's direction in the 2016 election. ..."
"... The remaining champions of the DLC agenda have been increasingly active in trying to push back against populism. On October 28, 2015, Third Way published an ambitious paper, "Ready for the New Economy," that aims to do just that. The paper falsely argues that "the narrative of fairness and inequality has, to put it mildly, failed to excite voters," and says "these trends should compel the party to rigorously question the electoral value of today's populist agenda." ..."
"... When Clinton announced her tax plan, Dow Jones quoted Jim Kessler, a Third Way staffer, praising the plan. On social media , Third Way staffers are routinely cheering on Clinton and attacking Sanders and O'Malley . ..."
"... and where she will be ..."
"... Consider the case of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and presidential candidate, who has endorsed Hillary Clinton for president . Dean's reputation as a fiery progressive has always been wildly overstated , but there was a rich irony about Dean's endorsement. His centrist record aside, Dean was once the face of the party's progressive base. During his campaign for the Democratic nomination in 2003 and 2004, Dean used his opposition to the war in Iraq to garner progressive support. He attracted a large group of partisan liberal bloggers, who coined the term "Netroots" in support of his candidacy . For a time, Dean was leading in the polls during the primary. ..."
"... Remember: The Dean campaign was taken down by the DLC, who attacked him for running a campaign from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party, "defined principally by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home." The rift between the DLC and Dean's supporters was so intense that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas described it as a "civil war" between Democrats. Of course, when Dean announced his support for Clinton, he made no mention of the fact that she was the leader of the same group that ambushed his candidacy precisely because it appealed to the party's left-leaning base. ..."
"... The tendency of some progressives to downplay, ignore or deflect populist critiques of Clinton's record was observed by Doug Henwood in his 2014 Harper's piece "Stop Hillary." ..."
"... In the article, he describes the "widespread liberal fantasy of [Clinton] as a progressive paragon" as misguided. "In fact, a close look at her life and career is perhaps the best antidote to all these great expectations," Henwood writes. "The historical record, such as it is, may also be the only antidote, since most progressives are unwilling to discuss Hillary in anything but the most general, flattering terms." ..."
A discussion about how the Democrats could be compromised by their relationship with the
financial institutions that fund their campaigns was unthinkable in past presidential debates.
Such a discussion falls way outside the narrow parameters of debate that have dominated political
discourse in the mainstream media for decades. But at the
Democratic
debate in Iowa this November, this issue was front and center: Hillary Clinton was forced to
defend her financial relationship with Wall Street
numerous times on network television.
Within the DLC, populism was not merely out of favor; it was militantly opposed.
Clinton's response to populist attacks on her Wall Street connections has largely been to adopt
similar language and policy positions as her primary opponent, Bernie Sanders. In many ways she is
trying to minimize the differences between her and Sanders, rather than emphasize them. "The differences
among us," she said of her opponents at the
Iowa debate , "pale in comparison to what's happening on the Republican [side]."
But the party's latest generation of
"New Democrats" - self-described
"moderates" who
are funded by Wall Street and are aggressively trying to steer the party to the right - have
noticed this trend and are now fighting back. Third Way, a "centrist" think tank that serves as the
hub for contemporary New Democrats, has recently published a sizable policy paper, "
Ready for the
New Economy ," urging the Democratic Party to avoid focusing on economic inequality. Former Obama
chief of staff Bill Daley, a Third Way trustee, recently
argued that Sanders' influence on the primary "is a recipe for disaster" for Democrats.
This "ideological gulf" inside the party, as The Washington Post's
Ruth Marcus describes it , is not a new phenomenon. Before there was Third Way, there was the
Democratic Leadership Council (DLC). And before there was Bill Daley, there was Hillary Clinton -
a key member of the
DLC's leadership team during her entire tenure in the US Senate (2000-2008). As Clinton seeks
progressive support, it is important to consider her role in the influential movement to, as
The American Prospect describes
it , "reinvent the [Democratic] party as one pledged to fiscal restraint, less government, and
a pro-business, pro-free market outlook." This fairly recent history is an important part of Clinton's
record, and she owes it to primary voters to answer for it.
But before all of these events shaped public opinion, the party was largely guided by the ideas
of the Democratic Leadership Council.
Founded by Southern Democrats in 1985 , the group sought to transform the party by pushing it
to embrace more conservative positions and win support from big business.
Clinton adopted the DLC strategy in the way she governed.
The DLC's goal was to advance "a message that was less tilted toward minorities and welfare, less
radical on social issues like abortion and gays, more pro-defense, and more conservative on economic
issues," wrote Robert Dreyfuss in a 2001
article in The American Prospect
. "The DLC thundered against the 'liberal fundamentalism' of the party's base - unionists, blacks,
feminists, Greens, and cause groups generally."
Within the DLC, populism was not merely out of favor; it was militantly opposed. The organization
had virtually no grassroots supporters; it was funded almost entirely by corporate donors. Its executive
council, Dreyfuss reported
, was made up of companies that donated at least $25,000 and included Enron and Koch Industries.
A list of its known donors includes scores of the United States' most powerful corporations, all
of whom benefit from a Democratic Party that embraces big business and is less reliant on labor unions
and the grassroots for support.
The organization's influence was significant, especially in the 1990s. The New York Times
reported
that during that era "the Democratic Leadership Council was a maker of presidents." Its influence
continued into the post-Clinton years. Al Gore, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry, John Edwards, Dick Gephardt
and countless others all
lent their names in support of the organization. The DLC and its think tank, the
Progressive Policy Institute (PPI),
were well financed and published a seemingly endless barrage of
policy papers , op-eds
and declarations
in their numerous publications.
"It is almost hard to find anyone who wasn't involved with [the DLC]" said Mark Schmitt, a staffer
for the nonpartisan New America Foundation think tank, in an interview with Truthout. "This was before
there were a lot of organizations, and the DLC provided a way for politicians to get involved and
to be in the same room with important people."
The DLC's prescribed Third Way also
found a home on Downing
Street in England. Tony Blair, a major Clinton ally, was a staunch advocate of the DLC,
adopted its strategies and lent
his name to its website. According to the book Clinton and Blair: The Political Economy of the
Third Way ,
he said in 1998 that it "is a third way because it moves decisively beyond an Old Left preoccupied
by state control, high taxation and producer interests."
As recently as 2014, Blair has continued to urge the UK's Labour Party to remain committed to
these ideals. "Former UK prime minister Tony Blair has urged Labour leader Ed Miliband to stick to
the political centre ground, warning that the public has not 'fallen back in love with the state'
despite the global financial crisis,"
according to the Financial Times , which noted that the left-wing base of his party has rejected
his centrist leanings. "His decision as prime minister to join the US in its invasion of Iraq - as
well as his free-market leanings - have made him a
hate figure among the most leftwing Labour activists."
Hillary Clinton as a New Democrat
When Bill Clinton left the White House, Hillary Clinton entered the Senate. She quickly became
a major player for the DLC, serving as a
prominent member of
the New Democratic Caucus in the Senate, speaking at
conferences
on multiple occasions
and serving as
chair of a key initiative for the 2006 and 2008 elections.
New Democrats were never really about popular support; they were about bringing together big
business and the Democrats.
More importantly, Clinton adopted the DLC strategy in the way she governed. She tried to portray
herself as a crusader for family values when she
introduced legislation to ban violent video games and
flag burning in 2005.
She also
adopted the DLC's hawkish military stance. The DLC was feverishly in favor of Bush's "war on
terror" and his invasion of Iraq. Will Marshall, one of the group's founders, was a signatory of
many of the now infamous
documents from the Project for the New American Century, which urged the United States to radically
increase its use of force in Iraq and beyond.
The DLC led efforts to take down Howard Dean's 2004 presidential campaign, citing his opposition
to the war in Iraq as an example of his weakness. Two years later, the organization played a
similar role against
Ned Lamont's antiwar challenge to Sen. Joe Lieberman, which the DLC decried as
"The Return of Liberal Fundamentalism."
However, the DLC's influence eventually
waned
. A formal affiliation with the organization became something of a deal breaker for some progressive
voters. When Barack Obama first ran for the Senate in 2004, he had no affiliation with the DLC. So,
when they wrongly included him in their directory of New Democrats, he asked the DLC to remove his
name. In explaining this, he also publicly shunned the organization in an interview with Black Commentator.
"You are undoubtedly correct that these positions make me an unlikely candidate for membership in
the DLC," he wrote when
pressed by the magazine
. "That is why I am not currently, nor have I ever been, a member of the DLC."
The DLC's decline continued: A growing sense of discontent among progressives, Clinton's loss
in 2008 and the economic crisis that followed turned the DLC into something of a political liability.
And in 2011, the Democratic Leadership Council
shuttered
its doors .
When the DLC closed, it records were
acquired by the Clinton Foundation, which DLC founder Al From called an "appropriate and fitting
repository." To this day, the Clinton Foundation continues to promote the work of the DLC's founding
members. In September 2015, the foundation
hosted an event to promote From's book The New Democrats and the Return to Power . Amazingly,
O'Malley provided a
favorable
blurb for the book, praising it as a "reminder of the core principles that still drive Democratic
success today."
The 2016 Election and New Democrats
The DLC's demise was seen as a victory by many progressives, and the populist tone of the 2016
primary is being celebrated as a sign of rising progressivism as well. But it is probably too soon
to declare that the "battle for the soul of the Democratic Party is coming to an end," as Adam Green,
cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, recently
told the Guardian .
Consider the way Marshall spun the closing of the DLC. "With President Obama consciously reconstructing
a winning coalition by reconnecting with the progressive center, the pragmatic ideas of PPI and other
organizations are more vital than ever," he said in an
interview with Politico .
His reference to "PPI and other organizations" refers to the still-existing Progressive Policy
Institute and Third Way. These institutions have the same
Wall Street support and continue to push the same agenda that their predecessor did.
New Democrats' guns are aimed firmly at Sanders, and they are quick to defend Clinton.
Many of these "centrist" ideas lack popular support these days. But New Democrats were never really
about popular support; they were about bringing together big business and the Democrats. The group's
board of trustees is almost
entirely made up of Wall Street executives. Further, in the aftermath of the 2010 Citizens
United Supreme Court decision, these same moneyed interests
have more influence over the political process than ever before.
"These organizations now are basically just corporate lobbyists today," Schmitt said.
So while the DLC may be a dirty word among many progressives, this didn't stop Obama from appointing
New Democrats to key posts in his White House. The same Bill Daley who
works for a hedge fund and is on the
board of trustees for Third Way
was also President Obama's
White House chief of
staff . And, as was noted above, he is now actively trying to influence the Democratic Party's
direction in the 2016 election.
The remaining champions of the DLC agenda have been increasingly active in trying to push back
against populism. On October 28, 2015, Third Way published an ambitious paper,
"Ready for the
New Economy," that aims to do just that. The paper
falsely
argues that "the narrative of fairness and inequality has, to put it mildly, failed to excite
voters," and says "these trends should compel the party to rigorously question the electoral value
of today's populist agenda."
The report attacks Sanders' proposals for expanding Social Security and implementing a single-payer
health-care system directly, making
faulty
claims about both proposals. It also advises Democrats to avoid the "singular focus on income
inequality" because its "actual impact on the middle class may be small."
"Third Way and its allies are gravely misreading the economic and political moment," said Richard
Eskow, a writer for Campaign for America's Future, in a
rebuttal
to the paper. "If their influence continues to wane, perhaps one day Americans can stop paying
the price for their ill-conceived, corporation- and billionaire-friendly agenda."
Eskow is right to use the word "if" instead of "when." Progressives ignore these efforts at their
own peril. Despite their archaic and flawed ideas, Third Way's reports and speakers still get undue
attention in the mainstream media. For instance, The Washington Post
devoted 913 words to Third Way's new paper, describing it as part of a "big economic fight in
the Democratic Party." The article provided a platform for Third Way's president Jonathan Cowan to
attack Sanders. "We propose that Democrats be Democrats, not socialists," he said. This tone is the
status quo for New Democrats in the media. Their guns are aimed firmly at Sanders, and they are quick
to defend Clinton.
When Clinton was attacked for working with former Wall Street executives, The Wall Street Journal
quoted PPI president Will Marshall, defending her. "The idea that you have to excommunicate anybody
who ever worked in the financial sector is ridiculous,"
he said .
"The Necessities of the Moment": Will Clinton Run Back to the Right?
Of course, the New Democrats' preference for Clinton shouldn't surprise anyone. She has been an
ally for years. And while they have expressed concern over her leftward tilt, they are confident,
as
the Post reported , that "she'll tack back their way in a general election." For instance,
her recent opposition to the
Trans-Pacific Partnership - which Third Way is
supporting aggressively - has centrists "disappointed" but not worried.
"Everyone knew where she was on that and where she will be , but given the necessities
of the moment and a tough Democratic primary, she felt she needed to go there initially," New Democratic
Coalition chairman Rep. Ron Kind (D-Wisconsin)
told the Guardian (emphasis added).
Politics isn't a sporting event. It is important to be critical, even of candidates for whom
you will likely vote.
If New Democrats aren't worried that Clinton's populist rhetoric is sincere, progressives probably
should be worried that it isn't. As DLC founder Al From
told the Guardian : "Hillary will bend a little bit but not so much that she can't get herself
back on course in the general [election] and when she is governing."
Some, however, are confident that if elected, Clinton will have to spend political capital on
the very populist ideas she is now embracing.
"When you make these kind of promises it will be difficult to just go back on them," said the
New America Foundation's Mark Schmitt. "She will have to work on many of these issues if she is elected."
Adam Green, cofounder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, told Truthout that his group's
emphasis is to make any Democratic candidate responsive to the issues important to what he calls
the
"Warren wing" of the party, which espouses the more populist economic beliefs of Sen. Elizabeth
Warren (D-Massachusetts). Like Warren, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee hasn't endorsed
a candidate in the race as of now.
"It is not about one candidate; it is about trying to make all the candidates address the issues
we care about," Green said, citing debt-free education, expanding Social Security benefits and supporting
Black Lives Matter as key issues.
Liberals, Clinton and Partisan Amnesia
It is understandable why some progressives are hesitant to be critical of Clinton: They fully
expect that soon she will be the only thing standing between them and some candidate from the "Republican
clown car," as Green described the GOP field.
But voting pragmatically in a general election is one thing. Ignoring or apologizing for Clinton's
very recent and troubling record is another. Too many progressives are engaged in a sort of willful
partisan amnesia and are accepting the false narrative that Clinton is "a populist fighter who for
decades has been an advocate for families and children," as some unnamed
Clinton advisers told The New York Times.
Consider the case of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor and presidential candidate, who
has
endorsed Hillary Clinton for president . Dean's reputation as a fiery progressive has always
been
wildly overstated , but there was a rich irony about Dean's endorsement. His centrist record
aside, Dean was once the face of the party's progressive base. During his campaign for the Democratic
nomination in 2003 and 2004, Dean used his opposition to the war in Iraq to garner progressive support.
He attracted a large group of partisan liberal bloggers, who coined the term
"Netroots" in
support of his candidacy . For a time, Dean was
leading in the polls during the primary.
Remember: The Dean campaign was taken down by the DLC, who
attacked him
for running a campaign from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the Democratic Party, "defined principally
by weakness abroad and elitist, interest-group liberalism at home." The rift between the DLC and
Dean's supporters was so intense that Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas
described it as a "civil war" between Democrats. Of course, when Dean announced his support for
Clinton, he made no mention of the fact that she was the leader of the same group that ambushed his
candidacy precisely because it appealed to the party's left-leaning base.
Once the primary is over, the chance to force Clinton to respond to left critiques will likely
not come again soon.
Yet Moulitsas recently
endorsed Clinton in a column for The Hill. Moulitsas was one of the key bloggers who supported
Dean in 2004 and helped create the Netroots in its infancy. His goal, he said often, was
"crashing the gate" of the Democratic establishment. But his uncritical support for Clinton,
the quintessential establishment candidate, has turned much of
his own blog into evidence of how some progressives are dismissing recent history for partisan
reasons. In the last contested Democratic primary, Moulitsas was extremely
critical
of Clinton. Now, he is helping her
do to Sanders what the DLC did to Dean.
Why are the likes of Dean and Moulitsas so quick to embrace Clinton after years of battling with
her and her allies in the so-called "vital center?" Only they know for sure. In the case of Dean,
it may well be because he was never a real populist to begin with. In 2003, Bloomberg did a story
asking Vermonters to talk about Dean's ideology. "Howard is not a liberal. He's a pro-business, Rockefeller
Republican,"
said Garrison Nelson, a political science professor at the University of Vermont. This sentiment
is shared by many Vermonters, on both the
left
and
right .
But for other self-identified progressives who have embraced the establishment candidate, such
as Moulitsas, the answers may be simpler: partisan loyalty and ambition. The fact is the odds of
Clinton winning the nomination are very good. And for the likes of Moulitsas - who now writes columns
for an establishment
DC paper and is a
major fundraiser for Democrats - being on the side of the winner will certainly make him more
friends in DC than supporting the self-identified socialist that opposes her.
Moulitsas argues that Clinton has dismissed "her husband's ideological baggage" and is "aiming
for a truly progressive presidency." He is now a true believer, he claims. It is up to readers to
decide if they find his argument to be credible, especially compared to the conflicting statements
he has made for many years. Many on
his own blog are skeptical.
But, lastly, the main reason many progressives are willing to overlook Clinton's record is simply
fear. They are afraid of a Republican president, and it is hard to blame them. The idea of a President
Trump - or Carson or Cruz - is extremely frightening for many people. This is entirely understandable.
But even if one feels obligated to vote for Clinton in the general election, should she win the nomination,
that does not mean her record ought to be ignored. Politics isn't a sporting event. It is important
to be critical, even of candidates for whom you will likely vote.
The Historical Record: "The Only Antidote"
The tendency of some progressives to downplay, ignore or deflect populist critiques of Clinton's
record was observed by Doug Henwood in his 2014 Harper's piece
"Stop Hillary."
In the article, he describes the "widespread liberal fantasy of [Clinton] as a progressive paragon"
as misguided. "In fact, a close look at her life and career is perhaps the best antidote to all these
great expectations," Henwood writes. "The historical record, such as it is, may also be the only
antidote, since most progressives are unwilling to discuss Hillary in anything but the most general,
flattering terms."
Cleary, Clinton's historical record reveals much to be concerned about, including her long career
as a New Democrat. For the first time in recent memory, however, progressives actually have some
leverage to make her answer for this record.
Clinton has a reasonably competitive opponent who has challenged her on her record of Wall Street
support, her
dismissal of the Glass-Steagall Act and her
vote for war in Iraq . She should also be challenged vigorously on her role with the DLC.
Circumstances have created a unique moment where Clinton has to answer these tough questions.
But it may be a fleeting moment. Once the primary is over, the chance to force Clinton - or any major
establishment politician - to respond to left critiques will likely not come again soon. Copyright,
Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission .
Michael Corcoran
is a journalist based in Boston. He has written for The Boston Globe, The Nation,
The Christian Science Monitor, Extra!, NACLA Report on the Americas and other publications. Follow
him on Twitter: @mcorcoran3 .
"... her way of life has marinated for a long time now in the culture of wealth, influence, and power - and a way of thinking engrained deeply in our political ethos, one in which one's own power in democracy is more important than democracy itself. ..."
...She is, after all, a favorite of the giant banks, the CEOs and hedge funds she now was castigating.
Between 2009 and 2014, Clinton's list of top 20 donors starts out with Citigroup and includes JPMorgan
Chase, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs, whose chief Lloyd Blankfein has
invested in Clinton's son-in-law's boutique hedge
fund. These donors are, as the website Truthout's
William Rivers Pitt notes, "the ones who gamed the
system by buying politicians like her and then proceeded to burn the economy down to dust and ash
while making a financial killing in the process."
They're also among the deep-pocket outfits that paid
for speeches and appearances by Hillary or Bill Clinton to the tune of more than $125 million
since they left the White House in 2001. It could hardly escape some in that crowd on Roosevelt Island,
catching a glimpse of the towers of power and might across the river: Can we really expect someone
so deeply tethered to the financial and business class – who moves so often and so easily among its
swells – to fight hard to check their predatory appetites, dismantle their control of Congress, and
stand up for the working people who are their prey?
Consider the two Canadian banks with financial
ties to the Keystone XL pipeline that fully or partially paid for eight speeches by Hillary Clinton.
Or her $3.2 million in lecture fees from the tech
sector. Or the
more than $2.5 million in paid speeches for companies and groups lobbying for fast-track trade.
According to TIME magazine and the Center for
Responsive Politics, in 2014, "Almost half of the money from Hillary Clinton's speaking engagements
came from corporations and advocacy groups that were lobbying Congress at the same time… In all,
the corporations and trade groups that Clinton spoke to in 2014 spent $72.5 million lobbying Congress
that same year."
Then look at
David Sirota's recent reporting for the International Business Times, especially the
revelation that while Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, her department "approved $165 billion
worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation,
according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data… nearly double
the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department
during the same period of President George W. Bush's second term."
Those nations include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Algeria, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Qatar,
each of which "gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the
department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil
liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents."
Further, American defense contractors like Boeing and Lockheed who sold those arms and their delivery
systems also shelled out heavily to the $2 billion Clinton
Foundation and the Clinton family. According to Sirota, "In all, governments and corporations
involved in the arms deals approved by Clinton's State Department have delivered between $54 million
and $141 million to the Clinton Foundation as well as hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments
to the Clinton family, according to foundation and State Department records. The Clinton Foundation
publishes only a rough range of individual contributors' donations, making a more precise accounting
impossible."
The Washington Postreports that among the approximately 200,000 contributors there have
also been donations from many other countries and corporations, overseas and domestic business leaders,
the odious Blackwater Training Center, and even Rupert Murdoch of celebrity phone hacking fame.
Meredith McGehee, policy director of the nonpartisan Campaign Legal Center, told David Sirota:
"The word was out to these groups that one of the best ways to gain access and influence with the
Clintons was to give to this foundation."
We pause here to note: All of these donations were apparently legal, and as others have written,
at least we know who was doling out the cash, in contrast to those anonymous sources secretly channeling
millions in "dark money" to the chosen candidates of the super rich.
... ... ..
We see "exactly Washington's problem" in how, during the 1990s, Bill Clinton became the willing
agent of Wall Street's push to deregulate, a collaboration that enriched the bankers but eventually
cost millions of Americans their homes, jobs, and pensions.
Thanks to documents that came to light last year
(one even has a handwritten note attached that reads: "Please eat this paper after you have read
this."), we understand more clearly how a small coterie of insiders maneuvered to get President Clinton
to support repeal of the New Deal-era Glass-Steagall Act that had long protected depositors from
being victimized by bank speculators gambling with their savings. Repeal led to a wave of Wall Street
mergers.
As you can read in stories by Dan Roberts in
The Guardianand
Pam and Russ Martens online, the ringleader of the effort was Secretary of the Treasury Robert
Rubin, who breathlessly persuaded the president to sign the repeal and soon left office to join Citigroup,
the bank that turned out to be the primary beneficiary of the deal. When it overreached and collapsed,
Citigroup received the largest taxpayer bailout in the history of U.S. finance. Rubin, meanwhile,
earned $126 million from the bank over ten years.
According to
The New York Times, Rubin "remains a crucial kingmaker in Democratic policy circles" and,
as an adviser to the Clintons, "will play an essential role in Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign
for president…"
Hillary Clinton, as a young Methodist growing up in Park Ridge, Illinois, was weaned on the social
ethics of John Wesley, a founder of Methodism and a courageous champion of the poor and needy; we
have her word for it and the witness of others. "Do all the good you can," the Methodist saying goes,
"in all the places you can, at all the times you can, to all the people you can, as long as ever
you can."
But over time, Hillary Clinton achieved superstar status among Washington's acculturated class
– that swollen colony of permanent denizens of our capital who may have come from the hinterlands
but can hardly resist the seductive ways of a new and different culture in which the prevailing mindset
is: It's important to do good but more important to do well.
Lawrence Lessig believes she is an unlikely reformer – "which is precisely why she might be a
particularly effective one." But her way of life has marinated for a long time now in the culture
of wealth, influence, and power - and a way of thinking engrained deeply in our political ethos,
one in which one's own power in democracy is more important than democracy itself.
... ... ...
Sep_Arch • 9 months ago
The Clinton foundation is basically a money-laundering operation for an influence-peddling scam.
When Hillary is President, just as when she was Senator and Secretary of State, she will base
her decisions mostly on what will put more money into her family's pockets. After all, they are
hobnobbing with billionaires now. She will tell herself she is "pro-business" and being "realistic"
as she guts the middle class and puts all of her power behind the TPP, big corporations, and Wall
Street. And too many liberals will remain deaf, dumb and blind....
Guest Reader • a year ago
I will not be supporting Clinton either because of the financial interests behind her. Also because
of the record of the Democrats on many issues over the years, a group she has been deeply with
... so this is not entirely about Clinton herself, but even Obama, you could say, since the two
were fairly similar policy-wise, and now we've had eight years of this already.
I don't want more of the same. Plus, her campaign is based on this mythology that the country
is doing so much better, economically, and nothing could be further from the truth. This mythology
being pushed, because she running for office following a Democrat's administration, and one in
which she has been part of.
Again, to me, this is about domestic economics. I am deeply disappointed and exhausted by the
health care dispute. We should have an improved expanded Medicare for all, and, with dental and
vision, like any other developed nation.
We should NOT be going into more of these so-called "free" trade agreements. They are destroying
the standard of living for Americans, hitting people at the bottom the hardest.
vallehombre • a year ago
The current system allows a range of only two possibilities in electoral choices - between the
far right and the farther right.
HRC is channeling Goldwater via PNAC and then some while Sanders is Eisenhower light at best,
trying to catch some Huey Long soundbites on the way by. Yet we are supposed to act as if any
of this is news.
The allowed candidates are products of the state of our disappearing Republic and citizens
have been so effectively conditioned to accept our situation that we stumble to our destruction
as meekly compliant as the folks of an earlier generation shuiffled weeping into gas chambers.
There is no perspective presented here or anywhere other than that of our self identified elites
for the simple reason it has become the sole ethos of our existence. To fault a single person,
HRC in this case, for promoting arms sales and profiting personally from them ignores the structure
of the entire system, the anticipated "benefits" almost every citizens has come to expect as a
natural right (if not divinely ordained) and a "good life" that in real terms resembles little
more than a long, drawn out narcissistic display of communal suicide.
If it is true people create the government they deserve, or maybe accept, then the choice between
the far right and the farther right more accurately reflect the state of our nation than we care
or dare to admit.
oneski > vallehombre • a year ago
... and a "good life" that in real terms resembles little more than a long, drawn out narcissistic
display of communal suicide.
Quite the diagnosis! And there's the added bonus of enriching the lives of others whilst attempting
to postpone the inevitable.
The Swiss own one of the world's largest food companies and the world's largest elevator company.
It's a safe bet both their customers are easy to identify.
falken751 • a year ago
This is what is coming in this country politicians, better get ready for it, especially Clinton
and her Republican buddies. We don't need or want and millionaire politicians like her and her
husband.
"A massive and growing anti-austerity movement will take to the streets of London on Saturday,
June 20, with demonstrators demanding "an alternative to austerity and to policies that only benefit
those at the top."
Tens of thousands are expected to march from the Bank of England to Parliament Square on Saturday,
protesting the conservative government's "nasty, destructive cuts to the things ordinary people
care about-the [National Health Service], the welfare state, education and public services."
Organized by The People's Assembly-a politically unaffiliated national campaign against austerity-the
demonstration comes in the wake of UK elections in early May that saw the Conservative (Tory)
Party seizing the majority of Parliamentary seats and Prime Minister David Cameron sweeping back
to power."
Get ready politicians, and watch your backs.
Bassy Kims of Yesteryear • a year ago
The utter sellout of the Democratic Party over these last decades is entirely responsible for
the harrowing slide of the USA to the Right. The Republican flavor of bacon isn't even worth mentioning,
as those meatpuppets sold their souls many decades ago.
The rape of the poor and the middle class, the Neocon wars, the offshoring... all the worst
things in this nation stem directly from our betrayal by the Democratic Party. The upcoming passage
of the TPP, blacked out all across the MSM and across most of the alternative media, is proof
positive of this.
The sellout of the Democratic Party, and how we must respond to that sellout, must be the root
of any article on our oppression, and any article on how to respond to our national rape. Step
One is raising the consciousness of the DNC's rubes. They must understand their betrayal in order
to rise above it, and to consider alternatives such as Jill Stein, alternatives such as work stoppages
and demonstrations. Otherwise, there is no hope for America - none at all.
Fool_me_twice_shame_on_ME • a year ago
All this is blatantly obvious and yet there are still so many Americans who remain clueless and
believe she has their interests at heart because they are gullible enough to believe her incredibly
empty campaign rhetoric. Well, there's the willful ignorance, coupled with the unbelievable shallowness
of basing her single qualification for the Oval Office on the type of genitalia she has, or on
name recognition alone, or the very telling amount of favoritism she gets in the CORPORATE media
and their need to vote for "the winning candidate," regardless of values and priorities. If a
voter wants genuine effort and concern in championing middle class causes, there is Bernie Sanders.
His voting record and history go back 30 years and it didn't just get completely revamped by focus
groups for the up-coming election. Simple logic should alert voters to Hillary, Inc.'s loyalties.
Why is it that in spite of all of Hillary's new-found list of concerns in her "populist" rhetoric
(which seem to only come about after Bernie Sanders speaks to them) her long list of Wall Street
campaign financiers still choose her as their favorite choice in the election? Could it be she
is only saying these things to pander for votes, with no intention of keeping any promises after
the election (just like Obama did)? To the corporate funders of her campaign it's just the cost
of doing business. They spend a few million on her and get billions back when she wins the White
House. It's a great return on investment, but just like Obama, the voters will always come a distant
second to Wall Street demands. This is NOT how you fix things in Washington. This is how you guarantee
"business as usual."
Avatar Ken • a year ago
"Can she really stand above the cesspool that is Washington - filled not with criminals but with
decent people inside a corrupted system trying to do what they think is good"
What a fcuking load of shite! They´re predominantly a load of rapacious, venal sociopaths who
should be in one of the prisions they love to build to house the poor. And Killary´s at the top
of the heap.
Popillius > pgathome1 • a year ago
I have no illusions about HRC - I loathe some of her positions. As for you boyz who fell for BHO
(in spite of his neoliberalism being on full display) - you haven't learned a thing. You are going
to honestly swallow that somebody heard that somebody heard from somebody in their "inner circle"
that Bill Clinton said that about his wife? What evidence do you have that is true? Do you not
see the mountains of ratfucking garbage out there about the Clintons? Their policies aside - which
can absolutely be loathesome - you are going to go online and breathlessly assert that you heard
someone heard that someone close to the Clintons said that? No wonder you fell for BHO so hard.
Sarah Jackson • a year ago
Democrats are in a lying frenzy, just as much so as the other faithful party. Moyers doesn't really
have anything left to say of any value unless it too is a lie of sorts. As an example, he revises
the obliteration of New Deal regulation by implying the President was mislead into doing so. No,
that's not what happened. And we don't have a Democracy. But when we don't live in a Democracy,
it is the news media's role to produce something less than honest. We're supposed to forget Sirota
was a part of AIPAC, and Moyers was part of an administration that served corporations dedicated
to genocide.
"... The genius of the corporate coup that has overtaken US democracy is not that it dominates the GOP - the party that has long favored corporate power anyway - but that it has maneuvered even the opposition party into submission as well. The brightest minds on Wall Street are experts at hedging bets, and they play politics just as they play finance. Such dynamics are key to understanding not only the role of the Clinton candidacy in the eyes of corporate America, but the perceived threat posed by the Sanders campaign with its persistent advocacy for people over corporations. ..."
"... a leading banking executive called Clinton's tough talk about Wall Street "theatrics" made necessary in response to the Sanders campaign, adding that he predicts she'll be known as "Mrs. Wall Street" if elected. ..."
"... These realities show that the "rigged system" concerns of ordinary voters are not overblown. In a stroke of strategic brilliance, corporate power has created a playing field where even its perceived opponents are advancing its agenda. ..."
"... "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient," says noted activist and author Noam Chomsky , "is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." ..."
"... Defined as a liberal, she is in fact a consummate establishment Democrat: a hawkish corporate apologist who happens to be pro-choice. Yes, she is to the left of the GOP candidates - she doesn't deny climate change, wants to preserve Obamacare and won't entertain outlandish ideas like privatizing Social Security - but she's still well within the bounds of acceptability to the US corporate oligarchy that does not want fundamental, systemic change. Rest assured, under her watch the system will stay rigged. ..."
The genius of the corporate coup that has overtaken US democracy is not
that it dominates the GOP - the party that has long favored corporate power
anyway - but that it has maneuvered even the opposition party into submission
as well. The brightest minds on Wall Street are experts at hedging bets, and
they play politics just as they play finance. Such dynamics are key to
understanding not only the role of the Clinton candidacy in the eyes of
corporate America, but the perceived threat posed by the Sanders campaign with
its persistent advocacy for people over corporations.
Clinton, who once
served on the board of Walmart, the gold standard of predatory corporatism,
is so tight with corporate power that she's now making efforts to downplay her
relationships.
CNBC reports that she is postponing fundraisers with Wall Street
executives, no doubt concerned that voters are awakening to the toxic influence
of corporations on politics and government. Already in the awkward position of
explaining
six-figure checks from Wall Street firms for speaking engagements and
large charitable donations from major banks, Clinton realizes that she must
try to distance herself from her corporate benefactors.
And the fat cats fully understand. "Don't expect folks on Wall Street to be
offended that Clinton is distancing herself from them,"
CNBC reports. "In fact, they see it as smart politics and they understand
that Wall Street banks are deeply unpopular."
Indeed, everyone knows the game, and few are worried that Clinton - whose
son-in-law is a former Goldman Sachs executive who now runs a hedge fund -
is any kind of threat to the power structure. This explains why a
leading banking executive called Clinton's tough talk about Wall Street
"theatrics" made necessary in response to the Sanders campaign, adding that he
predicts she'll be known as
"Mrs. Wall Street" if elected.
These realities show that the "rigged system" concerns of ordinary
voters are not overblown. In a stroke of strategic brilliance, corporate power
has created a playing field where even its perceived opponents are advancing
its agenda. And the fiction is propagated with impressive expertise, as
moderate, corporate-friendly Democrats are portrayed in the mainstream media as
"flaming liberals." Even though Barack Obama, for example, filled his
administration with Wall Street veterans and stalwarts after his election in
2008 - including Tim Geithner, Michael Froman, Larry Summers and a host of
others - he is frequently described as a liberal not just by those
on the right, but even in
mainstream media.
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient," says noted activist
and author
Noam Chomsky, "is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but
allow very lively debate within that spectrum."...
This is what has happened during the centrist Obama administration, which
bailed out Wall Street without prosecuting even one executive responsible for
bringing about the 2008 economic collapse. It also happened in the centrist
administration of Bill Clinton, who was attacked by conservatives as an
"extreme liberal" while doing little to earn the designation. The Clinton
administration, with vocal support from the first lady, deregulated
telecommunications and the financial sector, pushed hard for passage of the
North American Free Trade Agreement - a tremendous gift to corporate interests
and a major blow to the working class - and passed legislation on
crime and welfare that was anything but liberal.
Such is the role that corporate America wants Hillary Clinton to play today.
Defined as a liberal, she is in fact a consummate establishment Democrat: a
hawkish corporate apologist who happens to be pro-choice. Yes, she is to the
left of the GOP candidates - she doesn't deny climate change, wants to preserve
Obamacare and won't entertain outlandish ideas like privatizing Social Security
- but she's still well within the bounds of acceptability to the US corporate
oligarchy that does not want fundamental, systemic change. Rest assured, under
her watch the system will stay rigged.<
Digging deep into Hillary's connections to Wall Street, Abby Martin reveals how the Clintons' multi-million-dollar
political machine operates.
This episode chronicles the Clintons' rise to power in the '90s on
a right-wing agenda; the Clinton Foundation's revolving door with Gulf state monarchies, corporations
and the world's biggest financial institutions; and the establishment of the hyper-aggressive "Hillary
Doctrine" while secretary of state.
Learn the essential facts about the great danger she poses, and why she's the US Empire's choice
for its next CEO.
"... You're confusing the left with Democrats. One of the clarifying things about this year is how clear it is that's not true. ..."
"... There is ample evidence that a solid majority of those identifying as or tending to generally vote Democratic (not quite the same as party registration, but in less openly corrupt and weird times, that was how polling defined D voters) rejected Hillary Clinton as a candidate, but were prevented from knowing about her opponent, being able to vote in the primary, or having their completed ballot counted as they had marked it. ..."
"... Bernie's endorsement should have been tied to the release of those speeches. After all, he made quite a big deal about those speeches during his campaign appearances. ..."
And again, everyone is just pretending that the monumental election fraud that just occurred
is completely irrelevant. I'm mystified as to why. To me, it's a national catastrophe that a party
can simply suspend democracy completely, flip machine counts, deregister or reregister hundreds
of thousands of Bernie voters (and yes, it was very specifically Bernie voters), subtract votes
during the count and add them to Clinton in real time–and everyone accepts this as entirely legitimate?
Doesn't the complete cancellation of democracy by a dynastic family bother anyone??? Why even
vote?
Today's reminder that the Democratic Party (which, as Lambert points out below, is NOT the
same as "the left") did not nominate an Iraq War supporter through any kind of democratic process.
There is ample evidence that a solid majority of those identifying as or tending to generally
vote Democratic (not quite the same as party registration, but in less openly corrupt and weird
times, that was how polling defined D voters) rejected Hillary Clinton as a candidate, but were
prevented from knowing about her opponent, being able to vote in the primary, or having their
completed ballot counted as they had marked it.
My question is why should a progressive vote for Hillary Clinton?
If a progressive wants to show the strength of her movement and also the number of folks who
represent her values, a progressive would vote for Stein.
Perhaps it could be argued that if a certain progressive lives in a swing state, she should
consider voting for Clinton to prevent Trump from taking office, but that is no most progressive
voters.
But, in general, a progressive voting for a candidate such as Clinton who is so actively courting
big money and establishment Republicans. . .that would dilute and weaken the progressive presence
in my view.
Now that HRC released her taxes can we expect the transcripts, too? Hillary Clinton has been looking into releasing her transcripts for paid speeches to Wall St.
and other special interests for 189 days http://iwilllookintoit.com/
Bernie's endorsement should have been tied to the release of those speeches. After all, he
made quite a big deal about those speeches during his campaign appearances.
They got to Bernie somehow. Cf the scene in Godfather II where the mobster sees his Sicilian relative sitting in the back
of the room and changes his story.
That's very good. We're getting a lot of stories like this, including from our own #SlayTheSmaugs.
At some point, I'd like to aggregate them. Readers, do you know of any other field reports from Philly?
"... Everyone knows the expression "a wolf in sheep's clothing." Now, it seems the United States will invent the macho Republican in feminist, Democratic clothing. ..."
"... Bill Clinton had triangulated his presidency to Republican-hood. He had demolished Aid to Families With Dependent Children and bought into the bash-the-poor rhetoric of the right wing. He had passed a crime bill that targeted people of color; he had destroyed FDR's legacy, notably by abolishing the Glass-Steagall Act. ..."
"... Bill Clinton might not have inhaled marijuana, but he certainly had inhaled the poison of right-wing ideas. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton openly supported many of Bill Clinton's political measures. She used the terrible expression "superpredators," supported the crime bill and made a hash of health insurance reform . Liza Featherstone talks about Hillary Clinton's faux feminism , and she links her critique to class themes, which is as it should be. Feminists cannot be elite feminists or 1% feminists if they want to defend the rights of all women. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton's track record on issues of poverty, racial justice and justice for women is appalling. As a former member of the board of Walmart, she sided with the rich and powerful , which she also does when she gives speeches for Wall Street. ..."
"... On foreign policy issues, Hillary Clinton is not even an Eisenhower Republican, but a war hawk whose philosophy and shortsightedness is evidenced by the flippant way in which she advocated for war in Libya and the way in which she celebrated. "We came, we saw, he died," she said and laughed loudly. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton, like true neoliberals in the GOP, supported the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), so as Bill had said she supported the bond market and free trade. Now, she claims she did not, but, of course, she is lying. Her lies also have to do with Wall Street (she has not released the text of her speeches), support for people of color and her feminism. ..."
"... Feminism cannot be only about the equality of CEO compensations. Equality in CEO compensations in general should exist at a much-reduced level. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is a 1% millionaire who now talks the progressive talk, but never really walked the progressive walk. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton is actually to the right of President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- "Ike." He refused to use the atom bomb in Asia, showing more geopolitical prudence than Hillary "we came and he died" Clinton. He also wanted to preserve the FDR advances that the Clintons have done so much to cancel or erase. ..."
"... the Republicans -- starting with Hillary Clinton's youth idol Barry Goldwater -- and the Democrats calling themselves "New Democrats" vied with each other to dismantle the New Deal ..."
"... GOP is not a political party any longer, but a radical insurgency ..."
"... The Democrats have become the Old Republicans and Hillary Clinton is more neocon than traditional conservative of the Eisenhower type. ..."
"... She is a pro-business, Koch-compatible lover of Wall Street who uses feminism like some pinkwashers or greenwashers use progressive agendas to sell regressive policies. Author Diana Johnstone calls her the " Queen of Chaos ." Clinton is the queen of deception, faux feminism and faux progressivism ..."
"... Charles Koch (whose hatred of progressivism is well documented by Jane Meyer in her book, Dark Money ) expressed some admiration for Bill and Hillary Clinton and said he could vote for Hillary this time around. ..."
...Everyone knows the expression "a wolf in sheep's clothing." Now, it seems the United States
will invent the macho Republican in feminist, Democratic clothing.
We're all Eisenhower Republicans here, and we are fighting the Reagan Republicans. We stand
for lower deficits and free trade and the bond market. Isn't that great?
Eisenhower Republicans were, by today's standards, quite moderate. The quote refers to the 1990s,
and already Bill Clinton had triangulated his presidency to Republican-hood. He had demolished
Aid to Families With Dependent Children and bought into the bash-the-poor rhetoric of the right wing.
He had passed a crime bill that targeted people of color; he had destroyed FDR's legacy, notably
by abolishing the Glass-Steagall Act. And he was so "tough on crime" that during the 1992 presidential
campaign season, he had gone back to his home state of Arkansas to witness the execution of Ricky
Ray Rector, who was "mentally deficient." Bill Clinton might not have inhaled marijuana, but
he certainly had inhaled the poison of right-wing ideas.
As we all know, Hillary Clinton openly supported many of Bill Clinton's political measures.
She used the terrible expression
"superpredators," supported
the crime bill and made a
hash of health
insurance reform. Liza Featherstone
talks about Hillary Clinton's faux feminism, and she links her critique to class themes, which
is as it should be. Feminists cannot be elite feminists or 1% feminists if they want to defend the
rights of all women.
Hillary Clinton's track record on issues of poverty, racial justice and justice for women
is appalling. As a former member of the board of Walmart, she
sided with the rich and powerful, which she also does when she gives speeches for Wall Street.
The really important question is how someone who has constantly sided with the rich can campaign
as a progressive, as a friend of people of color and even as a feminist? Michelle Alexander exposed
the hypocrisy of the situation in arguing that "Hillary
Clinton doesn't deserve the black vote."
On foreign policy issues, Hillary Clinton is not even an Eisenhower Republican, but a war
hawk whose philosophy and shortsightedness is evidenced by the flippant way in which she advocated
for war in Libya and the way in which she celebrated. "We came, we saw, he died,"
she said and laughed loudly.
This cruel statement does not take into account the mess and mayhem left behind after the intervention,
something President Obama calls a "shit
show" and his worst mistake. But it is the companion piece to her major fellow elite "feminist"
Madeleine Albright
declaring that killing half a million Iraqis is worth it.
Hillary Clinton, like true neoliberals in the GOP, supported the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA), so as Bill had said she supported the bond market and free trade. Now, she claims
she did not, but, of course, she is lying. Her lies also have to do with Wall Street (she has not
released the text of her speeches), support for people of color and her feminism.
... ... ...
Feminism cannot be only about the equality of CEO compensations. Equality in CEO compensations
in general should exist at a much-reduced level. In his book Listen, Liberal,
Thomas Frank tells the story of a Clinton convention meeting he attended and what he witnessed was
Hillary Clinton as "Ms. Walmart," pretending she cares about all women. Frank, who is genuinely worried
about rising inequality in the United States and racial justice, suggests that elite feminism
is worried about the glass ceiling for CEOs, but does not even worry about working-class women who
have "no floors" under them. Hillary Clinton is a 1% millionaire who now talks the progressive
talk, but never really walked the progressive walk.
It would indeed be a symbolic change if the US elected a woman president, but for the symbol
not to be empty, something more is needed. If a woman president does not improve the lot of the majority
of women, then what is the good of a symbol?
Hillary Clinton is actually to the right of President Dwight D. Eisenhower -- "Ike." He refused
to use the atom bomb in Asia, showing more geopolitical prudence than Hillary "we came and he died"
Clinton. He also wanted to preserve the FDR advances that the Clintons have done so much to cancel
or erase.
...the Republicans -- starting with Hillary Clinton's youth
idol Barry Goldwater -- and the Democrats calling themselves "New Democrats" vied with each other
to dismantle the New Deal and the Great Society programs that Democrats had set up.
Noam Chomsky argues that the GOP is not a political party any longer, but a radical insurgency,
for it has gone off the political cliff. The Democrats have become the Old Republicans and Hillary
Clinton is more neocon than traditional conservative of the Eisenhower type.
So Hillary Clinton, the Republican, is poised to win in November, but her Republicanism is
closer to George W. Bush's and even more conservative than Ronald Reagan's -- except on the societal
issues that have now reached a kind of quasi-consensus like same-sex marriage. She is a pro-business,
Koch-compatible lover of Wall Street who uses feminism like some pinkwashers or greenwashers use
progressive agendas to sell regressive policies. Author Diana Johnstone calls her the "Queen
of Chaos." Clinton is the queen of deception, faux feminism and faux progressivism, whose election
will be made easier by her loutish, vulgar, sexist loudmouth of an opponent.
In his book The Deep State, Mike Lofgren
quotes H.L. Mencken,
who gave away what explains the success of the political circus: "The whole aim of practical politics
is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and the neoconservatives were past masters at this creation of
hobgoblins, but now Hillary Clinton, the opportunist, can outdo them and out-Republicanize them.
I think Ike would not like her; she might now be even more reactionary than Goldwater. Indeed,
Charles Koch (whose hatred of progressivism is well documented by Jane Meyer in her book,
Dark Money) expressed some admiration for Bill and Hillary Clinton and said he could vote
for Hillary this time around.
... ... ...
Pierre Guerlain is a professor
of American studies at Université Paris Ouest, Nanterre, France.
"... If Hillary Clinton wins, within a year of her inauguration, she will be under investigation by a special prosecutor on charges of political corruption, thereby continuing a family tradition. ..."
"... Of 154 outsiders whom Clinton phoned or met with in her first two years at State, 85 had made contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and their contributions, taken together, totaled $156 million. ..."
"... Conclusion: access to Secretary of State Clinton could be bought, but it was not cheap. Forty of the 85 donors gave $100,000 or more. Twenty of those whom Clinton met with or phoned dumped in $1 million or more. ..."
"... On his last day in office, January 20, 2001, Bill Clinton issued a presidential pardon to financier-crook and fugitive from justice Marc Rich, whose wife, Denise, had contributed $450,000 to the Clinton Library. ..."
Prediction: If Hillary Clinton wins, within a year of her inauguration, she will be under
investigation by a special prosecutor on charges of political corruption, thereby continuing a family
tradition.
... ... ...
Of 154 outsiders whom Clinton phoned or met with in her first two years at State, 85 had made
contributions to the Clinton Foundation, and their contributions, taken together, totaled $156 million.
Conclusion: access to Secretary of State Clinton could be bought, but it was not cheap. Forty
of the 85 donors gave $100,000 or more. Twenty of those whom Clinton met with or phoned dumped in
$1 million or more.
To get to the seventh floor of the Clinton State Department for a hearing for one's plea, the
cover charge was high. Among those who got face time with Hillary Clinton were a Ukrainian oligarch
and steel magnate who shipped oil pipe to Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions and a Bangladeshi economist
who was under investigation by his government and was eventually pressured to leave his own bank.
The stench is familiar, and all too Clintonian in character.
Recall. On his last day in office, January 20, 2001, Bill Clinton issued a presidential pardon
to financier-crook and fugitive from justice Marc Rich, whose wife, Denise, had contributed $450,000
to the Clinton Library.
The Clintons appear belatedly to have recognized their political peril.
Bill has promised that, if Hillary is elected, he will end his big-dog days at the foundation
and stop taking checks from foreign regimes and entities, and corporate donors. Cash contributions
from wealthy Americans will still be gratefully accepted.
One wonders: will Bill be writing thank-you notes for the millions that will roll in to the family
foundation-on White House stationery?
"... Her dismal trustworthiness ratings strongly suggest the people want to see stricter ethical standards from her. She ignores that at her own peril ..."
"... the Clinton Foundation (private) was selling access to the Secretary of State (public). ..."
"... That's called influence peddling, and if you follow Zephyr Teachout on corruption (and not the majority in Citizens United ) that's a textbook case of corruption. The Clinton Foundation enables as capital in the form of wealth to be converted into social capital in the form of access (and reputation laundering). Which is how the Beltway works, and how an oligarchy works. As we have seen, liberals accept this completely, as do conservatives, although the left does not. ..."
"... On the AP story about the Clinton Foundation, the State Department refused AP access to all visitor logs. Then Clinton campaign surrogates complained that AP based its story on incomplete visitor logs. And so it goes in HillaryLand [ The Intercept ]. Lots more detail in this story, well worth a read. ..."
"Watchdogs warn of 'serious' conflicts of interest for Clinton Foundation" [The
Hill]. "Chelsea Clinton's role on the board will only perpetuate the 'pay to play' perceptions
and accusations, the watchdogs said. 'As long as the Clinton Foundation is tied to the family,'
[Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist at Public Citizen] said, 'very wealthy' people and
special interests 'will try to find a way to throw money at the feet' of the Clinton family. And
if Chelsea Clinton remains on the board - especially if she retains a fundraising roll - 'she
would be the avenue.'" This is so wrong. How else is Chelsea supposed to raise money for her Senate
run? Answer me that!
UPDATE "Chelsea Clinton would remain on the board of her family's foundation even if her mother
is elected president, a spokeswoman said Thursday" [AP].
"Editorial: Clintons should end ties to charity " [Charlotte
Observer]. "[Clinton] seems not to recognize that while a good lawyer focuses on what the
law allows, a good politician focuses on what the people want. Her dismal trustworthiness ratings
strongly suggest the people want to see stricter ethical standards from her. She ignores that
at her own peril."
UPDATE "The key to understanding why good government advocates are upset about the new revelations
is to first get past the argument that Clinton Foundation donors were transactionally rewarded
for their gifts" [Vox].
"This is not what my sources argued. Instead, the heart of their complaint was that the foundation's
contributors appear to have gained a greater ability to make their voices heard by Clinton's State
Department by virtue of donating to her husband's private foundation."
In other words, the Clinton Foundation (private) was selling access to the Secretary of State
(public).
That's called influence peddling, and if you follow
Zephyr Teachout on corruption (and not the majority in
Citizens United)
that's a textbook case of corruption. The Clinton Foundation enables as capital in the form of
wealth to be converted into social capital in the form of access (and reputation laundering).
Which is how the Beltway works, and how an oligarchy works. As we have seen, liberals accept this
completely, as do conservatives, although the left does not.
"Democrats embrace the logic of 'Citizens United'" [Lawrence Lessig,
WaPo]. 2015, even more true today.
See also Sirota from 2015.
UPDATE What liberals and Democrats used to believe, before the giant sucking pit of need that
is the Clinton campaign made them lose their minds [image of tiny little hands waving, faint screams,
as they circle downward in the vortex]. The dissenting opinion from Citizens United: (Twitter)
Justice Stevens' dissent in Citizens United (via @ggreenwald ) shreds the central argument of Hillary's
defenders
On numerous occasions we have recognized Congress' legitimate interest in preventing the money that
is spent on elections from exerting an "'undue influence on an officeholder's judgment"' and from
creating "4he appearance of such influence,"' beyond the sphere of quid pro quo relationships. Id.,
at 150; see also. e.g., id., at 143-144. 152-154; Colorado II, 533 U. S.. at 441; Shrink Missouri.
528 U. S., at 389. Corruption can take many forms. Bribery may be the paradigm case. But the difference
between selling a vote and selling access is a matter of degree, not kind. And selling access is
not qualitatively different from giving special preference to those who spent money on one's behalf.
Corruption operates along a spectrum, and the majority's apparent belief that quid pro quo arrangements
can be neatly demarcated from other improper influences docs not accord with the theory or reality
of politics. It certainly does not accord with the record Congress developed in passing BCRA. a record
that stands as a remarkable testament to the energy and ingenuity with which corporations, unions,
lobbyists, and politicians may go about scratching each other's backs - and which amply supported
Congress' determination to target a limited set of especially destructive
UPDATE From The Blogger Formerly KnownAs Who Is IOZ?
On the AP story about the Clinton Foundation, the State Department refused AP access to all
visitor logs. Then Clinton campaign surrogates complained that AP based its story on incomplete
visitor logs. And so it goes in HillaryLand [The
Intercept]. Lots more detail in this story, well worth a read.
UPDATE "Clinton Foundation Investigation Update: Key Details About Financial And Political
Dealings" [David Sirota,
International Business Times]. Good wrap-up from Sirota, who's been all over this.
UPDATE "On the campaign trial, Clinton is using a private airplane owned by a Wall Street banker
and donor to get to fund-raisers this week on the West Coast" [New
York Post]. How cozy.
"... Soon after the correspondence about a meeting, Clinton's State Department significantly increased arms export authorizations to the country's autocratic government, even as that nation moved to crush pro-democracy protests . ..."
Emails just released by the State Department appear to show Clinton Foundation officials brokering
a meeting between then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a top military leader of Bahrain
- a Middle Eastern country that is a major foundation
donor
.
Soon after the correspondence about a meeting, Clinton's State Department significantly
increased arms export authorizations to the country's autocratic government, even as that nation
moved to crush pro-democracy
protests
.
"... Early in her term, the State Department called one arms deal for a Clinton Foundation donor, Saudi Arabia, a "top priority" for Clinton. ..."
"... The Associated Press on Tuesday reported that a review of calendar items shows "more than half the people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave money - either personally or through companies or groups - to the Clinton Foundation." Those 85 donors - which did not include foreign government contributors - gave up to $156 million, according to the news service. ..."
"... The Washington Post in 2014 reported that in 2010, Clinton pushed Russia to approve a $3.7 billion purchase from Boeing. Two months after the deal was solidified, reported the newspaper, Boeing announced a $900,000 contribution to the Clinton Foundation. ..."
As the rhetoric about the Clintons' public and private financial dealings intensifies, here is a
brief review of the major investigative reporting that has been done about the Clinton Foundation.
Arms exports: Last year, an
International Business Times
series documented the ways in which many major foreign governments that had donated to the Clinton
Foundation ended up receiving a boost in arms export authorizations from the Clinton-led State Department.
Federal law explicitly
designates the secretary of state as "responsible for the continuous supervision and general direction
of sales" of arms, and the State Department itself
says it "is responsible for
managing all government-to-government transfers of military equipment to other countries." Early
in her term, the State Department
called one arms deal for
a Clinton Foundation donor, Saudi Arabia, a "top priority" for Clinton.
Many of the donor countries that benefited were those that the State Department criticized on
human rights grounds, including Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. Some of the same countries received boosts
in arms classified as "toxicological agents" as they worked to crush pro-democracy protests during
the Arab Spring uprisings.
Donor access: The
Associated Press on Tuesday reported that a review of calendar items shows "more than half the
people outside the government who met with Hillary Clinton while she was secretary of state gave
money - either personally or through companies or groups - to the Clinton Foundation." Those 85 donors
- which did not include foreign government contributors - gave up to $156 million, according to the
news service. The AP story followed the release of
emails this week that appeared to show Clinton Foundation officials working with State Department
officials to broker meetings between foundation donors and Hillary Clinton. It also followed an
ABC News report on a Clinton Foundation donor being appointed by the State Department to an intelligence
advisory panel "even though he had no obvious experience in the field."
Business dealings: In May, the
Wall Street Journal reported that the Clinton Foundation "set up a financial commitment that
benefited a for-profit company part-owned by people with ties to the Clintons." The newspaper noted
that former President Bill Clinton "personally endorsed the company, Energy Pioneer Solutions Inc.,
to then-Energy Secretary Steven Chu for a federal grant that year" - and that the company ultimately
received an $812,000 grant. While the Clinton Foundation openly works with corporations and governments
on its philanthropic projects, the Journal notes that "under federal law, tax-exempt charitable organizations
aren't supposed to act in anyone's private interest but instead in the public interest."
Promoting corporate donors: In 2015, IBT
reported that while Clinton Foundation donor Cisco faced criticism over its work with China's
autocratic government, Clinton's State Department honored the company for "outstanding corporate
citizenship, innovation and democratic principles." Her department also delivered government contracts
to the company. The
Washington Post in 2014 reported that in 2010, Clinton pushed Russia to approve a $3.7 billion
purchase from Boeing. Two months after the deal was solidified, reported the newspaper, Boeing announced
a $900,000 contribution to the Clinton Foundation.
"... Admittedly, Mr. Trump does seem very open to the idea of negotiating with Russia, and even partnering with Moscow to tackle some of the greatest challenges facing the world today, including radical Islamist terrorism. In that sense, he may really be the most 'Russia friendly' presidential candidate the US has seen since 1945, not counting the early 1990s, when Washington's friendly overtures toward Russia were based on the condition that Moscow does everything US officials tell it to. ..."
"... Does that make him a puppet to the Russians, the Kremlin and to Vladimir Putin personally? Not likely. Despite all the media investigations and even more accusations, no substantiated evidence has been presented demonstrating that Trump has any significant business or personal interests in Russia which would create a conflict of interest. ..."
"... The Times' piece reported on the fact that the Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars from countries that the US State Department has repeatedly criticized for human rights abuses and discrimination against women. The offending countries purportedly include Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Brunei, along with Algeria. Riyadh, the paper noted, was "a particularly generous benefactor," giving between $10 and $25 million to the Clinton Foundation, with at least another $1 million donated by the 'Friends of Saudi Arabia' organization. ..."
"... Abedin has long been accused by independent media in the US and elsewhere of having connections with Islamic organizations, including the Muslim Brotherhood, charges which have long been labeled as nothing more than a conspiracy theory. But Sunday's story seems to have ruffled a few feathers in some high places, with a Clinton campaign spokesperson explaining (rather unconvincingly) to the New York Post that Abedin played no formal role in the radical journal. "My understanding is that her name was simply listed on the masthead in that periodical," the spokesman said. ..."
"... And so the question stands: If the media feels justified in crucifying 'Kremlin agent' Donald Trump for a Moscow beauty pageant and some nice words about Vladimir Putin, will it provide the same level of scrutiny for Mrs. Clinton, given the knowledge that her Foundation has taken in tens of millions of dollars from the Saudis, and that her top advisor seems to have been a supporter of hardcore Islamist ideology? ..."
The media has had a field day commenting on Donald Trump's words
about cooperation with Russia against ISIS, labeling him a 'Kremlin agent' and a danger to the Western
security order. But what about Hillary Clinton and her foundation's ties to the Saudis? If Trump
is 'Moscow's man', does that make Clinton the candidate of Middle Eastern sheikdoms?
The US media has been relentless in its efforts to sink Republican presidential candidate Donald
Trump's campaign, in part due to the candidate's string of friendly remarks and gestures toward Russia
and President Vladimir Putin. The media have accused Moscow of every sin imaginable, from
meddling in America's elections, to using Trump advisor Paul Manafort, who was
called 'the Kremlin's man in Ukraine', to outright calling Trump himself a
'Russian agent'.
Former NATO chief Anders Rasmussen joined the party bashing Trump recently,
slamming him for having "his own views on the Ukrainian conflict," and adding that to top it
all off, "he praises President Putin!"
Admittedly, Mr. Trump does seem very open to the idea of negotiating with Russia, and even partnering
with Moscow to tackle some of the greatest challenges facing the world today, including radical Islamist
terrorism. In that sense, he may really be the most 'Russia friendly' presidential candidate the
US has seen since 1945, not counting the early 1990s, when Washington's friendly overtures toward
Russia were based on the condition that Moscow does everything US officials tell it to.
Does that make him a puppet to the Russians, the Kremlin and to Vladimir Putin personally? Not
likely. Despite all the media investigations and even more accusations, no substantiated evidence
has been presented demonstrating that Trump has any significant business or personal interests in
Russia which would create a conflict of interest. The businessman held a Miss Universe Pageant
in Moscow a few years ago, and tried, unsuccessfully, to build a Trump tower in the Russian capital.
But he also has assets around the world, in Scotland, Dubai, and in over a dozen other countries.
Does that make him the agent of these countries, too?
Amid the endless suspicions surrounding 'Kremlin Agent Trump', a story in the New York Times unassumingly
titled 'Foundation Ties Bedevil Hillary Clinton's Presidential Campaign' almost slipped through
the cracks, before blowing up on national television.
The Times' piece reported on the fact that the Clinton Foundation has
accepted tens of millions of dollars from countries that the US State Department has repeatedly criticized
for human rights abuses and discrimination against women. The offending countries purportedly include
Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Brunei, along with Algeria. Riyadh,
the paper noted, was "a particularly generous benefactor," giving between $10 and $25 million to
the Clinton Foundation, with at least another $1 million donated by the 'Friends of Saudi Arabia'
organization.
The scandal didn't end there. Speaking to CNN reporter Dana Bash, Clinton Campaign manager Robby
Mook
could not coherently explain why the Clintons weren't willing to stop accepting donations from
foreign 'investors' unless Clinton became president of the United States. Instead, Mook tried to
divert the question to Donald Trump, saying the candidate has never revealed his financials, and
adding that Mrs. Clinton had taken "unprecedented" steps to being "transparent."
And the plot thickens. On Sunday, conservative US and British media
revealed that Huma Abedin, a longtime friend and top aid to Clinton, had worked as an assistant
editor for a radical Islamic Saudi journal for over a decade. The publication, called the Journal
of Muslim Minority Affairs, featured everything from pieces opposed to women's rights, to articles
blaming the US for the September 11 terror attacks.
In one article in January 1996, Abedin's own mother wrote a piece for the journal, where she complained
that Clinton, who was First Lady at the time, was advancing a "very aggressive and radically feminist"
agenda which was un-Islamic and dangerous for empowering women.
Abedin has long been accused by independent media in the US and elsewhere of having connections
with Islamic organizations, including the Muslim Brotherhood, charges which have long been labeled
as nothing more than a conspiracy theory. But Sunday's story seems to have ruffled a few feathers
in some high places, with a Clinton campaign spokesperson
explaining (rather unconvincingly) to the New York Post that Abedin played no formal role in
the radical journal. "My understanding is that her name was simply listed on the masthead in that
periodical," the spokesman said.
These two stories, the first offering new details including dollar estimates about the money received
by the Clinton Foundation from the Saudis, and the second shedding light on her top advisor's apparent
ties to a Saudi journal propagating Islamist ideas, should lead the media to look for answers to
some very troubling questions. These should be the same kinds of questions asked earlier this summer,
when a formerly classified 28 page chapter of the 9/11 Commission Report was finally released, revealing
that Saudi officials had supported the hijackers who carried out the terrorist attacks against the
United States in 2001.
And so the question stands: If the media feels
justified in crucifying 'Kremlin agent' Donald Trump for a Moscow beauty pageant and some nice words
about Vladimir Putin, will it provide the same level of scrutiny for Mrs. Clinton, given the knowledge
that her Foundation has taken in tens of millions of dollars from the Saudis, and that her top advisor
seems to have been a supporter of hardcore Islamist ideology?
"... Behind the private jet journey of Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin" [ Yahoo News ]. The article explains why wearing one hat from Abedin's massive collection of headgear makes this all legal. ..."
"... "After Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Bill Clinton received $17.6 million in payments from a for-profit university. Since that time, another organization with a connection to that university received almost $90 million in grants from an agency that's part of the State Department" [ CNN ]. Clinton was paid for "inspiring people." Oh. OK. ..."
"... UPDATE "Donald Trump appears to have donated $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation" [ Business Insider ]. As Trump said: "I gave to many people before this - before two months ago I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what, when I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me. That's a broken system." I hate it when Trump's right. ..."
"Behind the private jet journey of Hillary Clinton aide Huma Abedin" [
Yahoo News ]. The article explains why wearing one hat from Abedin's massive collection of
headgear makes this all legal. Musical
interlude --
"Clinton Foundation: World Class Slacktivists" [
Medium ]. "I think this could be called a 'charity bubble' since at some point, there won't
be any more cash to take. And then what will people do? What will happen when the hospital where
future doctors and nurses will work closes due to lack of funds?"
"After Hillary Clinton became secretary of state, Bill Clinton received $17.6 million in payments
from a for-profit university. Since that time, another organization with a connection to that
university received almost $90 million in grants from an agency that's part of the State Department"
[
CNN ]. Clinton was paid for "inspiring people." Oh. OK.
UPDATE "Donald Trump appears to have donated $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation" [
Business Insider ]. As Trump said: "I gave to many people before this - before two months
ago I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what, when
I need something from them two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for
me. That's a broken system." I hate it when Trump's right.
Money
UPDATE "Hillary Clinton Continues Fundraising Swing at Home of Justin Timberlake, Jessica Biel"
[
Variety ]. "Jamie Foxx, Jennifer Aniston, Shonda Rhimes, Tobey Maguire and former HBO programming
president Michael Lombardo were among those at the event, according to a source who was there,
with tickets priced at $33,400 per person. About 55 people attended….
The Democratic presidential candidate is fundraising in the weeks before her first debate with
Republican rival Donald Trump [on September 26]." And definitely not holding press conferences.
UPDATE "Justin Timberlake, Jessica Biel & Hillary Clinton Pose for Adorable Photobooth Pics
at Star-Studded Fundraiser" [
ET ]. " "Look who came over for lunch… #imwithher," Biel wrote on Instagram." Quite a lunch.
One of the worst kept secrets in Washington circles is that Hillary Clinton
is a lesbian. Rumors have swirled in the past about the former First Lady's
gay ways, and with a potential presidential run coming in 2016, they have come
back to haunt her.
Back in 2004, a Washington Times columnist reviewing Bill Clinton's
memoir My Life concluded that Hillary and Bill, "have had a pact for
decades. Their sexy, sexy pact is this: "He gets to fool around with
women and she gets to fool around with women (plus the occasional man) yes,
she's bisexual."
The lesbian rumors resurfaced a year later in Edward Klein's book The
Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, And How Far She'll Go
To Become President. In it, Klein claimed that Hillary "wasn't maternal"
"had no wifely instincts," and "many of her closest friends were lesbians."
Klein asserted that Hillary was obsessed with lesbianism, but not in a normal
way. Instead, she was "much more interested in lesbianism as a political statement
than a sexual practice Hillary talked about it a lot, read lesbian literature,
and embraced it as a revolutionary concept."
In the end, Klein concluded that though she has experimented with lesbianism,
Hillary is ultimately asexual.
The rumors were fired up once again in 2007, when Huma Abedin, Hillary's
top aide, stumbled into the national spotlight with her husband Anthony Wiener's
sex scandal. Many accused Hillary and Huma of being lesbian lovers, with Hillary
hiding her "in plain sight" by hiring her as her top aide.
The lesbian rumors got so bad that year that Hillary addressed them personally.
"It's not true, but it is something that I have no control over. People will
say what they want to say," she told top gay magazine Advocate.
In 2013, when Hillary came out as pro-gay to the country, American Family
Association radio host Sandy Rios claimed to know for a fact that Hillary is
a lesbian:
"[Hillary] has always, as far as I know back to college, endorsed and
embraced all things lesbian and gay, that is her history on this so that
shouldn't be too shocking. She has played the role of wife and cookie-making
mother, I'm sorry but this is just the reality of things. We are being caught
in this vortex of homosexual advocacy, it's just amazing."
Finally, Bill Clinton's former mistress Gennifer Flowers spoke out last year
about the former first couple's sex life, and what she had to say was shocking.
Flowers claimed that Bill told her repeatedly that Hillary was "bisexual,"
and that he was fine with it. He also told her that Hillary had "eaten more
p*ssy than he had," a statement which shocked the nation.
In the end, if God-forbid Hillary becomes President in 2016, she will not
only be the first female President, but also the first gay President.
Is America really ready for a lesbian to be running the free world? What
do you think about all this? Sound off in the comments below!
Hillary Clinton spent the weekend fundraising in affluent New England
communities, speaking to more than 2,200 donors at private brunches and
gatherings in Nantucket and Cape Cod-but what she told them "remains a
mystery," the Associated Press
reported Monday.
The fundraising effort-which follows her campaign's
most lucrative month so far with a
$63 million gain in July-underscores Clinton's continued evasion of
transparency over her ties to wealthy elites. In fact, of the roughly 300
fundraising events she has held since announcing her White House run in
April 2015, only five have allowed any press coverage, and Clinton has
attempted to ban the use of social media among guests, according to the
AP.
..."Why wouldn't Hillary tell the American people, whose votes she wants, what she told
corporations in private for almost two years?" Nader wrote. "Is it that she doesn't want to be
accused of doubletalk, of 'gushing' (as one insider told the Wall Street Journal) when addressing
bankers, stock traders or corporate bosses?"
These speeches are so controversial in part because of the high price tag they came with.
Clinton would charge an average of $5,000 per minute for her speeches.
"We know she has such transcripts. Her contract with these numerous business groups, prepared by
the Harry Walker Lecture Agency, stipulated that the sponsor pay $1000 for a stenographer to take
down a verbatim record, exclusively for her possession."
According to Nader, "Where Trump's White House is seen as utterly unpredictable, Hillary's
White House is utterly predictable: more Wall Street, more military adventures." Nader continued,
"As Senator and Secretary of State she has never seen a weapons system or a war that she didn't
support."
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
I think to the extent Israel elite interests are congruent with interests of the US neocons Clinton
is pro-Israel. If they stray, she can change. The key here are interests of global corporations and
neoliberal globalization. As such Israel is just a pawn in a big game.
Notable quotes:
"... So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because there are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded and very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively, often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many more: Chuck Schumer, Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman, Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few in the Congress. All are major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States. ..."
"... And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's one-sided pro-Israeli diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the widely condemned January 2001 last minute pardon of Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons, to realize that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved ..."
"... Trump's crime, per Morell, is that he is disloyal to the United States because he is not sufficiently hostile to the evil Vladimir Putin, which somehow means that he is being manipulated by the clever Russian. Trump has indeed called for a positive working relationship with Putin to accomplish, among other objectives, the crushing of ISIS. And he is otherwise in favor of leaving Bashar al-Assad of Syria alone while also being disinclined to get involved in any additional military interventions in the Middle East or elsewhere, which pretty much makes him the antithesis of the Clintonian foreign policy promoted by Morell. ..."
"... The leading individual foreign donor to the Clinton Foundation between 1999 and 2014 was Ukrainian Viktor Pinchuk, who "directed between $10 and $25 million" to its Global Initiative, has let the Clintons use his private jet, attended Bill's Hollywood 65 th birthday celebration and hosted daughter Chelsea and her husband on a trip to Ukraine. Pinchuk is a Jewish oligarch married to the daughter of notoriously corrupt former Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma. He is very closely tied to Israel, a supporter of regime change in his country, who was simultaneously donating money and also lobbying in Washington while Hillary was Secretary of State and promoting a similar agenda as part of her $5 billion program to "democratize" Ukraine. Clinton arranged a dozen meetings with substantive State Department officers for Pinchuk. ..."
"... Clinton supported Israel's actions in the 2014 Gaza War, which killed more than 500 children, describing them as an appropriate response to a situation that was provoked by Hamas. On the campaign trail recently husband Bill disingenuously defended Hillary's position on Gaza, saying that "Hamas is really smart. When they decide to rocket Israel they insinuate themselves in the hospitals, in the schools " placing all the blame for the large number of civilian casualties on the Palestinians, not on the Israelis. When the media began to report on the plight of the civilians trapped in Gaza Hillary dismissed the impending humanitarian catastrophe, saying "They're trapped by their leadership, unfortunately." ..."
"... Earlier, as a Senator from New York, Hillary supported Israel's building of the separation barrier on Palestinian land and cheer-led a crowd at a pro-Israel rally that praised Israel's 2006 devastation of Lebanon and Gaza. She nonsensically characterized and justified the bombing campaign as "efforts to send messages to Hamas, Hezbollah, to the Syrians, to the Iranians – to all who seek death and domination instead of life and freedom " More than nine hundred civilians died in the onslaught and when a vote came up subsequently in Congress to stop the supply of cluster bombs to countries that use them on civilians Hillary voted against the bill together with 69 other pro-Israel senators. ..."
"... Hillary enjoys a particularly close relationship with Netanyahu, writing in November , "I would also invite the Israeli prime minister to the White House in my first month in office." She has worked diligently to "reaffirm the unbreakable bond with Israel – and Benjamin Netanyahu." She has boasted of her being one of the promoters of annual increases in aid to Israel while she was in the Senate and Secretary of State and takes credit for repeatedly using America's Security Council veto to defend it in the United Nations. ..."
"... o you know how Prince Bandar was coaching G.W. Bush to circumvent the enmity of neocons towards his father? ..."
"... It looks very much like the US public is starting to mirror the Eastern European public under Communism by automatically disregarding government media + there's the added feature of the internet as a new kind of high-powered Samizdat, that clearly worries the Establishment. ..."
On August 5th, Michael Morell, a former acting Director of the CIA, pilloried GOP presidential
candidate Donald Trump, concluding that he was an "unwitting agent of Russia." Morell, who entitled
his New York Times
op-ed "I Ran the CIA and now I'm endorsing Hillary Clinton," described the process whereby Trump
had been so corrupted. According to Morell, Putin, it seems, as a wily ex-career intelligence officer,
is "trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them. That is exactly what
he did early in the primaries. Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump's vulnerabilities In the intelligence
business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian
Federation."
I have previously
observed
how incomprehensible the designation of "unwitting agent" used in a sentence together with "recruited"
is, but perhaps I should add something more about Morell that might not be clear to the casual reader.
Morell was an Agency analyst, not a spy, who spent nearly his entire career in and around Washington.
The high point of his CIA experience consisted of briefing George W. Bush on the President's Daily
Brief (PDB).
Morell was not trained in the arduous CIA operational tradecraft course which agent recruiters
and handlers go through. This means that his understanding of intelligence operations and agents
is, to put it politely, derivative. If he had gone through the course he would understand that when
you recruit an agent you control him and tell him what to do. The agent might not know whom exactly
he is really answering to as in a false flag operation, but he cannot be unwitting.
Morell appears to have a tendency to make promises that others will have to deliver on, but perhaps
that's what delegation by senior U.S. government officials is all about. He was also not trained
in CIA paramilitary operations, which perhaps should be considered when he drops comments about the
desirability of "covertly" killing Russians and Iranians to make a point that they should not oppose
U.S. policies in Syria, as he did in a
softball interview with Charlie Rose on August 6th.
Morell appears to be oblivious to the possibility that going around assassinating foreigners might
be regarded as state sponsored terrorism and could well ignite World War 3. And, as is characteristic
of chickenhawks, it is highly unlikely that he was intending that either he or his immediate family
should go out and cut the throats or blow the heads off of those foreign devils who seek to derail
the Pax Americana. Nor would he expect to be in the firing line when the relatives of those victims
seek revenge. Someone else with the proper training would be found to do all that messy stuff and
take the consequences.
Be that as it may, Morell was a very senior officer and perhaps we should accept that he might
know something that the rest of us have missed, so let's just assume that he kind of misspoke and
give him a pass on the "recruited unwitting agent" expression. Instead let's look for other American
political figures who just might be either deliberately or inadvertently serving the interests of
a foreign government, which is presumably actually what Michael Morell meant to convey regarding
Trump. To be sure a well-run McCarthy-esque ferreting out of individuals who just might be disloyal
provides an excellent opportunity to undertake a purge of those who either by thought, word or deed
might be guilty of unacceptable levels of coziness with foreign interests.
So who is guilty of putting the interests of a foreign government ahead of those of the United
States? I know there are advocates for any number of foreign states running around loose in Washington
but the friends of Israel in government and the media come immediately to mind largely because there
are so many of them, they are very much in-your-face and they are both extremely well-funded and
very successful. Now deceased former Congressman Tom Lantos and Senator Frank Lautenberg were, respectively,
often referred to as the congressman and senator from Israel. And there are many more: Chuck Schumer,
Chuck Grassley, Ben Cardin, Bob Menendez, Tom Cotton, Mark Kirk, Nita Lowey, Ted Deutch, Brad Sherman,
Ileana-Ros Lehtinen and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz to name only a few in the Congress. All are
major recipients of Israel related PAC money and all are reliable defenders of Israel no matter
what Benjamin Netanyahu does and no matter how it effects the United States.
And then there are the Clintons. One only has to go back to Bill's
one-sided pro-Israeli
diplomacy at Camp David in 2000 to discern how the game was played. And then there was the widely
condemned January 2001 last minute
pardon of Mossad agent Marc Rich, whose wife Denise was a major contributor to the Clintons,
to realize that there was always a deference to Israeli interests particularly when money was involved.
The only problem is that the Clintons, relying on Morell's formulation, might more reasonably be
described as witting agents of Israel rather than unwitting as they have certainly known what they
have been doing and have been actively supporting Israeli policies even when damaging to U.S. interests
since they first emerged from the primordial political swamps in Arkansas. If one were completely
cynical it might be possible to suggest that they understood from the beginning that pandering to
Israel and gaining access to Jewish power and money would be a major component in their rise to political
prominence. It certainly has worked out that way.
Trump's crime, per Morell, is that he is disloyal to the United States because he is not sufficiently
hostile to the evil Vladimir Putin, which somehow means that he is being manipulated by the clever
Russian. Trump has indeed called for a positive working relationship with Putin to accomplish, among
other objectives, the crushing of ISIS. And he is otherwise in favor of leaving Bashar al-Assad of
Syria alone while also being disinclined to get involved in any additional military interventions
in the Middle East or elsewhere, which pretty much makes him the antithesis of the Clintonian foreign
policy promoted by Morell.
In comparison with the deeply and profoundly corrupt Clintons, Trump's alleged foreign policy
perfidy makes him appear to be pretty much a boy scout. To understand the Clintons one might consider
the hundreds of millions of dollars, much of it from foreign sources, that have flowed into the Clinton
Foundation while Hillary was Secretary of State. And there is the clear
email evidence that Hillary exploited her government position to favor both foreign and domestic
financial supporters.
The leading
individual foreign donor to the Clinton Foundation between 1999 and 2014 was Ukrainian Viktor
Pinchuk,
who "directed between $10 and $25 million" to its Global Initiative, has let the Clintons use
his private jet, attended Bill's Hollywood 65th birthday celebration and hosted daughter
Chelsea and her husband on a trip to Ukraine. Pinchuk is a Jewish oligarch married to the daughter
of notoriously corrupt former Ukrainian president Leonid Kuchma. He is very closely tied to Israel,
a supporter of regime change in his country, who was simultaneously
donating money and also lobbying in Washington while Hillary was Secretary of State and promoting
a similar agenda as part of her $5 billion program to "democratize" Ukraine. Clinton arranged a dozen
meetings with substantive State Department officers for Pinchuk.
Hillary and Bill's predilection for all things Israeli and her promise to do even more in the
future is a matter of public record. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz asserted
that of all the political candidates in the primaries "Clinton had the longest public record of engagement
with Israel, and has spent decades diligently defending the Jewish state." In a speech to AIPAC in
March
she promised to take the "U.S.-Israel alliance to the next level." Hillary's current principal
financial supporter in her presidential run is Haim Saban, an Israeli who has described himself as
a "one issue" guy and that issue is Israel.
Hillary Clinton boasts of having "stood with Israel my entire career." Her website
promises to maintain "Israel's qualitative military edge to ensure the IDF is equipped to deter
and defeat aggression from the full spectrum of threats," "stand up against the boycott, divestment
and sanctions movement (BDS)," and "cut off efforts to unilaterally recognize Palestinian statehood
outside of the context of negotiations with Israel." In a letter to Haim Saban, Hillary
declared that "we need to make countering BDS a priority," which means she is prepared to support
laws limiting First Amendment rights in the U.S. in defense of perceived Israeli interests.
As part of the Obama Administration Hillary Clinton at first supported his attempts to pressure
Israel over its illegal settlements but has now backed off from that position, only rarely criticizing
them as a "problem" but never advocating any steps to persuade Netanyahu to reverse his policy. Notably,
she has repeatedly decried terroristic attacks on Israelis but has never acknowledged the brutality
of the Israeli occupation of much of the West Bank in spite of the fact that ten Palestinians are
killed for each Jewish victim of the ongoing violence.
Clinton supported Israel's actions in the 2014 Gaza War, which killed more than 500 children,
describing them as an appropriate response to a situation that was provoked by Hamas. On the campaign
trail recently husband Bill disingenuously
defended Hillary's position on Gaza, saying that "Hamas is really smart. When they decide to
rocket Israel they insinuate themselves in the hospitals, in the schools " placing all the blame
for the large number of civilian casualties on the Palestinians, not on the Israelis. When the media
began to report on the plight of the civilians trapped in Gaza Hillary dismissed the impending humanitarian
catastrophe, saying "They're trapped by their leadership, unfortunately."
Earlier, as a Senator from New York, Hillary supported Israel's building of the separation
barrier on Palestinian land and cheer-led a crowd at a pro-Israel rally that praised Israel's 2006
devastation of Lebanon and Gaza. She nonsensically
characterized and justified the bombing campaign as "efforts to send messages to Hamas, Hezbollah,
to the Syrians, to the Iranians – to all who seek death and domination instead of life and freedom "
More than nine hundred civilians died in the onslaught and when a vote came up subsequently in Congress
to stop the supply of cluster bombs to countries that use them on civilians Hillary voted against
the bill together with 69 other pro-Israel senators.
Hillary enjoys a particularly close relationship with Netanyahu,
writing in November, "I would also invite the Israeli prime minister to the White House in my
first month in office." She has worked diligently to "reaffirm the unbreakable bond with Israel –
and Benjamin Netanyahu." She has boasted of her being one of the promoters of annual increases in
aid to Israel while she was in the Senate and Secretary of State and takes credit for repeatedly
using America's Security Council veto to defend it in the United Nations.
So I think it is pretty clear who is the presidential candidate promoting the interests of a foreign
country and it ain't Trump. Hillary would no doubt argue that Israel is a friend and Russia is not,
an interesting point of view as Israel is not in fact an ally and has spied on us and copied our
military technology
to re-export to countries like China. Indeed, the most damaging spy in U.S. history Jonathan
Pollard worked for Israel. In spite of all that Israel continues to tap our treasury for billions
of dollars a year while still ignoring Washington when requests are made to moderate policies that
damage American interests. Against that, what exactly has Moscow done to harm us since the Cold War
ended? And who is advocating even more pressure on Russia and increasing the rewards for Israel,
presumably in the completely illogical belief that to do so will somehow bring some benefit to the
American people? Hillary Clinton.
utu, August 23, 2016 at 4:29 am GMT • 100 Words
Find the true reason why G.H. Bush was not allowed to get the 2nd term. Do you remember his
attempt to reign in Yitzhak Shamir when GHB was riding high popularity wave after the Desert Storm?
Do you remember anti-Bush Safire and Friedman columns in NYT week after week? Why Ross Perrot
was called in? Don't you see similarity with Teddy Rosevelt's run to prevent Taft's reelection
and securing Wilson's win? Do you know how Prince Bandar was coaching G.W. Bush to circumvent
the enmity of neocons towards his father? Answer these questions and you will know for whom
Bill Clinton worked. One more thing, Clinton did not touch Palestinian issue until last several
months of his presidency. He did not make G.H. Bush's mistake.
Miro23, August 23, 2016 at 5:45 am GMT • 100 Words
This a straightforward factual article about the Clinton sellout to Israel. So the question
may come down to the effectiveness of MSM propaganda.
It looks very much like the US public is starting to mirror the Eastern European public
under Communism by automatically disregarding government media + there's the added feature of
the internet as a new kind of high-powered Samizdat, that clearly worries the Establishment.
If the script follows through, then there's a good likelihood that the Establishment and their
façade players (Clintons, Bush, Romney, McCain etc) are reaching the end of the line, since like
in E.Europe, there's a background problem of economic failure and extreme élite/public inequality
that can no longer be hidden.
Philip Giraldi, August 23, 2016 at 10:32 am GMT • 100 Words
@hbm
hbm – the FBI concluded that someone working in the White House was MEGA but they decided that
they did not necessarily have enough evidence to convince a jury. He is still around and appears
in the media. As I would prefer not to get sued I will not name him but he is not a Clinton (though
he worked for them as well as for the two Bushes).
"Other donors got action via direct appeal to Abedin: For example, 75-grand-giver Maureen White
wrote, 'I am going to be in DC on Thursday. Would she have any time to spare?' Huma's reply: "Yes
I'll make it work'" [New
York Post]. Wait, all I need to buy access to Clinton is a grand? That's all? Really?
UPDATE "'Huma, I need your help now to intervene please. We need this meeting with Secretary Clinton,
who has been there now for nearly six months,' Aboussie wrote. 'It should go without saying that
the Peabody folks came to Dick and I because of our relationship with the Clinton's [sic],' she added"
[The Intercept].
"'We are working on it and I hope we can make something work,' Abedin replied, noting 'we have to
work through the beauracracy [sic] here.' Obviously, as the example above shows, that's not always
true, and Abedin seems to be the arbiter of which donors go to Happyville, and which to Pain City.
UPDATE "The emails do not show that Clinton Foundation donors received any policy favors from
Hillary Clinton or other elected officials. What they show is that people who donated to the foundation
believed they were owed favors by Clinton's staffers, and at least one of those staffers - the odious
Doug Band - shared this belief" [Jonathon Chait,
New York Magazine]. Yes, selling access is called "influence peddling." It's corrupt in itself,
regardless of policy outcomes. The headline: "Clinton Foundation Still Not Criminal, Still Not Great
for Hillary." So, if "not criminal" is the baseline…
UPDATE "Bill Clinton says he will leave Clinton Foundation if Hillary is elected president" [Los
Angeles Times]. From the Department of How Stupid Do They Think We Are? Even if you accept that
quid pro quo is the only form of corruption, which I don't, consider the possibility that
Bill closed the deal on the quid before the election, and Hillz will deliver the pro
quo after the election. Surely, that is, a quid pro quo can be asynchronous? Or are
we now to believe that the only form of corruption is when cash in an envelope is transferred from
one hand to another? That's even worse than Citizens United!
Hillary Clinton leads in the polls nationally and in key battleground states, but the flood of
stories regarding her private email server and donations to the Clinton Foundation demonstrate
the former secretary of state won't be able to completely outrun voter skepticism -- or Donald
Trump.
... ... ...
Trump supporter Sen. Jeff Sessions suggested that the Democratic presidential candidate used
her high position to "extort" from international governments for her family's foundation.
"The fundamental thing is you can not be Secretary of State of the United States of America and
use that position to extort or seek contributions to your private foundation," he told CNN's
Alisyn Camerota on "New Day" Tuesday. "That is a fundamental violation of law and that does
appear to have happened."
... ... ...
A
Washington Post/ABC News poll from earlier this month showed that 59% of voters believe that
Clinton is not honest and trustworthy.
So the campaign turned its attention on Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and her emails. That
was readily apparent Monday, as both Trump and vice presidential nominee Mike Pence brought up
the issue.
"It's time for Hillary Clinton to come clean about the Clinton Foundation," Pence said at a rally
in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.
The Clinton Foundation last week accounced it would ban donations to from corporations and
foreign countries if Hillary Clinton is elected. Pence rhetorically asked why there wasn't a
conflict of interest when she was Secretary of State.
"Apparently she'll have a conflict of interest with the Clinton Foundation if she becomes
President but I guess she didn't have a conflict of interest taking foreign donations while she
was secretary of state of the United States of America," Pence said
This foundation gives Clintons the ability to finance travel, equipment and staff for political
campaigns of Hillary Clinton. Note the level of interconnection between Hillary Clinton staff and
Clinton foundation in email scandal. Hume Abedin often called the system administrator from Clinton
foundation to fix the "bathroom" mail server. Also spending by foundation "on charoty"
are very questionable both in scope and targets. Compare with Gates foundation and you will
see that Clinton foundation is essentially Clinton family slush fund disguised as a charity.
Notable quotes:
"... Since its founding in 2001, the Clinton Foundation served as a bridge between Bill Clinton's administration and Hillary Clinton's drive to conquer the White House again. ..."
"... But beyond the Republican bluster, there is a substantial critique of the Clinton Foundation: At its core, it fuses fundraising, influence-peddling, Washington networking, "humanitarian" causes and an endless grasp for power and money. ..."
"... Though taking care to adhere to the letter of the law, the foundation comes close to the line in many cases ..."
The stated mission of the Clinton Foundation, set up at the end of Bill Clinton's second term in
the White House, is to "alleviate poverty, improve global health, strengthen economies, and protect
the environment."
But far more important to its operations is the Clinton Foundation's unstated
mission: to further entrench the already formidable power of the Clinton family.
For more than two decades, both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have lived very public lives
ensconced in the upper echelons of America's political establishment. Since its founding in 2001,
the Clinton Foundation served as a bridge between Bill Clinton's administration and Hillary Clinton's
drive to conquer the White House again.
... ... ...
But beyond the Republican bluster, there is a substantial critique of the Clinton Foundation:
At its core, it fuses fundraising, influence-peddling, Washington networking, "humanitarian" causes
and an endless grasp for power and money.
Though taking care to adhere to the letter of the law, the foundation comes close to the
line in many cases -- for example, soliciting donations by offering face time with the
Clintons in ways that seem suspiciously like a political campaign for elected office, but not
exactly like that, because that would be a violation of the law.
"... The Foundation donors included corporations and individuals with significant matters before the State Department. And then either Hillary Clinton herself or one of her closest aides took action favorable to the donor. ..."
"... The Clintons' made the State Department into the same kind of Pay-to-Play operations as the Arkansas Government was: pay the Clinton Foundation huge sums of money and throw in some big speaking fees for Bill Clinton and you got to play with the State Department. ..."
"... The amounts involved, the favors done and the significant numbers of times it was done require an expedited investigation by a Special Prosecutor. After the FBI and Department of Justice whitewash of the Clinton email crimes, they certainly cannot be trusted to quickly or impartially investigate Hillary Clinton's crimes. ..."
"... Some former prosecutors have even suggested that the coordination between the pay-for-play State Department and the corrupt Clinton Foundation constitute a clear example of a RICO (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization) enterprise. ..."
Donald Trump called for an independent special protector to investigate the Clinton
Foundation at a rally in Akron, Ohio Monday night. Trump said the Justice Department
is a "political arm" of the White House and can not be trusted to investigate
properly.
TRUMP: The Foundation donors included corporations and individuals with
significant matters before the State Department. And then either Hillary Clinton
herself or one of her closest aides took action favorable to the donor.
Her actions corrupted and disgraced one of the most important Departments of
government, indeed one of only four established by the United States Constitution
itself.
The Clintons' made the State Department into the same kind of Pay-to-Play
operations as the Arkansas Government was: pay the Clinton Foundation huge sums of
money and throw in some big speaking fees for Bill Clinton and you got to play
with the State Department.
The amounts involved, the favors done and the significant numbers of times it
was done require an expedited investigation by a Special Prosecutor. After the FBI
and Department of Justice whitewash of the Clinton email crimes, they certainly
cannot be trusted to quickly or impartially investigate Hillary Clinton's crimes.
Some former prosecutors have even suggested that the coordination between the
pay-for-play State Department and the corrupt Clinton Foundation constitute a
clear example of a RICO (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization) enterprise.
The Justice Department is required to appoint an independent Special Prosecutor
because it has proven itself to be a political arm of the White House.
"... there has been a sharp rise in the number of households with children reporting incomes of less than $2 per person per day, a fact we documented in our book, $2 a Day ..."
"... What it did in reality was essentially kill the U.S. cash welfare system. (We use the term "cash welfare" to distinguish it from other forms of assistance, such as housing vouchers and food stamps, which have pre-designated uses.) ..."
"... Prior to August 22, 1996, families such as that one-families with little or no cash income-were entitled by law to a check from the government, thanks to AFDC. The program had many flaws. Yet it provided a cash floor that could have eased the hardships of folks at the end of their ropes. ..."
"... We've traveled to many different parts of the country getting to know people in need. While greedy, heartless landlords were sometimes a source of their troubles, their biggest problem-by far-has been the lack of access to a cash safety net-money-when failing to find or keep a job. In 21st-century America, a family needs at least some cash to have any chance at stability. Only money can pay the rent (though a minority of families get subsidies via a housing voucher). Only money buys socks, underwear, and school supplies. Money is what's needed to keep the utilities on. Each of the families we followed-technically eligible if our reading of the rules is right-weren't getting that money from TANF. ..."
"... Yet these desperately needy families either didn't know the program existed, felt the stigma and hassle weren't worth it, or had been rebuffed at the welfare office. ..."
"... Why has TANF left so many needy families behind? Its advocates argue that it reduces dependency and promotes work. Its critics contend that the time limits and work requirements it imposes are too punitive. Yet a careful look under the hood reveals that both of these claims fail to grasp the fundamental nature of what TANF has become. ..."
"... Built into the very core of TANF are perverse incentives for states to shed families from the welfare rolls. If they do so, they get to keep the money and use it for other things. And outside of what's spent on cash aid, there is virtually no meaningful oversight on how the rest of the money is spent. ..."
"... What are states doing with their TANF dollars if they aren't providing cash welfare to families? Some states, such as Ohio, spend a considerable portion on child care, no doubt a boon to the working poor, yet folks not in jobs or in work programs aren't eligible. Likewise other states, such as Wisconsin, use some of their block grant to fund state tax credits that benefit the working poor. ..."
"... When TANF is used to pay for giveaways for the non-poor or to plug budget holes, it becomes welfare for states and not for people. ..."
"... What states spend astonishingly little on-besides cash assistance-is helping the poor find employment. In 2014, Ohio-which is about at the national average here-allocated only 8 percent of combined federal and state TANF funding to vital "hand-up" activities linking recipients to jobs. ..."
"... Ronald Regan brought the image of the infamous-albeit mythical-welfare queen into the national consciousness. Bill Clinton probably owes his first term in office to his promise to "end welfare as we know it," and possibly his second to signing the reform into law. Both politicians railed against AFDC's so-called "perverse disincentives." TANF offered states a lot of flexibility to innovate, to allow a flowering of new ideas to help the poor. But that's not what the country got. Instead it got a new kind of welfare queens: states. States, not people, are using TANF to close the holes in their budgets. It is states, not people, who are falling prey to the "perverse disincentives" of welfare. ..."
America's poorest are still dealing with the consequences of the legislation that Bill Clinton
signed into law two decades ago today.
As recently as April of this year, former president
Bill Clinton defended the welfare reform bill he signed into law on August 22, 1996-twenty years
ago today-as one of the great accomplishments of his presidency. The bill scrapped the welfare program
known as Aid to Families With Dependent Children (AFDC) and created a new one that lasts to this
day-Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF). There was a grandiose idea behind the change:
TANF was no simple safety net; it was also meant to be a springboard to self-sufficiency through
employment, which it encouraged recipients to find work by imposing work requirements and limiting
how long they could receive benefits.
Today, across the country, welfare is-at best-a shadow of its former self. In much of the Deep
South and parts of the West, it has all but disappeared. In the aftermath of welfare reform,
there has been a sharp rise in the number of households with children reporting incomes of less than
$2 per person per day, a fact we documented in our book, $2 a Day. As of 2012, according to
the most reliable government data available on the subject, roughly 3 million American children spend
at least three months in a calendar year living on virtually no money.
Numerous other sources of data confirm these findings. According to the most recent data available
(2014), TANF rolls are now down to about 850,000 adults with their 2.5 million children-a whopping
decline of 75 percent from 1996. TANF was meant to "replace" AFDC. What it did in reality was
essentially kill the U.S. cash welfare system. (We use the term "cash welfare" to distinguish it
from other forms of assistance, such as housing vouchers and food stamps, which have pre-designated
uses.)
Cleveland, where the Republicans hosted their convention this year, is one of the poorest cities
in the country and a place where the effects of this reform can be seen most plainly. What has happened
to welfare in Cuyahoga County, which includes Cleveland and its inner suburbs, is reflective of its
fate elsewhere in the nation. Currently, the county's TANF-to-poverty ratio (the fraction of poor
families with children who are actually receiving help from the program) sits at 22 percent-right
about at Ohio's, and the nation's, average. (In some states, it is dramatically lower, such as Georgia,
where it is just six, and Texas, where it is five.)
What's happened to poor people as a result? Since 2013, we've spent considerable time in the city
trying to find out. Each year, we catch up with several families who, in 2013, had spent at least
three months living without money income exceeding $2 per person per day. To deepen our perspective,
we also spend time trying to understand what's going on for the city's poorest, more broadly speaking.
Earlier this month, one of us-Kathryn-spent a day talking to supplicants at a west-side food pantry.
She spent an afternoon walking the streets of one neighborhood, striking up casual conversations
with residents as they took out the garbage or sat on their porches. Yet the toughest experience
was when Kathryn went for a ride-along with bailiffs assigned to the Cleveland Housing Court as they
went about their daily rounds, evicting a family from their west-side apartment mid-meal.
Prior to August 22, 1996, families such as that one-families with little or no cash income-were
entitled by law to a check from the government, thanks to AFDC. The program had many flaws. Yet it
provided a cash floor that could have eased the hardships of folks at the end of their ropes.
TANF ought to be able to help-albeit temporarily, as the name implies. Yet many of the people
we have studied have never received it. One woman, a high-school graduate and a mother of two, told
us she doesn't think it's worth it. She believes that in order to meet the program's requirements,
she would have to work full time at a make-work job, leaving her no time to find legitimate employment.
Others have tried to get it and failed. When one mother we know lost her job at Walmart after
her only means of transportation failed, she initially refused to apply for TANF out of pride, insisting
that she was a worker, not a leach on the government. Finally, after months of fruitless job search,
plus a list of health diagnoses a mile long, she broke down and applied. Since then, she has been
sent away three times, all for no legitimate reason we, as TANF experts, can discern. Now, she, her
daughter, and her fiancé are tripled-up with friends in a house that lacks heat and running water
but offers a free roof over her head.
And many more aren't even aware TANF is available. During her visit to the west-side food pantry
a few weeks ago, Kathryn met families camping in unfinished basements of friends, a couple who survived
a Cleveland winter while sleeping in a tent (they advised finding a thick mattress to keep your body
off the ground and to keep a candle burning), and a family in the process of breaking apart-the three
children parceled off to relatives-until a laid-off Ford assembly line worker and his partner of
14 years, who cleaned suburban homes until her car was repossessed, can secure stable jobs and a
place to live. When we asked why they didn't apply for TANF, we were met with blank stares. If our
experiences across the city this summer are any guide, many poor Clevelanders-even those in desperate
straits-don't even realize the program exists.
We've traveled to many different parts of the country getting to know people in need. While
greedy, heartless landlords were sometimes a source of their troubles, their biggest problem-by far-has
been the lack of access to a cash safety net-money-when failing to find or keep a job. In 21st-century
America, a family needs at least some cash to have any chance at stability. Only money can pay the
rent (though a minority of families get subsidies via a housing voucher). Only money buys socks,
underwear, and school supplies. Money is what's needed to keep the utilities on. Each of the families
we followed-technically eligible if our reading of the rules is right-weren't getting that money
from TANF.
How did they survive? Nearly all had sold plasma from time to time, some regularly. In 2014, so-called
"donations" hit an
all-time high at 32.5 million, triple the rate recorded a decade prior. They collected tin cans
for an average yield of about $1 an hour. They traded away their food stamps, usually at the going
rate of 50 or 60 cents on the dollar. Some traded sex for cash or-more commonly-the payment of their
cell phone bill, a room to stay in, a meal, or some other kind of help. One 15-year-old was lured
into a sexual relationship with her teacher on the promise of food. Yet these desperately needy
families either didn't know the program existed, felt the stigma and hassle weren't worth it, or
had been rebuffed at the welfare office.
Some would argue that families are better off without cash welfare. Franklin Delano Roosevelt
warned that welfare was
"a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit." Yet even Ron Haskins, one of the Republican
architects of the program,
recognizes
that the problem of "disconnected mothers"-those neither working nor on welfare-is "a serious
policy issue, that its magnitude is increasing, and that in two decades the nation has not figured
out how to address the problem."
Why has TANF left so many needy families behind? Its advocates argue that it reduces dependency
and promotes work. Its critics contend that the time limits and work requirements it imposes are
too punitive. Yet a careful look under the hood reveals that both of these claims fail to grasp the
fundamental nature of what TANF has become.
To put it plainly, TANF is not really a welfare program at all. Peter Germanis, a conservative
expert on welfare policy and former Reagan White House aide,
describes it best, as a "fixed and flexible funding stream"-think slush fund-for states, provided
by what are known as "block grants." Yes, some block-grant dollars are used to provide cash aid to
struggling families. But
three of every four dollars allocated to TANF is directed toward other purposes.
How can this be? After the 1996 welfare reform bill was signed into law, states were no longer
obligated to give out a dime to those in need. The rules governing TANF are so flexible that states
can potentially eliminate cash handouts all together. What's more, TANF's rules threaten to penalize
states that continue to provide cash assistance, such as California, Minnesota, Oregon, and Vermont.
It is easier to comply with TANF regulations by simply pushing people off the rolls, as Cuyahoga
County has done.
Built into the very core of TANF are perverse incentives for states to shed families from
the welfare rolls. If they do so, they get to keep the money and use it for other things. And outside
of what's spent on cash aid, there is virtually no meaningful oversight on how the rest of the money
is spent.
If past is prologue, the dollars devoted to cash assistance will only continue to dwindle. Even
in 2006, TANF had far greater reach than it does now. Meanwhile, counts of the number of families
knocking on the doors of the nation's food pantries
have reached the highest point ever recorded. "Donations" of blood plasma in exchange for cash
have tripled in the last decade. School-aged children are increasingly likely to be homeless or doubled
up. In sum, on many measures, child and family wellbeing has taken a nosedive.
Welfare reform is certainly not the only factor driving these trends. An increasingly perilous
low-wage labor market and a growing affordable-housing crisis are critical drivers too. Yet a simple
thought experiment brings the role of welfare reform in focus. Imagine a world in which states are
prohibited by law from denying any family who meets eligibility criteria. Now envision a world in
which denying a family in need is perfectly legal, and states who do so get to keep the cash. This
is America before and after welfare reform. On the eve of welfare reform, roughly seven in 10 poor
families claimed cash aid; only about two in 10 now do so. If the safeguards governing AFDC were
in place today, this sort of extreme poverty would be a fraction of what it is now.
What are states doing with their TANF dollars if they aren't providing cash welfare to families?
Some states, such as Ohio, spend a considerable portion on child care, no doubt a boon to the working
poor, yet folks not in jobs or in work programs aren't eligible. Likewise other states, such as Wisconsin,
use some of their block grant to fund state tax credits that benefit the working poor.
But the remainder goes to an assortment of other activities not necessarily benefitting the impoverished
at all. Michigan funds college scholarships for young adults with no children, under the rationale
that doing so may reduce teen pregnancy. Texas spends a large chunk of its block grant on its child
welfare-system, an expense the state would have to assume responsibility for otherwise. When
TANF is used to pay for giveaways for the non-poor or to plug budget holes, it becomes welfare for
states and not for people.
What states spend astonishingly little on-besides cash assistance-is helping the poor find
employment. In 2014, Ohio-which is about at the national average here-allocated only 8 percent of
combined federal and state TANF funding to vital "hand-up" activities linking recipients to jobs.
Ronald Regan brought the image of the infamous-albeit mythical-welfare queen into the national
consciousness. Bill Clinton probably owes his first term in office to his promise to "end welfare
as we know it," and possibly his second to signing the reform into law. Both politicians railed against
AFDC's so-called "perverse disincentives." TANF offered states a lot of flexibility to innovate,
to allow a flowering of new ideas to help the poor. But that's not what the country got. Instead
it got a new kind of welfare queens: states. States, not people, are using TANF to close the holes
in their budgets. It is states, not people, who are falling prey to the "perverse disincentives"
of welfare.
What a bunch of neoliberal piranha, devouring the poorest country in Europe, where pernneers exist
on $1 a day or less, with the help of installed by Washington corrupt oligarchs (Yanukovich was installed
with Washington blessing and was controlled by Washington, who was fully aware about the level of corruption
of its government; especially his big friend vice-president Biden).
Notable quotes:
"... Mr. Kalyuzhny was also a founding board member of a Brussels-based nongovernmental organization, the European Center for a Modern Ukraine, that hired the Podesta Group, a Washington lobbying firm that received $1.02 million to promote an agenda generally aligned with the Party of Regions. ..."
"... Because the payment was made through a nongovernmental organization, the Podesta Group did not register as a lobbyist for a foreign entity. A co-founder of the Podesta Group, John D. Podesta, is chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign, and his brother, Tony Podesta, runs the firm now. ..."
"... The Podesta Group, in a statement, said its in-house counsel determined the company had no obligation to register as a representative of a foreign entity in part because the nonprofit offered assurances it was not "directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party." ..."
"... On Monday, Mr. Manafort issued a heated statement in response to an article in The New York Times that first disclosed that the ledgers - a document described by Ukrainian investigators as an under-the-table payment system for the Party of Regions - referenced a total of $12.7 million in cash payments to him over a five-year period. ..."
"... In that statement, Mr. Manafort, who was removed from day-to-day management of the Trump campaign on Wednesday though he retained his title, denied that he had personally received any off-the-books cash payments. "The suggestion that I accepted cash payments is unfounded, silly and nonsensical," he said. ..."
MOSCOW - The Ukrainian authorities, under pressure to bolster their assertion that once-secret
accounting documents show cash payments from a pro-Russian political party earmarked for Donald J.
Trump's campaign chairman, on Thursday released line-item entries, some for millions of dollars.
The revelations also point to an outsize role for a former senior member of the pro-Russian political
party, the Party of Regions, in directing money to both Republican and Democratic advisers and lobbyists
from the United States as the party tried to burnish its image in Washington.
The former party member, Vitaly A. Kalyuzhny, for a time chairman of the Ukraine Parliament's
International Relations Committee, had signed nine times for receipt of payments designated for the
Trump campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, according to Serhiy A. Leshchenko, a member of Parliament
who has studied the documents. The ledger covered payments from 2007 to 2012, when Mr. Manafort worked
for the party and its leader, Viktor F. Yanukovych, Ukraine's former president who was deposed.
Mr. Kalyuzhny was also a founding board member of a Brussels-based nongovernmental organization,
the European Center for a Modern Ukraine, that hired the Podesta Group, a Washington lobbying firm
that received $1.02 million to promote an agenda generally aligned with the Party of Regions.
Because the payment was made through a nongovernmental organization, the Podesta Group did
not register as a lobbyist for a foreign entity. A co-founder of the Podesta Group, John D. Podesta,
is chairman of Hillary Clinton's campaign, and his brother, Tony Podesta, runs the firm now.
The role of Mr. Kalyuzhny, a onetime computer programmer from the eastern Ukrainian city of Donetsk,
in directing funds to the companies of the chairmen of both presidential campaigns, had not previously
been reported. Mr. Kalyuzhny was one of three Party of Regions members of Parliament who founded
the nonprofit.
The Associated Press, citing emails it had obtained, also reported Thursday that Mr. Manafort's
work for Ukraine included a secret lobbying effort in Washington that he operated with an associate,
Rick Gates, and that was aimed at influencing American news organizations and government officials.
Mr. Gates noted in the emails that he conducted the work through two lobbying firms, including
the Podesta Group, because Ukraine's foreign minister did not want the country's embassy involved.
The A.P. said one of Mr. Gates's campaigns sought to turn public opinion in the West against Yulia
Tymoshenko, a former Ukrainian prime minister who was imprisoned during Mr. Yanukovych's administration.
The Podesta Group, in a statement, said its in-house counsel determined the company had no
obligation to register as a representative of a foreign entity in part because the nonprofit offered
assurances it was not "directly or indirectly supervised, directed, controlled, financed or subsidized
in whole or in part by a government of a foreign country or a foreign political party."
Reached by phone on Thursday, a former aide to Mr. Kalyuzhny said he had lost contact with the
politician and was unsure whether he remained in Kiev or had returned to Donetsk, now the capital
of a Russian-backed separatist enclave.
Ukrainian officials emphasized that they did not know as yet if the cash payments reflected in
the ledgers were actually made. In all 22 instances, people other than Mr. Manafort appear to have
signed for the money. But the ledger entries are highly specific with funds earmarked for services
such as exit polling, equipment and other services.
On Monday, Mr. Manafort issued a heated statement in response to an article in The New York
Times that first disclosed that the ledgers - a document described by Ukrainian investigators as
an under-the-table payment system for the Party of Regions - referenced a total of $12.7 million
in cash payments to him over a five-year period.
In that statement, Mr. Manafort, who was removed from day-to-day management of the Trump campaign
on Wednesday though he retained his title, denied that he had personally received any off-the-books
cash payments. "The suggestion that I accepted cash payments is unfounded, silly and nonsensical,"
he said.
Mr. Manafort's statement, however, left open the possibility that cash payments had been made
to his firm or associates. And details from the ledgers released Thursday by anticorruption investigators
suggest that may have occurred. Three separate payments, for example, totaling nearly $5.7 million
are earmarked for Mr. Manafort's "contract."
Another, from October 2012, suggests a payment to Mr. Manafort of $400,000 for exit polling, a
legitimate campaign outlay.
Two smaller entries, for $4,632 and $854, show payments for seven personal computers and a computer
server.
The payments do not appear to have been reported by the Party of Regions in campaign finance disclosures
in Ukraine. The party's 2012 filing indicates outlays for expenses other than advertising of just
under $2 million, at the exchange rate at the time. This is less than a single payment in the black
ledger designated for "Paul Manafort contract" in June of that year for $3.4 million.
Ukrainian investigators say they consider any under-the-table payments illegal, and that the ledger
also describes disbursements to members of the central election committee, the group that counts
votes.
Correction: August 20, 2016
Because of an editing error, an article on Friday about the political activities in Ukraine of
Donald J. Trump's former campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, misidentified the office once held by
Yulia V. Tymoshenko, a rival of Mr. Manafort's client, the former president Viktor F. Yanukovych.
Ms. Tymoshenko served as prime minister of Ukraine, not its president.
"... Edward G. Rendell, a former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, said the foundation should be disbanded if Mrs. Clinton wins, and he added that it would make sense for the charity to stop taking foreign donations immediately. ..."
"... Begun in 1997, the foundation has raised roughly $2 billion and is overseen by a board that includes Mr. Clinton and the couple's daughter, Chelsea. ..."
"... This foundation made the Clinton's very rich. When a foundation only gives ten to fifteen percent of their proceeds to the ones they are helping one should know there is something wrong. ..."
"... Large sums of money from powerful foreign entities given to powerful political entities are never given for "free." Even if they come without specific stipulations, they instill within the recipient a sense of reciprocity and empathy that may not have existed before. ..."
"... The Clintons are highly manipulative career politicians who continually display that they believe they are above the law of the proletariat. They will do whatever they believe benefits them without regard for the rest of us. ..."
"... Regarding the foundation, I would love to see a report on what percentage of these funds are actually being used for "good causes" versus supporting the Clinton lifestyle.. ..."
"... I am sorry, there is absolutely nothing anyone can say that will make me believe for even a nano second, that someone from the kingdom of Saudi Arabia simply decided out of the goodness of their heart, to donate 10 million bucks to an American charity. ..."
"... After her stint at State Department, Hillary completely misread the sentiment of American voters when she returned to campaign. She thought America was going to wrap her in a big "Welcome Back" snugly blanket. What she found were unexpected insurgencies in Bernie and Trump- and a public who wasn't so eager to greet her- especially when they realized she didn't have a message, platform or offer a simple reason as to WHY she wants to become President. Throw in the foundation and her establishment ties to Wall Street and Big Pharma- She suddenly isn't so appealing. ..."
"... Mr. Trump, who the Times always castigates for his shady business practices, is a cheap street corner hustler compared to the Clintons. ..."
"... Trump and Hillary show the total bankruptcy of our major political parties and the ruling political establishment. I'm voting Green, there may be a chance of saving our democracy yet. ..."
"... The presence or absence of "direct" connections between either Clinton and their donors suggests a touching naivete. Being at dinner at the Clinton's home, seeing someone at dinner there ... this is how connections are made and made to work, not through "direct orders from the boss!" This is a web of shameless corruption in which an ex-president parlays his reputation to boost him and his wife into the ranks of the 1%. ..."
"... The donors have given to gain access or future favors of or through the Clintons. That's clear. These nations/individuals don't do anything charitable in their own nations. They want something in return and the Clintons' being the politicians that they are as well as being hawks about money, have always known that. They chose the money. It's the basis for many foundations run by people that have already accomplished their goals and who next expect to get paid or who desire more power by association than even money can buy. ..."
"... The money raking Foundation and the Goldman Sachs speeches, all while they must have absolutely certain that Hillary would be running for President, speak the delusional sense of entitlement usually reserved for royalty. ..."
"... the clinton hire their political team via these donations and pay for there expenses including huge travel expenses...not bad for public service. ..."
"... That is untrue. They can travel, live in luxury, pay their daughter and friends, and use trust assets for all kinds of personal stuff in the name of charity. Who do you think paid for Bill and Chelsea's trip to Africa? They aren't know for giving any away either! ..."
"... Bribery is corporatized these days ..."
"... Makes no sense. After a certain number, simple greed seems like insufficient motivation. You can't live long enough to spend it all! So what do the Clinton's want -- and more directly, why do they insist on sabotaging any good that comes their way? The country doesn't need their drama ..."
"... It's a charity. The Clintons got very rich while running it. That's an issue. Then the fact that Hillary was Secretary of State while the Clintons were raking in the foreign contributions. That was a clear conflict of interest and it should never have been allowed. And if it wasn't a conflict then why are the Clintons backing away from the idea now? ..."
"... Just because Trump is a kook it doesn't mean the Clintons aren't crooked and they too should be nowhere near another term in the White House. Newsflash: Hillary and Bill Clinton are not trustworthy ..."
"... They have always sought money and power where ever it was, and foundations are an excellent tax dodge for wealthy people to pay their relatives and friends tax free salaries while wielding enormous power through grants. ..."
"... Sure, their foundation has theoretically been devoted to "good works" but it also gives the founders a very cushy life style, access to the highest levels of government (and graft) around the world, and a ready source of donors for Hillary's political campaigns. ..."
"... Hillary has operated with such conflicts of interest since she was First Lady of Arkansas, working for a law firm which handled services for the largest financial services firm in the state. Don't feel sorry for these "maligned" victims. ..."
"... It's deja vu all over again! ..."
"... The "foundation" spends about 10% on actual "charity" work. Watch "Heist" and "Clinton Cash" and so many other printed sources to see what true pay-to-play self-enrichment on a mammoth scale looks like. ..."
"... They are CROOKS with ZERO concern for anyone but themselves. Look at Haiti for openers. A country still in ruin, but Hillary's brother has a first-ever seat on a Gold Mining operation in Haiti... and as Sec. of State, she pushed back a raise for workers from 61Cents back to 31Cents per hour. How can anyone with a heart vote for these carpetbaggers? ..."
"... The article fails to mention that almost none of the money actually goes to charity. Nonprofits like this are excellent vehicles for avoiding taxes since the money can be spent on salaries and "business expenses" like travel. ..."
"... This particular nonprofit looks too much like a money laundering operation for the benefit of the Clintons. Either the donors were expecting some sort of payback or they thought they were donating to charity. In either case, something is wrong with this. ..."
The kingdom of Saudi Arabia donated more than $10 million. Through a foundation, so did the
son-in-law of a former Ukrainian president whose government was widely criticized for corruption
and the murder of journalists. A Lebanese-Nigerian developer with vast business interests
contributed as much as $5 million.
... ... ...
The Clinton Foundation has accepted tens of millions of dollars from countries that the State
Department - before, during and after Mrs. Clinton's time as secretary - criticized for their
records on sex discrimination and other human-rights issues. The countries include Saudi Arabia,
the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, Brunei and Algeria.
... ... ...
...Tom Fitton, the president of Judicial Watch, a conservative group that has sued to obtain
records from Mrs. Clinton's time at the State Department, said that "the damage is done."
"The conflicts of interest are cast in stone, and it is something that the Clinton administration
is going to have to grapple with," Mr. Fitton said. "It will cast a shadow over their policies."
... ... ...
Edward G. Rendell, a former Democratic governor of Pennsylvania, said the foundation
should be disbanded if Mrs. Clinton wins, and he added that it would make sense for the charity
to stop taking foreign donations immediately.
Begun in 1997, the foundation has raised roughly $2 billion and is overseen by a board
that includes Mr. Clinton and the couple's daughter, Chelsea.
... ... ...
Victor Pinchuk
, a steel magnate whose father-in-law, Leonid Kuchma, was president of Ukraine
from 1994 to 2005, has directed between $10 million and $25 million to the foundation. He has
lent his private plane to the Clintons and traveled to Los Angeles in 2011 to attend Mr.
Clinton's star-studded 65th birthday celebration.
... ... ...
In July 2013, the Commerce Department began investigating complaints that Ukraine - and by
extension Mr. Pinchuk's company, Interpipe - and eight other countries had illegally dumped a
type of steel tube on the American market at artificially low prices.
A representative for Mr. Pinchuk said the investigation had nothing to do with the State
Department, had started after Mrs. Clinton's tenure and been suspended in July 2014. He added
that at least 100 other people had attended the dinner party at Mrs. Clinton's house and that she
and Mr. Pinchuk had spoken briefly about democracy in Ukraine.
C Tracy,
WV
This foundation made the Clinton's very rich. When a foundation only gives ten to
fifteen percent of their proceeds to the ones they are helping one should know there is
something wrong.
The foundation should bedevil the Clinton's, it is a sham. Money and power is the driving
force behind the Clintons' to say they are in favor of helping women and gays while at the
same time taking money from countries that treat women as no more than property and kill or
imprison gays is at least immoral. This is just another millstone around Hillary's political
neck.
JW,
Shanghai 1 hour ago
Large sums of money from powerful foreign entities given to powerful political entities
are never given for "free." Even if they come without specific stipulations, they instill
within the recipient a sense of reciprocity and empathy that may not have existed before.
It is impossible for Clinton to have taken so much money from these groups and to not feel
somewhat beholden to them.
The Clintons are highly manipulative career politicians who continually display that they
believe they are above the law of the proletariat. They will do whatever they believe benefits
them without regard for the rest of us.
I am ashamed that this is the best we have to choose from.
Regarding the foundation, I would love to see a report on what percentage of these funds
are actually being used for "good causes" versus supporting the Clinton lifestyle..
.
#Election2016 #RaceToTheBottom
karenpk,
Chicago 1 hour ago
I am sorry, there is absolutely nothing anyone can say that will make me believe for
even a nano second, that someone from the kingdom of Saudi Arabia simply decided out of the
goodness of their heart, to donate 10 million bucks to an American charity.
Ditto for the others. I really have a problem with how brazen these
politicians are, and how we simply turn a blind eye to them, as well as the wealthy investors
that own them. Oh, that's how politicians are. Well, if we acted like that, we would be
unemployed, then thrown in jail. What makes them special, other than their own self
proclamation? Nothing.
Aaron,
Ladera Ranch, CA 1 hour ago
After her stint at State Department, Hillary completely misread the sentiment of
American voters when she returned to campaign. She thought America was going to wrap her in a
big "Welcome Back" snugly blanket. What she found were unexpected insurgencies in Bernie and
Trump- and a public who wasn't so eager to greet her- especially when they realized she didn't
have a message, platform or offer a simple reason as to WHY she wants to become President.
Throw in the foundation and her establishment ties to Wall Street and Big Pharma- She suddenly
isn't so appealing.
The U.S. does not control the prices on prescription drugs they way other nations do and we
pay 50% more than other developed nations. This is what Hillary will fight to maintain, that
along with a huge defense budget, perpetual warfare and global conflict. It's the status quo
and it's disgusting. I'll vote for Trump just to spite Hillary.
Roy Brophy,
Minneapolis, MN 1 hour ago
" American officials have long worried about Saudi Arabia's suspected role in promoting a
hard-line strain of Islam, which has some adherents who have been linked to violence."
Like the Saudis who planed and carried out the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11?
Mr. Trump, who the Times always castigates for his shady business practices, is a cheap
street corner hustler compared to the Clintons.
The only reason Trump sounds crazier than Hillary is that she is a more practiced liar.
After the utter failure of Afghanistan and Iraq, which she and the Times supported, she went
blazing into Libya and did the same thing with the same results.
Trump and Hillary show the total bankruptcy of our major political parties and the
ruling political establishment. I'm voting Green, there may be a chance of saving our
democracy yet.
JO,
CO 1 hour ago
The presence or absence of "direct" connections between either Clinton and their donors
suggests a touching naivete. Being at dinner at the Clinton's home, seeing someone at dinner
there ... this is how connections are made and made to work, not through "direct orders from
the boss!" This is a web of shameless corruption in which an ex-president parlays his
reputation to boost him and his wife into the ranks of the 1%.
Does this mean Donald would make an acceptable president? No. But neither does Hillary.
Maybe better that we consider going the route of SCOTUS-1 and leave the Oval (almost typed
Offal) Office empty for four years!
Hanan,
New York City 2 hours ago
The donors have given to gain access or future favors of or through the Clintons.
That's clear. These nations/individuals don't do anything charitable in their own nations.
They want something in return and the Clintons' being the politicians that they are as well as
being hawks about money, have always known that. They chose the money. It's the basis for many
foundations run by people that have already accomplished their goals and who next expect to
get paid or who desire more power by association than even money can buy.
There will be no way around this for Clinton. Trump has a similar problem with monied
interests all over the world. In both instances, not good choices nor good odds that whomever
succeeds will not be plagued by unending issues due to conflicts that will be posed. exposed
and/or links to their money and debts. Trump calls it "pay for play" regarding Clinton. As for
Trump and all his huge deals, its called getting played while Trump gets paid.
Fred McTaggart,
Kalamazoo, MI 2 hours ago
The actions that Bill Clinton is promising after the election are a tacit admission that
the Foundation represents an enormous conflict of interest. But by now such actions are
meaningless. They should have been taken before Hillary Clinton started campaigning for U.S.
Senator and certainly before she accepted a position as Secretary of State.
Stan Continople
, Brooklyn 4 hours ago
The money raking Foundation and the Goldman Sachs speeches, all while they must have
absolutely certain that Hillary would be running for President, speak the delusional sense of
entitlement usually reserved for royalty.
Just because she's also a "policy wonk" does
not make her any less deranged than Trump. Who knows when her last remaining ties to reality
may finally snap - along with that macabre smile?
Majortrout,
is a trusted commenter Montreal 4 hours ago
I'm amazed that the NYTimes has written this article. When Mrs. Clinton was running for the
top spot for the DNC, all we read was negativity against Bernie Sanders, with very little
written about Benghazi,her private e-mail server, and other "suggested improprieties". When
she finally won the nomination for POTUS, all we read in the NYTimes was negativity against
Donald Trump, and again hardly anything negative news against Mrs. Clinton.
How about that?
Now with have this issue, and it isn't going to go away so fast.
"If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a
duck"
Elephant lover, is a trusted commenter New Mexico 5 hours ago
The donations are to a trust. The trust does not benefit the Clintons. It benefits the
poor. How is this corrupt?
Just Sayin,
New York 13 minutes ago
the clinton hire their political team via these donations and pay for there expenses
including huge travel expenses...not bad for public service.
retiredseal83
, Coronado, CA 13 minutes ago
That is untrue. They can travel, live in luxury, pay their daughter and friends, and
use trust assets for all kinds of personal stuff in the name of charity. Who do you think paid
for Bill and Chelsea's trip to Africa? They aren't know for giving any away either!
ExPeterC,
is a trusted commenter Bear Territory 6 hours ago
Bribery is corporatized these days
paula,
is a trusted commenter new york 6 hours ago
Makes no sense. After a certain number, simple greed seems like insufficient
motivation. You can't live long enough to spend it all! So what do the Clinton's want -- and
more directly, why do they insist on sabotaging any good that comes their way? The country
doesn't need their drama
-- but Trump is simply too horrible to contemplate.
Billy,
up in the woods down by the river 7 hours ago
It's a charity. The Clintons got very rich while running it. That's an issue. Then the
fact that Hillary was Secretary of State while the Clintons were raking in the foreign
contributions. That was a clear conflict of interest and it should never have been allowed.
And if it wasn't a conflict then why are the Clintons backing away from the idea now?
Just because Trump is a kook it doesn't mean the Clintons aren't crooked and they too
should be nowhere near another term in the White House. Newsflash: Hillary and Bill Clinton
are not trustworthy
SAK,
New Jersey 7 hours ago
The donations to the foundation has bad appearance.
Saudis or Qataris desiring to be charitable to Africans
could send the money to African charities rather than
route through Clinton foundation. It is very typical of
Saudis. They donated generously to the favorite charity
of Bush family. The results are obvious. Despite their
bad human rights record and discrimination against
women, beheadings and disseminating extremist
version of Islam though their funding of mosques and
madressas in Muslim world, Saudi Arabia remains a
strategic partner. US continues to supply arms,
intelligence and advice on military operations in Yemen.
There is no doubt Saudis have bought influence through
donations.
Deus02,
Toronto 5 hours ago
Not fear, but considerable and continuing concern about her credibility going forward.
While Hillary continually touts herself as a progressive democrat, it would seem neither
yourself nor the NYT got the memo about her recent four person presidential transition team
headed up by Russ Salazar, former Secretary of the Interior AND Washington corporate lobbyist
whom coincidentally is a profracking, fossil fuel AND supporter of the TPP. You couldn't ask
for a more establishment pro corporate type than him.
He will also, as part of a Clinton administration, head the team that is responsible for the
hiring of up to 4000 new employees and one can only guess where they will come from? Any
wonder why many Sanders supporters and Independents STILL do not find her trustworthy and are
reluctant to vote for her?
The fact remains, that any other democratic candidate without Clinton's baggage, at this
juncture, would be beating Trump by at least 20 points, a landslide.
susan,
California 7 hours ago
???? Their foundation ties bedevil her? That make it seem like she is being treated
unfairly by circumstances beyond their control. Nothing could be further from the truth - the
Clintons brought all of these problems on themselves.
They have always sought money and
power where ever it was, and foundations are an excellent tax dodge for wealthy people to pay
their relatives and friends tax free salaries while wielding enormous power through grants.
Sure, their foundation has theoretically been devoted to "good works" but it also gives
the founders a very cushy life style, access to the highest levels of government (and graft)
around the world, and a ready source of donors for Hillary's political campaigns.
Hillary has operated with such conflicts of interest since she was First Lady of
Arkansas, working for a law firm which handled services for the largest financial services
firm in the state. Don't feel sorry for these "maligned" victims.
They created the
situation(s) which invited all the criticism, and, incredibly, continue to do so. It takes a
long time to raise billions of dollars for their closely held foundation - they are not about
to let it go until they have another source of revenue and means of attracting wealthy donors
- the Presidency of the United States.
It's deja vu all over again!
Deus02,
Toronto 1 hour ago
Yep, the Saudis are going to implement a significant human rights program in the Kingdom
and the 500K that Trans Canada donated to the Clinton Foundation are going to announce they no
longer wish to build the Keystone XL pipeline.
Yeah right!
Pier Pezzi
, Orlando 41 minutes ago
The "foundation" spends about 10% on actual "charity" work. Watch "Heist" and "Clinton
Cash" and so many other printed sources to see what true pay-to-play self-enrichment on a
mammoth scale looks like.
Then vote for anyone but Clinton.
They are CROOKS with ZERO concern for anyone but themselves. Look at Haiti for openers.
A country still in ruin, but Hillary's brother has a first-ever seat on a Gold Mining
operation in Haiti... and as Sec. of State, she pushed back a raise for workers from 61Cents
back to 31Cents per hour. How can anyone with a heart vote for these carpetbaggers?
Don B
, Massachusetts 8 hours ago
The article fails to mention that almost none of the money actually goes to charity.
Nonprofits like this are excellent vehicles for avoiding taxes since the money can be spent on
salaries and "business expenses" like travel.
That isn't always objectionable: The Monterey Aquarium was set up that way but it was
funded by a rich man to provide a career for his daughter.
This particular nonprofit looks
too much like a money laundering operation for the benefit of the Clintons. Either the donors
were expecting some sort of payback or they thought they were donating to charity. In either
case, something is wrong with this.
"... But beyond the Republican bluster, there is a substantial critique of the Clinton Foundation: At its core, it fuses fundraising, influence-peddling, Washington networking, "humanitarian" causes and an endless grasp for power and money. ..."
"... Though taking care to adhere to the letter of the law, the foundation comes close to the line in many cases -- for example, soliciting donations by offering face time with the Clintons in ways that seem suspiciously like a political campaign for elected office, but not exactly like that, because that would be a violation of the law. ..."
"... Using methods like this, the Clinton Foundation raised some $2 billion since its inception 15 years ago. ..."
"... "Nearly half of the major donors who are backing Ready for Hillary, a group promoting her 2016 presidential bid, as well as nearly half of the bundlers from her 2008 campaign, have given at least $10,000 to the foundation, either on their own or through foundations or companies they run," according to the Post . ..."
"... As part of that agreement, the Clinton Foundation reported that prior to 2008, Saudi Arabia had contributed between $10 million and $25 million to its coffers -- a strange patron of a foundation that promotes itself as a fierce advocate for women's rights. But as should be obvious, how the money is used isn't generally as important to the governments, corporations and corporate executives contributing as the influence they buy. ..."
"... Killing the Host: How Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy ..."
"... The Clinton Foundation has staffers and programs in dozens of countries working on countless issues. But it's perhaps best known for its high-profile role in the reconstruction of Haiti after a devastating earthquake struck there in January 2010 . ..."
"... In this respect, the Clinton Foundation's operations in Haiti bore a striking resemblance to the Bush administration's arrogant colonial posture toward the occupation of Iraq -- right down to the way the Bush administration deployed recent Ivy League graduates to carry out central elements of the U.S. empire's plans for occupation and reconstruction. ..."
"... First, they had no background in development -- they didn't know what they were talking about in aid or humanitarianism. Second, they didn't even realize it. They had come to Haiti in their suits convinced they were going to fix the place, and then they looked really confused when we would try to explain to them why the ideas they came up with on the back of an envelope on the plane over wouldn't work. ..."
"... Indeed, the iconic accomplishments of the Clinton Foundation in Haiti today are an industrial park built to help foreign-owned clothing manufacturers exploit low-wage Haitian labor; trailers to house schools for Haiti's next generation of workers; and a luxury hotel for wealthy corporate executives who need a place to rest their weary heads as they seek out new business opportunities. ..."
"... But a year after its opening, the park had only produced 1,500 jobs. "Hundreds of smallholder farmers were coaxed into giving up more than 600 acres of land for the complex, yet nearly 95 percent of that land remains unused," according to an Al Jazeera report published in September 2013 . ..."
"... But the Clinton Foundation did see at least one project through to completion, under the auspices of the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund. The fund invested $2 million to complete the construction of a luxury hotel in Pétionville. ..."
Bill Clinton looks on as Hillary Clinton campaigns at the Broad Street Market in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania, July 29, 2016. (Photo: Ruth Fremson / The New York Times)
The stated mission of the Clinton Foundation, set up at the end of Bill Clinton's second term
in the White House, is to "alleviate poverty, improve global health, strengthen economies, and protect
the environment."
But far more important to its operations is the Clinton Foundation's unstated mission: to further
entrench the already formidable power of the Clinton family.
For more than two decades, both Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton have lived very public lives
ensconced in the upper echelons of America's political establishment. Since its founding in 2001,
the Clinton Foundation served as a bridge between Bill Clinton's administration and Hillary Clinton's
drive to conquer the White House again.
The foundation itself has been the subject of countless Republican-inspired inquiries and attacks,
including a
new
IRS investigation of its finances announced in the midst of the Democratic National Convention,
though it was overshadowed by Donald Trump's nonstop buffoonery.
But beyond the Republican bluster, there is a substantial critique of the Clinton Foundation:
At its core, it fuses fundraising, influence-peddling, Washington networking, "humanitarian" causes
and an endless grasp for power and money.
Though taking care to adhere to the letter of the law, the foundation comes close to the line
in many cases -- for example, soliciting donations by offering face time with the Clintons in ways
that seem suspiciously like a political campaign for elected office, but not exactly like that, because
that would be a violation of the law.
After Hillary Clinton stepped down as Secretary of State in 2013 to focus her attention on campaigning
for the White House, she officially rejoined the Clinton Foundation.
As theWashington Post reported in 2015:
[T]he organization has stepped up its solicitation efforts in anticipation of soon losing one
of its chief fundraisers [Hillary] to the campaign trail -- building a $250 million endowment
designed to provide some long-term stability.
The recent efforts have at times looked like a political campaign. A contest offered foundation
donors the chance to win a free trip to New York to attend a Clinton gala and have a photo taken
with the former first couple. Hillary and Chelsea Clinton hosted a "Millennium Network" event
in 2013 aimed at cultivating a younger generation of philanthropists. According to an invitation,
there were six tiers of donations, ranging from $150 for individuals to $15,000 for a couple seeking
a photograph with Hillary Clinton.
***
Using methods like this, the Clinton Foundation raised some $2 billion since its inception 15
years ago.
"Nearly half of the major donors who are backing Ready for Hillary, a group promoting her 2016
presidential bid, as well as nearly half of the bundlers from her 2008 campaign, have given at least
$10,000 to the foundation, either on their own or through foundations or companies they run,"
according to the Post.
The list of Clinton Foundation donors includes blue-chip corporations such as Coca Cola and Verizon,
Wall Street players like Goldman Sachs and American military contractors.
Federal law designates the Secretary of State as "responsible for the continuous supervision
and general direction of sales" of arms, military hardware and services to foreign countries.
In practice, that meant that Clinton was charged with rejecting or approving weapons deals --
and when it came to Clinton Foundation donors, Hillary Clinton's State Department did a whole
lot of approving.
While Clinton was Secretary of State, her department approved $165 billion worth of commercial
arms sales to Clinton Foundation donors. That figure from Clinton's three full fiscal years in
office is almost double the value of arms sales to those countries during the same period of President
George W. Bush's second term.
Fully one-third of foundation donors giving more than $1 million at a time are foreign governments.
When the Obama administration vetted Clinton for the post of Secretary of State in 2008, it barred
foreign governments that had previously given to the foundation from increasing their donations,
in order to deflect accusations about purchasing influence from America's highest-ranking diplomat.
As part of that agreement, the Clinton Foundation reported that prior to 2008, Saudi Arabia had
contributed between $10 million and $25 million to its coffers -- a strange patron of a foundation
that promotes itself as a fierce advocate for women's rights. But as should be obvious, how the money
is used isn't generally as important to the governments, corporations and corporate executives contributing
as the influence they buy.
Nobody, I think, in American history has merged their public service as Secretary of State
or president with their private gains to the extent that Hillary really has. And by that I mean
the Clinton Foundation, overall.
Here's the problem, you can imagine. She's going to Saudi Arabia, she's going to Europe, she's
going to the Near Eastern countries. Saudi Arabia has asked her -- and this is all very public
-- we want more arms. We want to buy arms in America...
Hillary's in a position to go to Raytheon, to Boeing, and say, look, do I have a customer for
you. Saudi Arabia would love to buy your arms. Maybe we can arrange something. I'm going to do
my best. By the way, you know, my foundation is -- you know, I'm a public-spirited person and
I'm trying to help the world. Would you like to make a contribution to my foundation?
Well, lo and behold, the military-industrial complex is one of the big contributors to the
Clinton Foundation, as is Saudi Arabia, and many of the parties who are directly affected by her
decisions.
***
The Clinton Foundation has staffers and programs in dozens of countries working on countless issues.
But it's perhaps best known for its high-profile role in the reconstruction of Haiti after
a devastating
earthquake struck there in January 2010.
The foundation's Haitian initiatives, like similar operations elsewhere, are distinguished by
an allegiance to the free market and a corporation-centric solution to social problems.
In this respect, the Clinton Foundation's operations in Haiti bore a striking resemblance to the
Bush administration's arrogant colonial posture toward the occupation of Iraq -- right down to the
way the Bush administration deployed
recent Ivy League graduates to carry out central elements of the U.S. empire's plans for occupation
and reconstruction.
First, they had no background in development -- they didn't know what they were talking about
in aid or humanitarianism. Second, they didn't even realize it. They had come to Haiti in their
suits convinced they were going to fix the place, and then they looked really confused when we
would try to explain to them why the ideas they came up with on the back of an envelope on the
plane over wouldn't work.
Indeed, the iconic accomplishments of the Clinton Foundation in Haiti today are an industrial
park built to help foreign-owned clothing manufacturers exploit low-wage Haitian labor; trailers
to house schools for Haiti's next generation of workers; and a luxury hotel for wealthy corporate
executives who need a place to rest their weary heads as they seek out new business opportunities.
***
In 2012, Bill and Hillary Clinton personally attended the opening ceremony of the Caracol Industrial
Park, which was supposed to create some 60,000 jobs for Haitians longing for decent employment. Among
the celebrities who attended the opening were Sean Penn and Ben Stiller,
according to the Washington Examiner.
But a year after its opening, the park had only produced 1,500 jobs. "Hundreds of smallholder
farmers were coaxed into giving up more than 600 acres of land for the complex, yet nearly 95 percent
of that land remains unused,"
according to an Al Jazeera report published in September 2013.
The Clinton Foundation disgracefully contracted with Clayton Homes -- the same firm sued by the
U.S. government for supplying trailers reeking of formaldehyde fumes to Hurricane Katrina refugees
-- to provide trailers to serve as schools for the children of the town of Léogâne,
according to
a report in the Nation by Isabel Macdonald and Isabeau Doucet.
Warren Buffet, owner of the investment firm Berkshire Hathway, which in turns owns Clayton Homes,
was a prominent supporter of Hillary Clinton's 2008 presidential campaign. Buffet co-hosted a fundraiser
that raked in more than $1 million for her campaign.
But the Clinton Foundation did see at least one project through to completion, under the auspices
of the Clinton Bush Haiti Fund. The fund invested $2 million to complete the construction of a luxury
hotel in Pétionville.
The Oasis Hotel "symbolizes Haiti 'building back better' and sends a message to the world that
Haiti is open for business,"
according to Paul Altidor, vice president of the Clinton-Bush Haiti Fund. "For Haiti's recovery
to be sustainable, it must attract investors, businesses and donors, all of whom will need a business-class,
seismically safe hotel."
But these trickle-down visions of development are precisely what angers Haitians about the colonial
arrogance of the West's reconstruction efforts. "All the money that went to pay the salaries of foreigners
and to rent expensive apartments and cars for foreigners while the situation of the country was degrading
-- there was something revolting about it,"
former Prime Minister Michèle Pierre-Louis told the New York Times in 2012:
The practices of the Clinton Foundation illustrate the total embrace of neoliberalism and the
free market by the Clinton clan -- to the family's enormous financial benefit.
Remember that the next time you hear another liberal blowhard complain about how anyone who says
you're acting out of "privilege" if you aren't ready to vote for Hillary Clinton. In reality, the
Clintons themselves represent the pinnacle of privilege, fused with the power of the U.S. government
and its foreign policy agenda.
Challenging the Clinton establishment is part and parcel of challenging the privileges of those
who stand atop the global capitalist system.
Eric Ruder is in the editorial
board of the International Socialist Review. He is also a frequent contributor to Socialist Worker.
"... Judicial Watch wanted Clinton to answer questions in person about whether she used the server to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests. But U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled her written responses would be sufficient. ..."
"... The lawsuit already has obtained several previously unreleased emails that suggested some of Clinton's aides had sought to help the Clinton Foundation, a charity run by her husband and daughter, while she was still secretary of State. ..."
"... Clinton faces several civil lawsuits stemming from her use of a private server, and damaging new emails could yet surface before election day. ..."
Judicial Watch wanted Clinton to answer questions in person about whether she used the
server to avoid Freedom of Information Act requests. But U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan ruled
her written responses would be sufficient.
The group has until Oct. 14 to submit the questions, and Clinton must respond within 30 days.
... ... ...
The lawsuit already has obtained several previously unreleased emails that suggested some
of Clinton's aides had sought to help the Clinton Foundation, a charity run by her husband and
daughter, while she was still secretary of State.
In one message, a top Clinton aide appeared to try to help a wealthy donor get a meeting with
the U.S. ambassador to Lebanon, after a Clinton Foundation executive had requested it.
Clinton faces several civil lawsuits stemming from her use of a private server, and
damaging new emails could yet surface before election day.
"... Between the creation of the victory fund in September and the end of [June], the fund had brought in $142 million, . . . 44 percent [to] DNC ($24.4 million) and Hillary for America ($37.6 million), . . . state parties have kept less than $800,000 of all the cash brought in by the committee - or only 0.56 percent. ..."
"... Beyond the transfers, much of the fund's $42 million in direct spending also appears to have been done to directly benefit the Clinton campaign, as opposed to the state parties ..."
"... The fund has paid $4.1 million to the Clinton campaign for "salary and overhead expenses" to reimburse it for fundraising efforts. And it has directed $38 million to vendors such as direct marketing company Chapman Cubine Adams + Hussey and digital consultant Bully Pulpit Interactive - both of which also serve the Clinton campaign - for mailings and online ads that sometimes closely resemble Clinton campaign materials. ..."
I am not interested in a prolonged back and forth, but I will lay out a bare outline of facts.
I do not find much support for your characterization of these arrangements, which give new meaning
to the fungibility of funds. I think it is fair and accurate to describe the HVF transfer arrangements
as a means of circumventing campaign financing limits and using the State parties to subsidize
the Clinton campaign. Court rulings have made aggregate fund raising legal and invites this means
of circumventing the $2700 limit on individual Presidential campaign donations. Whether the circumvention
is legal - whether it violates the law to invite nominal contributions to State Parties of $10,000
and channel those contributions wholly to operations in support of Clinton, while leaving nothing
in State Party coffers is actually illegal, I couldn't say; it certainly violates the norms of
a putative joint fundraising effort. It wasn't hard for POLITICO to find State officials who said
as much. The rest of this comment quotes POLITICO reports dated July 2016.
Hillary Victory Fund, which now includes 40 state Democratic Party committees, theoretically could
accept checks as large as $436,100 - based on the individual limits of $10,000 per state party,
$33,400 for the DNC, and $2,700 for Clinton's campaign.
Between the creation of the victory fund in September and the end of [June], the fund had
brought in $142 million, . . . 44 percent [to] DNC ($24.4 million) and Hillary for America ($37.6
million), . . . state parties have kept less than $800,000 of all the cash brought in by the committee
- or only 0.56 percent.
. . . state parties have received $7.7 million in transfers, but within a few days of most
transfers, almost all of the cash - $6.9 million - was transferred to the DNC . . .
The only date on which most state parties received money from the victory fund and didn't pass
any of it on to the DNC was May 2, the same day that POLITICO published an article exposing the
arrangement.
Beyond the transfers, much of the fund's $42 million in direct spending also appears to
have been done to directly benefit the Clinton campaign, as opposed to the state parties.
The fund has paid $4.1 million to the Clinton campaign for "salary and overhead expenses"
to reimburse it for fundraising efforts. And it has directed $38 million to vendors such as direct
marketing company Chapman Cubine Adams + Hussey and digital consultant Bully Pulpit Interactive
- both of which also serve the Clinton campaign - for mailings and online ads that sometimes closely
resemble Clinton campaign materials.
JM Hatch 08.03.16 at 2:23 am
@41 Lee Arnold: Are you referring to the Warren Buffet who owns Fruit-of-the-Loom? The same
company which had Hillary's State Dept bust up a minimum wage law for Haiti's textile industry?
The same company which then donated to the Clinton Foundation for aid that never arrived to Haiti?
If not, then who is this Warren Buffet?
"... Fractured Lands in the NYT Magazine: this is getting the full MSM `serious journalism' treatment. Strangely, in 40,000 words it mentions Saudi Arabia essentially once, Bahrain once, in the phrase, `an arc across the Arab world from Mauritania to Bahrain', and Qatar not at all. ..."
"... So the three MENA countries most responsible for supporting extremism in their own neighborhood (and underwriting it elsewhere as well) are left off the hook. ..."
Fractured Lands in the NYT Magazine: this is getting the full MSM `serious journalism' treatment. Strangely, in 40,000 words it mentions Saudi Arabia essentially once,
Bahrain once, in the phrase, `an arc across the Arab world from Mauritania to Bahrain',
and Qatar not at all.
So the three MENA countries most responsible for supporting extremism in their own neighborhood
(and underwriting it elsewhere as well) are left off the hook.
He stated in the beginning that he's only dealing with six countries and Saudi Arabia wasn't
one of them. I started to read it but didn't get very far.
had to ck that out too…" Although definitions, names, and borders can vary, generally the regions
of Asia include West Asia (which is part of the Middle East), the Caucasus (sometimes also considered
as part of the Middle East), Central Asia, East Asia, South Asia (also called the Indian Subcontinent),
and Southeast Asia. West Asia is sometimes referred to as the Middle East, with is actually a
misnomer since the cultural region we define as the Middle East often included countries outside
of Asia, such as Egypt in Africa and Cyprus in Europe. West Asia specifically includes the countries
within the region of Asia bordered by the Mediterranean and Red Seas to the West and the Persian
Gulf, the Gulfs of Aden and Oman, and the Arabian Sea to the South.
Countries within West Asia include Afghanistan, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait,
Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Just northeast
of Turkey lies the Caucasus, a mountainous region wedged between the Black Sea to the West and
the Caspian Sea to the East. The Caucasus includes Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and parts of
Russia. Central Asia is located just north of Iran and Afghanistan and south of Russia, consisting
of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. East Asia defines the region
between Central Asia, Russia, and the Pacific Ocean roughly up to the beginning of the Tropic
of Cancer."…and i'm still confused.
"... About Hillary's cute lawerly language–just to be clear, isn't it neoliberal dogma that by definition all "trade deals" increase jobs and wages. ..."
"... In effect this statement can be accurately summed up as "I support the TPP." I wonder–are a lot of people being taken in by this crap? Wouldn't it be better to just outright lie? I mean it's not like Trump has been letting this language go by unchallenged; he'll be pretty merciless about it in the debates coming up. ..."
"... The problem is, is Trump smart enough to understand that? Is he patient and disciplined enough to make that "parsing problem" a basic part of his message and keep discussing it? ..."
"... I know Trump is shrewd and cunning and educated about high-level money-grubbing and handing off his losses to others. But does he have any higher-order intelligence? Does he think longer and deeper and can he show that in any debates Hillary cannot avoid showing up for? Do they educate for that at Wharton? ..."
"... Bill did usher in the – pay to play – model imo like none before him. ..."
"EXCLUSIVE: Joint FBI-US Attorney Probe Of Clinton Foundation Is Underway" [Daily
Caller]. "Multiple FBI investigations are underway involving potential corruption charges
against the Clinton Foundation, according to a former senior law enforcement official. The investigation
centers on New York City where the Clinton Foundation has its main offices, according to the former
official who has direct knowledge of the activities. The New York-based probe is being led by
Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York. Bharara's prosecutorial
aggressiveness has resulted in a large number of convictions of banks, hedge funds and Wall Street
insiders."
Normally, I view the Daily Caller with great skepticism, based on past fabrications (then again,
Judy Miller). That said, this one was vouched for on the Twitter by reporters I have respect for.
And with Clinton owning both political establishments, it's hard to see where else the
(sadly) single source could turn. Interestingly, Bharara hasn't issued a denail as of this writing,
altough they declined comment. Here's a rehash from
LawNewz. So we'll see how this plays out.
"Clinton team tells supporters to dismiss email questions as 'more bark than bite'" [Yahoo
News] (talking points for Brock trolls and reputable allies, if any, attached). Notice there
are two issues with "her damned email." (1) Clinton's privatization of the server as such, with
the associated security issues. (2) Corruption, enabled by the privatization: Clinton's conflation
of the private interests of the Clinton Foundation with the public actions of the State Department
under Clinton's leadership.
The privatized server enables corruption by severing the evidentiary chain between private
communications (said to be yoga lessons and Chelsea's wedding, but, as we now know, more than
that) and putatively public actions. The content of the 40 emails not turned over by
Clinton, and now revealed by Judicial Watch, re-connects the links in the evidentiary chain. Of
course, Clinton's talking points are designed to obfuscate the distinction.
Jim Haygood, August 12, 2016 at 2:14 pm
This just in:
"Of the [Clintons'] $1,042,000 in charitable cash contributions, exactly $1 million went
to, you guessed it, the Clinton Family Foundation."
It takes a Harambe to trample a village.
temporal, August 12, 2016 at 2:56 pm
That is sort of the way it's done for most of the rich that make charitable contributions.
Give presents to friends wait for other presents to return and pay less taxes. The Clintons apparently
decided that honesty was the best policy and skipped all that trusting others to pass the dutchie.
lyman alpha blob
RE: Joint FBI-US Attorney Probe Of Clinton Foundation
This morning I saw an article saying that the DOJ has rebuffed the FBI
request to investigate the Clinton Foundation. Quick search turns up a lot
of articles – here's one
from the Washington Times:
"The Obama administration rejected requests from three FBI field offices
that wanted to open public corruption probes of the Clinton Foundation,
according to a report that added to headaches for Democratic presidential
nominee Hillary Clinton.
Alerted by banks to suspicious transactions, the FBI wanted to
investigate conflicts of interest involving foreign donors to the foundation
while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state. But the Justice Department put
the kibosh on the it, CNN reported."
So now I'm confused – aren't US Attorneys part of the DOJ? Can anyone
shed some light on this?
My twitter is saying Bharara could claim jurisdiction and the probe is
an end run around DOJ. It is all based on one anonymous source for now,
grain of salt and so forth.
There seems to be a lot of rich people on the board as well as hanging around as employees
at TCFF. That million won't go far. Maybe they'll pass on a couple of bucks to Haiti or send them
some used furniture.
Paid Minion, August 12, 2016 at 3:28 pm
Another example of "charitable donations"– A big chunk of the "Warbird Restoration" business.
-Millionaire buys and restores WWII airplane. (The price of which has been driven into
the millions of dollars by rich guys bidding against each other)
-"Donates" airplane to "charitable/non-profit" organization, dedicated to "honoring the
memory…………"
-The guy that donates gets a tax writeoff, then flies it on the tax-deductible donations.
Yeah, when the guy kicks the bucket, the airplane goes to the charity. But, being dead, and
having received a 10-20 year tax writeoff, why does he care at that point?
It would take twenty years to find and document all of the little scams for rich people that have
been written into the tax code.
Seems like the tax code gives out $100 of "incentives" for every $5 rich people spend.
RMO, August 13, 2016 at 1:49 am
Being an aviation nut I've noticed that many warbirds have gone WAY up in price over the last
decade. They've never been cheap to own (even when they were available as surplus in large quantities
the operating costs could be amazingly high) but now you have to be a multi-millionaire at least
to buy something like a P-51. A lot of classic cars and sailing yachts have gone the same way.
The extremely wealthy seem to have decided these things are desirable and the prices rocket into
the stratosphere. I suppose I can consider myself fortunate that the type of flying that I love
the most (soaring) is also one of the least expensive ways of getting off the ground. It's also
one of the few forms of flying that let one go wingtip-to-wingtip with eagles and hawks on a regular
basis.
fajensen, August 14, 2016 at 1:24 pm
Maybe the purchase of a carefully restored vintage Flakvierling 38 is more appropriate?
If they are flying over your land … you could put some authenticity into the Squillionaire
WWII flyboy experience ;-)
Foppe, August 12, 2016 at 2:34 pm
fwiw, on the topic of elite corruption/pay2play/hillary: When I recently tried to talk about
this with someone who takes himself slightly too seriously, who sees his interests as aligned
with the professional classes, self-identifying as a "pragmatist", and who seems constitutionally
unable to conceive of the notion that highly educated people could be as corrupt as they (often)
are incompetent, I found that it was pretty much impossible to get him to even acknowledge that
Hillary's SoS/CF corruption was problematic.
Because "that's always how it goes/what happens, we shouldn't kid ourselves" and "at least
we know about this" (apparently the fact that quite a bit of effort was being expended to make
it harder for us to find out about this didn't faze him either, perhaps because of ideas he harbors
about how that's necessary because "the masses wouldn't understand" or whatnot).
Utterly bizarre, this unwillingness to engage with the facts, because of beliefs someone holds
about how not doing so is the pragmatic option, in someone who also identifies as a (hard) scientist.
hemeantwell, August 12, 2016 at 2:55 pm
I've been reading around in some of the mid-20th c. lit on the psychology of fascism - "Prophets
of Deceit," "The Inability to Mourn" and others in the genre - and that sort of "realism" was
thought of as a key component in bringing about acceptance of, and then sympathy with, fascism.
Once corruption and related forms of power asymmetries are accepted, there's not much left to
maintain a principled critical standpoint. You're just left with your own narrow self interest
and an openness to appreciating the skill with which the game is played. Hitler was quite a politician
and, wowzers, Mussolini sure had some chutzpah, that March on Rome was awesome!
As an old-style Leninist party in a modern world, the CCP is confronted by two major challenges:
first, how to maintain "ideological discipline" among its almost 89 million members in a globalized
world awash with money, international travel, electronically transmitted information, and heretical
ideas. Second, how to cleanse itself of its chronic corruption, a blight that Xi has himself described
as "a matter of life and death."
The primary reason the Party is so susceptible to graft is that while officials are poorly
paid, they do control valuable national assets. So, for example, when property development deals
come together involving real estate (all land belongs to the government) and banking (all the
major banks also belong to the government), officials vetting the deals find themselves in tempting
positions to supplement their paltry salaries by accepting bribes or covertly raking off a percentage
of the action. Since success without corruption in China is almost a non sequitur,
officials and businessmen (and heads of state-owned enterprises are both) are all easily touched
by what Chinese call "original sin" (yuanzui), namely, some acquaintance with corruption.
The more anti corruption pressure Jinping applies, the greater the flood of loot coming out
of China. Canada is getting swamped.
jgordon
About Hillary's cute lawerly language–just to be clear, isn't it neoliberal dogma that by definition
all "trade deals" increase jobs and wages.
In effect this statement can be accurately summed up as "I support the TPP." I wonder–are a
lot of people being taken in by this crap? Wouldn't it be better to just outright lie? I mean
it's not like Trump has been letting this language go by unchallenged; he'll be pretty merciless
about it in the debates coming up.
MyLessThanPrimeBeef
If she is so far ahead, she should be able to risk embracing the deal openly and not have to
borrow a page from Obama's playbook about privately calming his supporters, back in 2008, about
his public position on NAFTA.
different clue
The problem is, is Trump smart enough to understand that? Is he patient and disciplined enough
to make that "parsing problem" a basic part of his message and keep discussing it?
I know Trump is shrewd and cunning and educated about high-level money-grubbing and handing
off his losses to others. But does he have any higher-order intelligence? Does he think longer
and deeper and can he show that in any debates Hillary cannot avoid showing up for? Do they educate
for that at Wharton?
RE: Clinton's drive to assimilate the Republican establishment
IMNSHO this is the recipe for the gridlock you're looking for Lambert and
may even rid us of both Trump and Clinton. Not sure what the Dems were thinking
they'd accomplish by targeting Repulicans to vote for Clinton. While some might
hold there nose and pull the lever for her out of disgust for Trump, it
certainly does not follow that they will also vote for down-ticket Dems. It
seems asinine to me to expect that they would.
More likely the result is a Clinton presidency backed by a Republican
Congress. I'd say it would be great if they'd then impeach her but one has to
be careful what one wishes for. I don't see a Kaine presidency as much of an
improvement and I suspect repubs would be more likely to cooperate with him
than they would Clinton.
Why would this cause gridlock? Wouldn't this cause Trade Agreements and
Grand Bargains? The elite mainstreamers will get all those done first and
then get around to Impeachment and stuff if they need to amuse themselves.
But they will see to first things first . . . if its Clinton and a Republan
Senate and House.
If Clinton is elected president in November, she'll earn a salary of
$400,000 but forgo any income from speeches (until she leaves office,
anyway). That could cost the Clintons $10 million per year, based on the
speech income Hillary Clinton averaged as a private citizen in 2013 and
2014. That's $40 million during a four-year term.
This is so inspiring! Let's take up a collection fund for Hillary, call it
the 'Pantsuit Fund'. It's the least we can do…
PS No word on what portion of this "lost" income would be funneled into the
Clinton Foundation instead…
But the money paid to her openly after leaving the State Department was
just a down payment for the presidency. So it's really more like she got
$20+ million spread out over eight years (or twelve, if you want to factor
in the depressing possibility of a second term) plus her cumulative White
House salary of $1.6 million (or again, $3.2 over eight presidential years).
And all that money paid to Bill, Chelsea and her husband was ALSO a down
payment on the presidency. How many millions was that?
The violin I am playing for them all is sub-atomic in size.
Bill did usher in the – pay to play – model imo like none before him.
Disheveled Marsupial…. The layers of gate keepers to gain audience
must have been commensurate to hot groupies servicing roadies and
security staff… endless blow jobs and other sex acts committed in pursuit
of entering the inner sanctum… where eternal bliss resides…
The income wouldn't be foregone, only deferred. She would expect anywhere
up to billions of dollars after leaving office if she got enough done for
the OverClass while IN office.
Merely delayed . . . not denied.
Watch how much money Obama harvests in the years ahead. That will be the
template.
I have sinking feeling of horror even contemplating that someone as
bloodthirsty as Hillary actually has a shot of being president. That the
"left" are the ones who let things get this far is incredibly ironic. Or
not. Maybe they've always been bloodthirsty warmonger hungry for chaos and
destruction in their hearts.
"over the last 15 years, have lost two major wars, set the Mediterranean
littoral on fire, created a refugee crisis that's destabilizing our largest
military protectorate, and blown many thousands of far away brown people to
pink mist (but that's not racist, no siree. We have credentials)."
Serious men in suits, sitting around a table, having serious conversations:
who do we bomb today? How much 'collateral damage' do the PR guys deem is
acceptable?
At no point will the idea that not bombing is a genuine option come up. Nor
will the fact that (for some strange reason) people don't like being bombed and
we're actually making more enemies than we're eliminating. I'm reminded of the
South Park episode where the leaders of the Vatican have a meeting about how
they can cover up raping children in the future. Simply not raping children
never occurs to them as a choice.
I was both surprised, and not surprised that 90-some percent of her
charitable donations went to the Clinton Foundation.
Talk about hiding in plain sight.
The main factor in rigging the system is pack of rabid gdogs called neoliberal MSM, which attack
Trump 24 x 7, throwing our of the window any pretence about objectivity. They dissect each his
phrase and create face skandals. One after another. They give a pass Hillary without even
analysing her positions and her record (always dismal, often criminal, as in the term "war
criminal"). Bastards...
It would be difficult to imagine a more implausible tribune
of the people than Donald Trump.
It is harder still to
think of him as an elected official of any kind, much less a
President.
But the man does have certain strengths. He is shrewd, for
example; and to be shrewd, he must be at least somewhat in
touch with reality.
To the extent that he is, he has to be wondering what the
hell he was thinking when he threw his hat into the ring.
... ... ...
As it became clear that Trump was doing better in the primaries than anyone
had expected, the Republican establishment did try to derail his campaign - in
league with the plutocrats who back them and Fox News. They failed
spectacularly.
They were unable to rig the election because too many of the people that
used to listen to them finally realized that they were being used, and refused
to go along.
The only candidate who can rightfully claim that the primary elections were
rigged against his candidacy is Bernie Sanders. Circumstantial evidence of
this had been overwhelming from Day One; the DNC emails that Wikileaks
published established the point definitively.
No wonder that Democrats don't want to talk about the content of those
emails; that they'd rather deflect attention to unsubstantiated allegations
about Russian hacking.
After Trump's asinine quip about a 2nd amendment "solution" to stopping
Clinton's presidential run, her campaign manager, Robby Mook, had
this
to say:
"What Trump is saying is dangerous. A person seeking to be the President
of the United States should not suggest violence in any way."
A presidential candidate should not suggest violence in
any
way?!?
Really?
This coming from a high-level supporter of a candidate who…
…has supported
every
war during her political career?
…supported the use of civilian-butchering cluster bombs by Israel in Gaza?
…supported the brutal invasions by the Saudi dictatorship of Bahrain and
Yemen?
…enthusiastically pushed for the bombing of Libya that turned it into a
failed state?
…threatened use of nuclear weapons vs. Iran?
…supported the military coups against the elected governments in Honduras
and Egypt, turning both into violence-ridden basket cases?
…adores as her mentor the arch war criminal Henry Kissinger, orchestrator of
the tortures and killings of 10s of thousands?
Tell me, please, Clinton supporters, how is this not "suggest[ing] violence
in any way."
Is it because threats of violence don't count when they're promoted against
human beings who aren't Americans? Go ahead, probe the deeply caustic,
Trump-like racism behind that assumption.
Last Friday, four days before Trump issued his violent threat and a few
weeks after the constitution-waiving stunt at the Democratic convention, the
ACLU and a federal court finally forced the release of the Obama
administration's patently
unconstitutional guidelines
[2]
for killing people with drones (
nearly
90%
of whom were not the intended targets).
And yesterday, while the Republican sociopath was issuing his threat, the
Obama State Department approved the sale of more than
$1
billion in arms to Saudi Arabia
, no doubt to continue its bloody invasion
of Yemen, where the UN recently estimated that
two-thirds of the civilian casualties
are caused by Saudi air strikes.
Where was the Democratic and Republican outrage against those very real,
violent threats?
When Clinton wins the November election, will we stoop ever farther into an
Orwellian world as our first "feminist" president continues to shovel billions
in arms to arguably the most anti-feminist dictatorship on the planet? Where
violence against people doesn't count as violence due to their nationality
and/or the color of their skin?
If you're outraged about Trump's barbarous suggestion of 2
nd
Amendment "solutions" to elections, please don't stop there. Get your blood
boiling and then also, and just as forcefully, challenge Clinton's own
barbarous "solutions."
"A third of the members of the United Nations have felt Washington's
boot, overturning governments, subverting democracy, imposing blockades and
boycotts. Most of the presidents responsible have been liberal – Truman,
Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama…"
"One of the more violent presidents, Obama gave full reign to the
Pentagon war-making apparatus of his discredited predecessor. He prosecuted
more whistleblowers – truth-tellers – than any president. He pronounced
Chelsea Manning guilty before she was tried. Today, Obama runs an
unprecedented worldwide campaign of terrorism and murder by drone."
"In 2009, Obama promised to help "rid the world of nuclear weapons" and
was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. No American president has built more
nuclear warheads than Obama."
"... Clinton's top aides' favors for and interactions with the Clinton Foundation seem in violation of the ethics agreements that Hillary Clinton agreed to in order to be appointed and confirmed as Secretary of State. For example, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton on January 5, 2009, wrote in a letter to State Department Designated Agency Ethics Official James H. Thessin: ..."
"... "For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party…." ..."
"... The emails reveal that Clinton campaign adviser and pollster Mark Penn advised Clinton on NATO and piracy. Another major Clinton fundraiser, Lana Moresky, also pushed Clinton to hire someone for a position at State. Clinton directed Abedin to follow up and "help" the applicant and told Abedin to "let me know" about the job issue. ..."
"... The emails show that Hillary Clinton relied on someone named "Justin " (presumably Justin Cooper, a Bill Clinton and Clinton Foundation employee), to set up her cell phone voicemail, rather than having State Department personnel handle it. This was in a February 11, 2009, email from Clinton aide Lauren Jiloty to Clinton, using Clinton's [email protected] address. ..."
Remember how Hillary Clinton repeatedly assured us all that she had turned over all work-related
emails? And that she avoided any conflicts of interest with her Clinton Foundation?
Well, this week we released 296 pages of State Department records containing 44 email exchanges
not previously turned over to the State Department. This brings the known total to 171 of new
Clinton emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over. These
records further appear to contradict statements by Clinton that, "as far as she knew," all of
her government emails were turned over to the State Department.
The new documents reveal that in April 2009 controversial Clinton Foundation official Doug
Band pushed for a job for an associate. In the email, Band tells Hillary Clinton's former aides
at the State Department, Cheryl Mills and Huma Abedin, that it is "important to take care of [Redacted].
Band is reassured by Abedin that, "Personnel has been sending him options." Band was co-founder
of Teneo Strategy with Bill Clinton and a top official of the Clinton Foundation, including its
Clinton Global Initiative.
Included is a 2009 email in which Band directs Abedin and Mills to put Lebanese-Nigerian billionaire
and Clinton Foundation donor Gilbert Chagoury in touch with the State Department's "substance
person" on Lebanon. Band notes that Chagoury is "key guy there [Lebanon] and to us," and insists
that Abedin call Amb. Jeffrey Feltman to connect him to Chagoury.
Chagoury, a foreign national, is a close friend of former President Bill Clinton and a top
donor to the Clinton Foundation. He has appeared near the top of the Foundation's donor list as
a $1 million to $5 million contributor, according to foundation documents. He also pledged $1
billion to the Clinton Global Initiative. According to a 2010 investigation by PBS Frontline,
Chagoury was convicted in 2000 in Switzerland for laundering money from Nigeria, but agreed to
a plea deal and repaid $66 million to the Nigerian government.
Clinton's top aides' favors for and interactions with the Clinton Foundation seem in violation
of the ethics agreements that Hillary Clinton agreed to in order to be appointed and confirmed
as Secretary of State. For example, Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton on January 5,
2009, wrote in a letter to State Department Designated Agency Ethics Official James H. Thessin:
"For the duration of my appointment as Secretary if I am confirmed, I will not participate
personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which The
William J. Clinton Foundation (or the Clinton Global Initiative) is a party or represents a party…."
As preparation for Hillary's upcoming visit to Asia, Stephen Roach, chairman of Morgan Stanley
Asia, on Feb. 11, 2009, sends Hillary a copy of his upcomingtestimony before Congress in which
he would condemn any U.S. efforts to criticize Chinese monetary policy or enact trade barriers.
Several days later, Hillary asked Abedin about Roach possibly "connecting" with her while she
was in Beijing: "I forwarded you my email to him about connecting in Beijing. Can he come to the
embassy or other event?" Morgan Stanley is a long-time financial supporter of the Clintons.
The emails also reveal that Abedin left then-Secretary Clinton's daily schedule, a presumably
sensitive document, on a bed in an unlocked hotel room. An email on April 18, 2009, during a conference
in Trinidad and Tobago, from aide Melissa J. Lan to Huma Abedin asks for the Secretary's "day
book binders." Abedin replies: "Yes. It's on the bed in my room. U can take it. My door is open.
I'm in the lobby.Thx." Moreover, the emails show the annoyance of another Clinton aide that the
schedule was sent to an authorized State Department email address and not to an unsecured non-state.gov
account.
The emails reveal that Clinton campaign adviser and pollster Mark Penn advised Clinton on NATO
and piracy. Another major Clinton fundraiser, Lana Moresky, also pushed Clinton to hire someone
for a position at State. Clinton directed Abedin to follow up and "help" the applicant and told
Abedin to "let me know" about the job issue.
The emails show that Hillary Clinton relied on someone named "Justin " (presumably Justin Cooper,
a Bill Clinton and Clinton Foundation employee), to set up her cell phone voicemail, rather than
having State Department personnel handle it. This was in a February 11, 2009, email from Clinton
aide Lauren Jiloty to Clinton, using Clinton's [email protected] address.
This is the ninth set of records produced for Judicial Watch by the State Department from the
non-state.gov email accounts of Huma Abedin.
The documents were produced under a court order in a May 5, 2015, Freedom of Information (FOIA)
lawsuit against the State Department (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-00684))
requiring the agency to produce "all emails of official State Department business received or
sent by former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin from January 1, 2009 through February 1, 2013,
using a 'non-state'.gov email address."
It's no wonder Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin hid emails from the American people, the courts
and Congress. They show that the Clinton Foundation, Clinton donors, and operatives worked with
Hillary Clinton in potential violation of the law.
These revelations have created a national firestorm in the media, as even the liberal media
grasp the significance of the Clinton Foundation's pay for play relationship with the Clinton
State Department. See these major stories in the New York Post and The New York Times or this
major editorial in the Wall Street Journal.
Do the Clinton's not realize when they've won something? Bill at least doesn't.
After the
FBI absolved Hillary of any wrong-doing but still chastised her for her
carelessness, you would think that Bill and Hill would want to move away from a
scandal has plagued them, right?
Not according to Bill, who may have just gotten Hillary in more trouble with the
FBI:
Bill Clinton is accusing the FBI director of serving up "the biggest load of
bull I've ever heard" - marking the first significant public comments from the
husband of the Democratic nominee on the scandal that's plagued his wife's
campaign for over a year.
The Clinton's are notorious for holding grudges for decades, so it is safe to say
that FBI Director Comey is in for a bit of trouble if Hillary ever gets into office.
I don't know why you'd even want to bring this up. You won. Do you really want
people to look further into the FBI investigation and Hillary's emails? I don't think
so.
Bill, August 13, 2016 at 9:56 pm
Comey had better watch out. People who cross Bill and Killary have a disturbing habit of
dying mysteriously.
"... At the time, three field offices were in agreement an investigation should be launched after the FBI received notification from a bank of suspicious activity from a foreigner who had donated to the Clinton Foundation , according to the official. ..."
"... The Department of Justice had looked into allegations surrounding the foundation a year earlier after the release of the controversial book "Clinton Cash," but found them to be unsubstantiated and there was insufficient evidence to open a case. ..."
"... Some also expressed concern the request seemed more political than substantive, especially given the timing of it coinciding with the investigation into the private email server and Clinton's presidential campaign. ..."
"... The official said involvement of the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York "would be seen by agents as a positive development as prosecutors there are generally thought to be more aggressive than the career lawyers within the DOJ ." ..."
"... The former official said the investigation is being coordinated between bureau field offices and FBI managers at headquarters in Washington, D.C. The unusual process would ensure senior FBI supervisors, including Director James Comey, would be kept abreast of case progress and of significant developments. ..."
"... What a joke. The FBI already has their statement prepared. "No reasonable prosecutor would prosecute Hillary over these obvious felonies that Hillary committed. Gotta go to a Hillary fundraiser now. Have a great day and keep trusting us!" ..."
"... FBI = F ucked B eyond I magination. Zero credibility these days, and deserving of zero respect with another "nothing to see here" no doubt forthcoming. ..."
"... Give it up already. As much as anyone may want to see Hillary behind bars or even just "lose" the election, it's just wishful thinking. Everyone with eyes to see and ears to hear can clearly tell that the fix is in. Hillary will NOT be prosecuted for anything and Trump will NOT be allowed to win the "election", regardless what the actual "vote" count may be. ..."
"... It is all just political theater and most plebes don't even realize that tbey are simply unwitting pawns in the play. ..."
"... in my years of reading zh, most folks were on board with the assessment that, THERE ARE NOT 2 PARTYS! ..."
"... and to further that, the 'candidates' are chosen well ahead of time, by TPTB. ..."
Having detailed
Clinton-appointee Loretta Lynch's DoJ push-back against the FBI's Clinton Foundation probe, it
seems Director Comey has decided to flex his own muscles and save face as
DailyCaller reports, multiple FBI investigations are underway involving potential corruption
charges against the Clinton Foundation , according to a former senior law enforcement official.
At the time, three field offices were in agreement an investigation should be launched
after the FBI received notification from a bank of suspicious activity from a foreigner who had
donated to the Clinton Foundation , according to the official.
FBI officials wanted to investigate whether there was a criminal conflict of interest
with the State Department and the Clinton Foundation during Clinton's tenure .
But...
The Department of Justice had looked into allegations surrounding the foundation
a year earlier after the release of the controversial book "Clinton Cash," but found them
to be unsubstantiated and there was insufficient evidence to open a case.
As so as a result...
DOJ officials pushed back against opening a case during the meeting earlier this year
.
Some also expressed concern the request seemed more political than substantive,
especially given the timing of it coinciding with the investigation into the private
email server and Clinton's presidential campaign.
However,
as DailyCaller reports, The FBI is undertaking multiple investigations involving potential
corruption changes against The Clinton Foundation...
The investigation centers on New York City where the Clinton Foundation has its main
offices , according to the former official who has direct knowledge of the activities.
Prosecutorial support will come from various U.S. Attorneys Offices - a major departure from
other centralized FBI investigations.
The New York-based probe is being led by Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney
for the Southern District of New York.
The official said involvement of the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of
New York "would be seen by agents as a positive development as prosecutors there are generally
thought to be more aggressive than the career lawyers within the DOJ ."
...
The former official said the investigation is being coordinated between bureau field offices
and FBI managers at headquarters in Washington, D.C. The unusual process would ensure senior FBI
supervisors, including Director James Comey, would be kept abreast of case progress and of significant
developments.
The reliance on U.S. attorneys would be a significant departure from the centralized manner
in which the FBI managed the investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use
of a private server and email addresses.
That investigation was conducted with agents at FBI headquarters, who coordinated with the
Department of Justice's National Security Division (NSD).
While Nicholas Biase, a spokesman for Bharara, said he would "decline comment," and FBI spokeswoman
Samantha Shero said, "we do not have a comment on investigative activity," we wonder if the unusual
procedures and the tone of that comment suggests a mutinous FBI standing up to the politicized DoJ?
What a joke. The FBI already has their statement prepared. "No reasonable prosecutor would
prosecute Hillary over these obvious felonies that Hillary committed. Gotta go to a Hillary fundraiser
now. Have a great day and keep trusting us!"
My next paycheck says FBI will find corruption, and some low-ranking assistant at the Clinton
Foundation will be the fall guy. Comey will be unable to prove to a standard that any reasonable
prosecutor would pursue, whether HRC had any knowledge, or intent.
FBI = F ucked B eyond I
magination. Zero credibility these days, and deserving of zero respect with another "nothing to see here"
no doubt forthcoming.
And given Hillary Clinton is the most openly corrupt venal slime ever to crawl the face of
the planet, with a weight of evidence against her in the public domain so overwhelming it makes
OJ look angelic; their inability to make a case makes them look just plain laughable as a law
enforcement organisation.
Give it up already. As much as anyone may want to see Hillary behind bars or even just "lose"
the election, it's just wishful thinking. Everyone with eyes to see and ears to hear can clearly
tell that the fix is in. Hillary will NOT be prosecuted for anything and Trump will NOT be allowed
to win the "election", regardless what the actual "vote" count may be.
It is all just political theater and most plebes don't even realize that tbey are simply unwitting
pawns in the play.
Get used to another 4 (maybe 8) years of the shitshow to continue unabated as Merika circles
the drain.
Hate to say it but it's the reality one must face.
As I see it, Hillary will accelerate a financial and/or social collapse of the US. Trump will
slow it down, at worst, or prevent it altogether if he chooses to outright default.
Either path results in a much-needed reset. Trump's path will be less bloody.
that is a pretty short list of who should be locked up. USA has the jails and hopefully some
day those jails will be full of crimanals instead of weed smokers.
Hillary for the win (and NO, I don't want that. , but it's gonna be.) It's funny , well
..funny sad.. that in my years of reading zh, most folks were on board with the assessment
that, THERE ARE NOT 2 PARTYS!
and to further that, the 'candidates' are chosen well ahead of time, by TPTB. (If
people know what that means)..I think a lot of newcomers just arrow up comments that have arrows
up, without knowing half of the content )
I wonder for how many of them Slick Willie was a patron ;-).
Notable quotes:
"... According to the National Task Force on Prostitution , it's estimated that well over 1 million people in the U.S. have worked
as prostitutes - or roughly 1 percent of American women. If this campaign is a success, that could translate into some serious voting
power. ..."
"Everyday Americans need a champion," Hillary Clinton proclaimed in her YouTube video. "And I want to be that champion."
Yes, few were surprised when Hilary Clinton announced her campaign for the 2016 U.S. presidential race, but many were surprised
by some of her early supporters. Since that announcement, the lovable ladies of Nevada's renowned Moonlite Bunny Ranch have come
out in support of our former first lady in a serious, potentially large-scale campaign called "Hookers for Hillary." These Everyday
Americans have chosen their candidate.
... ... ...
Bunny Ranch owner Dennis Hof agrees. "With Obamacare the girls were able to buy good health insurance and without it they weren't
able to. Since Day One when I bought the brothel in 1992 no legal prostitute could get health insurance," says Hof.
According to the National Task
Force on Prostitution, it's estimated that well over 1 million people in the U.S. have worked as prostitutes - or roughly
1 percent of American women. If this campaign is a success, that could translate into some serious voting power.
"... I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the same with other countries in the region. ..."
"... Because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their society, because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear weapons program in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them. ..."
"... The warmongering neocon woman gets a little careless in the second part of her statement, forgetting "nuclear" and reverting to the 2008 declaration. Worse, she says that even if they don't have nukes quite yet, an attack on Holy Israel means it's "glow-in-the-dark" time in Iran. ..."
"... It really is a tragic thing to be talking about. That's the way the Madeleine Albright ***** – the one who has declared that any woman who doesn't vote for Hillary will go to hell – put it when speaking of 500,000 dead Iraqi kids. Darned shame, but it had to be done. ..."
"... Don't even think about a possibility why Hillary might be so devoted to Israel. When she was in the Senate the woman went to a prayer breakfast with some of the most repulsive of the Conservative Republicans. Nobody at all is talking about Hillary's religion. If she is one of the Rapture types, her access to nukes would mean an End-Timer finally has a chance to force God to get off the pot and start with the Second Coming. ..."
"... Just think of it – the First and the Last woman president. ..."
"... You are right. She is a huge danger. Not only due to her frail health, age and history of blood clots. As Huma Abedin noted in her deposition, she often is "confused". Which means that she does not have "normal" level of situational awareness. ..."
"... After the dissolution of the USSR and the "triumphal march" of neoliberalism, the US elite by-and-large lost the sense of self-preservation. ..."
"... Like sociopaths she has no self-control, no sense of self-preservation, no boundaries. ..."
Hillary 2008: "George Stephanopoulos: "Senator Clinton, would you [extend
our deterrent to Israel]?"
Hillary Clinton: "Well, in fact I think that we should be looking
to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel.
Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel
would incur massive retaliation from the United States, but I would do the
same with other countries in the region."
Massive Retaliation has always had the meaning of a 'massive' nuclear
attack.
Hillary 2016: "MR. CUOMO: Iran: some language recently. You said if Iran
were to strike Israel, there would be a massive retaliation. Scary words.
Does massive retaliation mean you'd go into Iran? You would bomb Iran? Is
that what that's supposed to suggest?
SEN. CLINTON: Well, the question was if Iran were to launch a nuclear
attack on Israel, what would our response be? And I want the Iranians to
know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to
understand that.
Because it does mean that they have to look very carefully at their
society, because whatever stage of development they might be in their nuclear
weapons program in the next 10 years during which they might foolishly consider
launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them.
That's a terrible thing to say, but those people who run Iran need to
understand that, because that perhaps will deter them from doing something
that would be reckless, foolish, and tragic."
The warmongering neocon woman gets a little careless in the second
part of her statement, forgetting "nuclear" and reverting to the 2008 declaration.
Worse, she says that even if they don't have nukes quite yet, an attack
on Holy Israel means it's "glow-in-the-dark" time in Iran.
It really is a tragic thing to be talking about. That's the way the
Madeleine Albright ***** – the one who has declared that any woman who doesn't
vote for Hillary will go to hell – put it when speaking of 500,000 dead
Iraqi kids. Darned shame, but it had to be done.
But move on – it's the insane Trump who can't be trusted with nukes.
Don't even think about a possibility why Hillary might be so devoted
to Israel. When she was in the Senate the woman went to a prayer breakfast
with some of the most repulsive of the Conservative Republicans. Nobody
at all is talking about Hillary's religion. If she is one of the Rapture
types, her access to nukes would mean an End-Timer finally has a chance
to force God to get off the pot and start with the Second Coming.
Just think of it – the First and the Last woman president.
likbez , August 5, 2016 11:29 pm
Hi Zachary,
> Just think of it – the First and the Last woman president.
You are right. She is a huge danger. Not only due to her frail health,
age and history of blood clots. As Huma Abedin noted in her deposition,
she often is "confused". Which means that she does not have "normal" level
of situational awareness.
For some specialties like airplane pilots this is a death sentence. Unfortunately,
if elected, she can take the country with her.
While the USSR existed, as bad as it was for people within its borders,
it was a blessing for the people of the USA, as it kept the elite in check
and frightful to behave in "natural, greedy and delusional "Masters of the
Universe" way".
After the dissolution of the USSR and the "triumphal march" of neoliberalism,
the US elite by-and-large lost the sense of self-preservation.
If you read what Hillary utters like "no fly zone" in Syria and other
similar staff, to me this looks like a sign of madness, plain and simple.
No reasonable politician should go of the cliff like that, if stakes are
not extremely high.
And MSM try to sell her as a more reasonable politician then Trump. In
reality she is like Kelvin absolute zero. You just can't go lower. The only
hope is that she is a puppet and it does not matter what she utters.
But if we take her statements about Syria and Russia at face value, she
is either dangerously ignorant or (more probably) is a female sociopath.
Like sociopaths she has no self-control, no sense of self-preservation,
no boundaries.
So her arrogant and reckless behavior as for "getting rich quick" and
with the private "bathroom" email server is a sign of more general and more
dangerous tendency.
Neocons are still way too powerful. They dominate MSM and essentially
dictate the agenda.
"... The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States Federal Law passed in 1970 that was designed to provide a tool for law enforcement agencies to fight organized crime. RICO allows prosecution and punishment for alleged racketeering activity that has been executed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise. ..."
Will the FBI present a recommendation to the Attorney
General under RICO. According to author Frank Huguenurd "Activity
considered to be racketeering may include bribery,
counterfeiting, money laundering, embezzlement, illegal gambling,
kidnapping, murder, drug trafficking, slavery, and a host of other
nefarious business practices."
.
Will
the FBI be charging Bill and Hillary Clinton as well as the Clinton
Foundation on Racketeering charges under RICO?
.
Highly
unlikely. Hillary is protected by the Attorney General who is a
"protégée" of the Clintons.
.
(M.Ch.
GR Editor, July 6, 2016)
.
.
*
* *
The
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a
United States Federal Law passed in 1970 that was designed to
provide a tool for law enforcement agencies to fight organized
crime. RICO allows prosecution and punishment for alleged
racketeering activity that has been executed as part of an ongoing
criminal enterprise.
.
Activity
considered to be racketeering may include
bribery
,
counterfeiting,
money laundering
,
embezzlement, illegal gambling, kidnapping, murder, drug
trafficking, slavery, and a host of other nefarious business
practices.
James Comey and The FBI will present a recommendation to Loretta
Lynch, Attorney General of the Department of Justice, that includes
a cogent argument that the Clinton Foundation is an ongoing
criminal enterprise engaged in
money
laundering
and soliciting bribes in exchange for political,
policy and legislative favors to individuals, corporations and even
governments both foreign and domestic.
... ... ...
Here's what we do know. Tens of millions of dollars donated to
the Clinton Foundation was funneled to the organization through
a Canadian shell company which has made tracing the donors
nearly impossible. Less than 10% of donations to the Foundation
has actually been released to charitable organizations and $2M
that has been traced back to long time Bill Clinton friend Julie
McMahon (aka
The Energizer
). When
the official investigation into Hillary's email server began,
she instructed her IT professional to delete over 30,000 emails
and cloud backups of her emails older than 30 days at both
Platte
River Networks
and
Datto,
Inc
. The FBI has subsequently recovered the majority, if
not all, of Hillary's deleted emails and are putting together a
strong case against her for attempting to cover up her illegal
and illicit activities.
A conviction under RICO comes when the
Department of Justice proves that the defendant has engaged in
two or more examples of racketeering and that the defendant
maintained an interest in, participated in or invested in a
criminal enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce.
There is ample evidence already in the public record that the
Clinton Foundation qualifies as a criminal enterprise and
there's no doubt that the FBI is privy to significantly more
evidence than has already been made public.
Under RICO, the sections most relevant in this case will be
section 1503 (obstruction of justice), section 1510 (obstruction
of criminal investigations) and section 1511 (obstruction of
State or local law enforcement). As in the case with Richard
Nixon after the Watergate Break-in, it's the cover-up of a crime
that will be the Clintons' downfall. Furthermore, under
provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201, the
Clinton Foundation can be held accountable for improprieties
relating to bribery. The FBI will be able to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt that through the Clinton Foundation,
international entities were able to commit bribery in exchange
for help in securing business deals, such as the uranium-mining
deal in Kazakhstan.
"... Nuland would survive the controversy over the October 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission/CIA facility in Benghazi, Libya. Initially, many conservative Republicans criticized Nuland for her role in providing ambassador to the UN Susan Rice with "talking points" explaining away the failure of the U.S. to protect the compound from an attack that killed U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other U.S. personnel. All it took was a tap on the shoulder from Nuland's husband Kagan and his influential friends in the neo-con hierarchy for the criticism of his wife to stop. And stop it did as Nuland was confirmed, without Republican opposition, to be the new Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, a portfolio that gave her a clear mandate to interfere in the domestic policies of Ukraine and other countries, including Russia itself. ..."
"... Although McCain was defeated by Obama in 2008, Kagan's influence was preserved when his wife became a top foreign policy adviser to Obama. The root of this control by neo-cons of the two major U.S. political parties is the powerful Israel Lobby and is the reason why in excess of 95 percent of neo-cons are also committed Zionists. ..."
"... Kagan's writings and pronouncements from Brookings have had a common thread: anti-Vladimir Putin rhetoric and a strong desire to see Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, Bashar al Assad falling in Syria and thus eliminating a Russian ally, no further expansion of Shanghai Cooperation Organization membership and the eventual collapse of the counter-NATO organization, and the destabilization of Russia's southern border region by radical Salafists and Wahhabists funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Qatar, not coincidentally, hosts a Brookings Institution office that advises the Qatari government. ..."
Nuland would survive the controversy over the October 2012 attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission/CIA
facility in Benghazi, Libya. Initially, many conservative Republicans criticized Nuland for her role
in providing ambassador to the UN Susan Rice with "talking points" explaining away the failure of
the U.S. to protect the compound from an attack that killed U.S. ambassador Christopher Stevens and
three other U.S. personnel. All it took was a tap on the shoulder from Nuland's husband Kagan and
his influential friends in the neo-con hierarchy for the criticism of his wife to stop. And stop
it did as Nuland was confirmed, without Republican opposition, to be the new Assistant Secretary
of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, a portfolio that gave her a clear mandate to interfere
in the domestic policies of Ukraine and other countries, including Russia itself.
Kagan began laying the groundwork for his wife's continued presence in a Democratic administration
when, in 2007, he switched sides from the Republicans and aligned with the Democrats. This was in
the waning days of the Bush administration and, true to form, neo-cons, who politically and family-wise
hail from Trotskyite chameleons, saw the opportunity to continue their influence over U.S. foreign
policy.
With the election of Obama in 2008, Kagan was able to maintain a PNAC presence, through his wife,
inside the State Department. Kagan, a co-founder of PNAC, monitors his wife's activities from his
perch at the influential Brookings Institution. And it was no surprise that McCain followed Nuland
to Maidan Square. Kagan was one of McCain's top foreign policy advisers in the 2008 campaign, even
though he publicly switched to the Democrats the year before. Kagan ensured that he kept a foot in
both parties. Although McCain was defeated by Obama in 2008, Kagan's influence was preserved
when his wife became a top foreign policy adviser to Obama. The root of this control by neo-cons
of the two major U.S. political parties is the powerful Israel Lobby and is the reason why in excess
of 95 percent of neo-cons are also committed Zionists.
Kagan's writings and pronouncements from Brookings have had a common thread: anti-Vladimir
Putin rhetoric and a strong desire to see Ukraine and Georgia in NATO, Bashar al Assad falling in
Syria and thus eliminating a Russian ally, no further expansion of Shanghai Cooperation Organization
membership and the eventual collapse of the counter-NATO organization, and the destabilization of
Russia's southern border region by radical Salafists and Wahhabists funded by Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Qatar, not coincidentally, hosts a Brookings Institution office that advises the Qatari government.
But dominance of U.S. foreign policy does not end with Nuland and her husband. Kagan's brother,
Fred Kagan, is another neo-con foreign policy launderer. Residing at the American Enterprise Institute,
Fred Kagan was an "anti-corruption" adviser to General David Petraeus. Kagan held this job even as
Petraeus was engaged in an extra-marital affair, which he corruptly covered up. Fred Kagan's wife
is Kimberly Kagan. She has been involved in helping to formulate disastrous U.S. policies for the
military occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. Fred and Kimberly have also worked on U.S. covert operations
to overthrow the government of Iran. No family in the history of the United States, with the possible
exception of John Foster and Allen Dulles, has had more blood on its hands than have the Kagans.
And it is this family that is today helping to ratchet up the Cold War on the streets of Kyiv.
Victoria Nuland is, indeed, the proper "Doughnut Dolly" for the paid George Soros, U.S. Agency
for International Development, National Endowment for Democracy, and Freedom House provocateurs on
Maidan Square. Political prostitutes representing so many causes, from nationalistic Ukrainian fascists
to pro-EU globalists, require a symbol. There is no better symbol for the foreign-made "Orange Revolution
II" than the biscuit-distributing Victoria Nuland.
Her unleavened biscuits have found the hungry mouths of America's "Three Stooges" of ex-boxer
and political opportunist Vitaly Klitschko, globalist Arseny Yatsenyuk, and neo-Nazi Oleg
Tyagnibok.
Wayne MADSEN Investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. A member of the Society of Professional
Journalists (SPJ) and the National Press Club
US Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Vicrotia Nuland was appointed
by Hillary nu the forigh policy is domain of the President, so she executed policy hatched by "Obama
the neocon", who is great admirer of books by Robert Kagan...
Notable quotes:
"... Nuland is a Democrat? Boy they let anybody in. I only ask because she's supposed to be a Bush holdover but maybe worked for the Clintons before that? ..."
"... Nuland started out with Bill Clinton, then moved on to Dick Cheney . She certainly is nimble! ..."
"... Because of her marriage to Kagan, most Europeans believe she's a Republican, but her hawkish approach to Russia isn't entirely unique within the Obama administration. ..."
"... FP professionals don't need no stinkin' party affiliations. They are the other half of the "Double Government" that most voters have never heard of. You know, the half that makes sure foreign policy is consistent from one administration (and party) to the next. Works great! ..."
"... You start out wherever your opportunity lies. Once established you can follow your heart. Where does her heart lead her when Cheney leaves office? Drum roll… Why, it's Hillary! ..."
Following along with his good friend, Republican Robert Kagan (married, in good bipartisan
power couple fashion, to Victoria Nuland, rumored to be inline for Clinton's Secretary of State,
but I don't think so. Not even Clinton could be that crazy).
I can't find a link that makes her party affiliation explicit.
Foreign
Policy :
Because of her marriage to Kagan, most Europeans believe she's a Republican, but her
hawkish approach to Russia isn't entirely unique within the Obama administration.
But FP does not then go on to clarify. I assumed she was a Democrat because of the Clinton
connection. My bad!
FP professionals don't need no stinkin' party affiliations. They are the other half of
the "Double Government" that most voters have never heard of. You know, the half that makes sure
foreign policy is consistent from one administration (and party) to the next. Works great!
You start out wherever your opportunity lies. Once established you can follow your heart.
Where does her heart lead her when Cheney leaves office? Drum roll… Why, it's Hillary!
Hugoodanode?
It's probably bias, but my sense is Republicans love to parade anyone who is Jewish or not
white in front of cameras who can say, "im a Republican" without drooling or dying a little on
the inside. Since Nuland is Jewish, the GOP would have her on their book tour if she was suspected
Republican especially given the GOP obsession with winning Florida Jewish retirees.
"... Interestingly, in a self-promoting recent review of Henry Kissinger's new book World Order, Clinton both defines her own Kissinger-esque foreign policy strategy and also concedes that it is more-or-less the same as Obama's. Clinton wrote that Kissinger's world view "largely fits with the broad strategy behind the Obama administration's effort over the past six years to build a global architecture of security and cooperation for the 21st century." ..."
"... Clinton inevitably confuses leadership with hegemony, clearly believing as one of her predecessors at State put it, that America is the "indispensable nation." Nor can she discern that few outside the beltway actually believe the hype. It would be difficult to make the case that the United States either stands for justice or is willing to tolerate any kind of international order that challenges American interests. ..."
"... Any plan to "destroy" ISIS without serious consideration of what that might entail means that the U.S. will inevitably assume the leadership role. Because air strikes cannot defeat any insurgency, and the moderate Syrian rebels waiting to be armed are a fiction, the Obama plan invites escalation and will make the Islamist group a poster child for those who want to see Washington fail yet again in the Middle East. ..."
"... Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became Prime Minister after a free election. Nuland, who is the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, provided open support to the Maidan demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych's government, to include media friendly appearances passing out cookies on the square to encourage the protesters. ..."
"... The replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating conflict with Moscow over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea. ..."
"... And make no mistake about Nuland's broader intention to expand the conflict and directly confront Russia. In Senate testimony in May she cited how the administration is "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia." Frontline? Last week Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel seemed to confirm that the continued expansion of NATO is indeed administration policy, saying that Georgia would be next to join in light of "Russia's blatant aggression in Ukraine." ..."
"... The president also reportedly is an admirer of her husband's articles and books which argue that the U.S. must maintain its military power to accommodate its "global responsibilities." So in response to the question "Why does Victoria Nuland still have her job?" the answer must surely be because the White House approves of what she has been doing, which should give everyone pause. ..."
A new administration only gave interventionism a confused, humanitarian face-lift.
President Barack Obama presents something of a dilemma. I voted for him twice in the belief that
he was basically a cautious operator who would not rush into a new war in Asia, unlike his Republican
opponents who virtually promised to attack Iran upon assuming office. Unfortunately, Obama's second
term has revealed that his instinct nevertheless is to rely on America's ability to project military
power overseas as either a complement to or a substitute for diplomacy that differs only from George
W. Bush in its style and its emphasis on humanitarian objectives.
That the president is indeed cautious has made the actual process of engagement different, witness
the ill-fated involvement in Libya and the impending war-without-calling-it-war in Syria and Iraq,
both of which are framed as having limited objectives and manageable risk for Washington even when
that is not the case. Obama's foreign and security policy is an incremental process mired in contradictions
whereby the United States continues to involve itself in conflicts for which it has little understanding,
seemingly doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past thirteen years but without the shock and awe.
Obama's actual intentions might most clearly be discerned by looking at his inner circle. Three
women are prominent in decision making relating to foreign policy: Samantha Power at the United Nations,
Susan Rice heading the National Security Council, and Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett in the White
House. One might also add Hillary Clinton who, as Secretary of State, operated far more independently
than her successor John Kerry, putting her own stamp on policy much more than he has been able to
do. Where Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel fits into the decision making is unclear, but it is notable
that both he and Kerry frequently appear to be somewhat out of sync with the White House.
What does the Obama team represent? Certain things are obvious. They are hesitant to involve the
United States in long, drawn out military adventures like Iraq and Afghanistan but much more inclined
to intervene than was George W. Bush when there is an apparent humanitarian crisis, operating under
the principle of responsibility to protect or R2P. That R2P is often a pretext for intervention that
actually is driven by other less altruistic motives is certainly a complication but it is nevertheless
the public face of much of American foreign policy, as the nation is currently witnessing regarding
ISIS.
Hillary Clinton has criticized Obama foreign policy because on her view he did not act soon enough
on ISIS and "Great nations need organizing principles, and 'don't do stupid stuff' is not an organizing
principle." Her criticism is odd as she was a formulator of much of what the president has been doing
and one should perhaps assume that her distancing from it might have something to do with her presidential
ambitions. Interestingly, in a self-promoting recent review of Henry Kissinger's new book World Order,
Clinton both defines her own Kissinger-esque foreign policy strategy and also concedes that it is
more-or-less the same as Obama's. Clinton wrote that Kissinger's world view "largely fits with the
broad strategy behind the Obama administration's effort over the past six years to build a global
architecture of security and cooperation for the 21st century."
Now if all of that is true, and it might just be putting lipstick on a pig to create an illusion
of coherency where none exists, then the United States might just be engaging in a sensible reset
of its foreign policy, something like the Nixon Doctrine of old. But the actual policy itself suggests
otherwise, with the tendency to "do stupid stuff" prevailing, perhaps attributable to another Clinton
book review assertion of "a belief in the indispensability of continued American leadership in service
of a just and liberal order."
Clinton inevitably confuses leadership with hegemony, clearly believing as one of her
predecessors at State
put it, that America is the "indispensable nation." Nor can she discern that few outside the beltway
actually believe the hype. It would be difficult to make the case that the United States either stands
for justice or is willing to tolerate any kind of international order that challenges American interests.
And the arrogance that comes with power means that the country's leadership is not often able to
explain what it is doing. Currently, the administration has failed to make any compelling case that
the United States is actually threatened by ISIS beyond purely conjectural "what if" scenarios, suggesting
that the policy is evolving in an ad hoc but risk-averse fashion to create the impression
that something is actually being accomplished. Any plan to "destroy" ISIS without serious consideration
of what that might entail means that the U.S. will inevitably assume the leadership role. Because
air strikes cannot defeat any insurgency, and the moderate Syrian rebels waiting to be armed are
a fiction, the Obama plan invites escalation and will make the Islamist group a poster child for
those who want to see Washington fail yet again in the Middle East.
The tendency to act instead of think might be attributable to fear of appearing weak with
midterm elections approaching, but it might also be due to the persistence of neoconservative national
security views within the administration, which brings us to
Victoria Nuland. Nuland,
many will recall, was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian government of
President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became
Prime Minister after a free election. Nuland, who is the Assistant Secretary of State for European
and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, provided open support to the Maidan demonstrators opposed
to Yanukovych's government, to include media friendly appearances
passing out cookies on the square to encourage the protesters.
A Dick Cheney and Hillary
Clinton protégé who is married to leading neocon Robert Kagan, Nuland openly sought regime change
for Ukraine by brazenly supporting
government opponents in spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev had ostensibly friendly relations.
It is hard to imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by a foreign
nation to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by a
$5 billion budget,
but Washington has long believed in a global double standard for evaluating its own behavior.
Nuland is most famous for her
foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest that she and
the National Endowment for Democracy had helped create. To be sure, her aggressive guidance of U.S.
policy in Eurasia is a lot more important than whatever plays out in Syria and Iraq over the remainder
of Obama's time in office in terms of palpable threats to actual American interests. The replacement
of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating conflict with Moscow
over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea.
Victoria Nuland is playing with fire. Russia, as the only nation with the military capability
to destroy the U.S., is not a sideshow like Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Backing Moscow into a corner with
no way out by using threats and sanctions is not good policy. Washington has many excellent reasons
to maintain a stable relationship with Moscow, including counter-terrorism efforts, and little to
gain from moving in the opposite direction. Russia is not about to reconstitute the Warsaw Pact and
there is no compelling reason to return to a Cold War footing by either arming Ukraine or permitting
it to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
And make no mistake about Nuland's broader intention to expand the conflict and directly confront
Russia. In Senate testimony in May
she cited how
the administration is "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia." Frontline?
Last
week Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel seemed to confirm that the continued expansion of NATO
is indeed administration policy, saying that Georgia would be next to join in light of "Russia's
blatant aggression in Ukraine."
In 2009 President Barack Obama received
the Nobel Peace Prize for "his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and
cooperation between peoples." In retrospect it was all hat and no cattle given the ongoing saga in
Afghanistan, the reduction of a relatively stable Libya to chaos, meddling in Ukraine while simultaneously
threatening Russia, failure to restrain Israel and the creation of an Islamic terror state in the
Arab heartland. Not to mention "pivots" and additional developments in Africa and Asia. It is not
a record to brag about and it certainly does not suggest that the administration is as strategically
agile as Hillary Clinton would like to have one believe.
Victoria Nuland is a career civil servant and cannot easily be fired but she could be removed
from her top-level policy position and sent downstairs to head the mailroom at the State Department.
It would send the message that aggressive democracy promotion is not U.S. policy, but President Obama
has kept her on the job. The president also reportedly is an
admirer of her husband's articles and books which argue that the U.S. must maintain its military
power to accommodate its "global responsibilities." So in response to the question "Why does Victoria
Nuland still have her job?" the answer must surely be because the White House approves of what she
has been doing, which should give everyone pause.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National
Interest.
If Hillary wins the White House, expect Victoria Nuland to be at her side.
The other day, a question popped up on a Facebook thread I was commenting on: "Where is Victoria
Nuland?" The short answer, of course, is that she is still holding down her position as assistant
secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.
But a related question begs for a more expansive response: Where will Victoria Nuland be after
January? Nuland is one of Hillary Clinton's protégés at the State Department, and she is also greatly
admired by hardline Republicans. This suggests she would be easily approved by Congress as secretary
of state or maybe even national-security adviser-which in turn suggests that her foreign-policy views
deserve a closer look.
Nuland comes from what might be called the First Family of Military Interventionists. Her husband,
Robert Kagan, is a leading neoconservative who co-founded the Project for the New American Century
in 1998 around a demand for "regime change" in Iraq. He is currently a senior fellow at the Brookings
Institution, an author, and a regular contributor to the op-ed pages of a number of national newspapers.
He has already declared that he will be voting for Hillary Clinton in November, a shift away from
the GOP that many have seen as a clever career-enhancing move for both him and his wife.
Robert's brother, Fred, is with the hawkish American Enterprise Institute, and his sister-in-law,
Kimberly, is the head of the Institute for the Study of War, which is largely funded by defense contractors.
The Kagans work to encourage military action, both through their positions in government and by influencing
the public debate through think-tank reports and op-eds. It is a family enterprise that mirrors the
military-industrial complex as a whole, with think tanks coming up with reasons to increase military
spending and providing "expert" support for the government officials who actually promote and implement
the policies. Defense contractors, meanwhile, benefit from the largesse and kick back some money
to the think tanks, which then develop new reasons to spend still more on military procurement.
The Kagans' underlying belief is that the United States has both the power and the obligation
to replace governments that are considered either uncooperative with Washington (the "Leader of the
Free World") or hostile to American interests. American interests are, of course, mutable, and they
include values like democracy and the rule of law as well as practical considerations such as economic
and political competition. Given the elasticity of the interests, many countries can be and are considered
potential targets for Washington's tender ministrations.
For what it's worth, President Obama is reportedly an
admirer of Robert Kagan's books, which argue that the U.S. must maintain its military power to
accommodate its "global responsibilities." The persistence of neoconservative foreign-policy views
in the Obama administration has often been remarked upon, though Democrats and Republicans embrace
military interventionism for different reasons. The GOP sees it as an international leadership imperative
driven by American "exceptionalism," while the Dems romanticize "liberal intervention" as a sometimes-necessary
evil undertaken most often for humanitarian reasons. But the result is the same, as no administration
wants to be seen as weak when dealing with the outside world. George W. Bush's catastrophic failures
in Afghanistan and Iraq continue to bear fruit under a Democratic administration, while Obama has
added a string of additional "boots on the ground" interventions in Libya, Syria, Yemen, the Philippines,
and Somalia.
And Nuland herself,
many will recall, was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian government of
President Viktor Yanukovych in 2013-14. Yanukovych, admittedly a corrupt autocrat, nevertheless assumed
office after a free election. In spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev ostensibly had friendly
relations, Nuland provided open support for the Maidan Square demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych's
government,
passing out cookies to protesters on the square and holding photo ops with a beaming Sen. John
McCain.
Nuland started her rapid rise as an adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney. Subsequently, she was
serially promoted by secretaries of state Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, attaining her current position
in September 2013. But it was her behavior in Ukraine that made her a media figure. It is hard to
imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by a foreign nation to interfere
in domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by a
$5 billion budget,
but Washington has long adhered to a double standard when evaluating its own behavior.
Nuland is most famous for using
foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest in Ukraine
that she and the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) had helped create. She even discussed with
U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt who the new leader of Ukraine ought to be. "Yats is the guy" she said
(referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk), while pondering how she would "glue this thing" as Pyatt simultaneously
considered how to "midwife" it. Their insecure phone call was
intercepted and leaked,
possibly by the Russian intelligence service, though anyone equipped with a scanner could have done
the job.
The inevitable replacement of the government in Kiev, actually a coup but sold to the media as
a triumph for "democracy," was only the prelude to a sharp break-and escalating conflict-with Moscow
over Russia's attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine. The new regime in Kiev, as corrupt
as its predecessor and supported by neo-Nazis and ultra-nationalists, was consistently whitewashed
in the Western media, and the conflict was depicted as "pro-democracy" forces resisting unprovoked
"Russian aggression."
Indeed, the real objective of interfering in Ukraine was, right from the start, to install a regime
hostile to Moscow. Carl Gershman, the head of the taxpayer-funded NED,
called Ukraine "the biggest prize" in the effort to topple Russian President Vladimir Putin,
who "may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself." But
Gershman and Nuland were playing with fire in their assessment, as Russia had vital interests at
stake and is the only nation with the military capability to destroy the U.S.
And make no mistake about Nuland's clear intention to expand the conflict and directly confront
Moscow. In Senate testimony in May of 2014,
she noted how
the Obama administration was "providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia."
Nuland and her neoconservative allies celebrated their "regime change" in Kiev oblivious to the
fact that Putin would recognize the strategic threat to his own country and would react, particularly
to protect the historic Russian naval base at Sevastopol in Crimea. Barack Obama responded predictably,
initiating what soon became something like a new Cold War against Russia, risking escalation into
a possible nuclear confrontation. It was a crisis that would not have existed but for Nuland and
her allies.
Though there was no evidence that Putin had initiated the Ukraine crisis and much evidence to
the contrary, the U.S. government propaganda machine rolled into action, claiming that Russia's measures
in Ukraine would be the first step in an invasion of Eastern Europe. Former Secretary of State Clinton
dutifully
compared Putin to Adolf Hitler. And Robert Kagan provided the argument for more intervention,
producing a lengthy essay in The New Republic entitled "Superpowers
Don't Get to Retire," in which he criticized President Obama for failing to maintain American
dominance in the world. The New York Times
revealed that the essay was apparently part of a joint project in which Nuland regularly edited
her husband's articles, even though this particular piece attacked the administration she worked
for.
As the situation in Ukraine continued to deteriorate in 2014, Nuland exerted herself to scuttle
several European attempts to arrange a ceasefire. When NATO Commander Air Force Gen. Philip Breedlove
was cited as being in favor of sending more weapons to the Ukrainian government to "raise the battlefield
cost for Putin," Nuland
commented, "I'd strongly urge you to use the phrase 'defensive systems' that we would deliver
to oppose Putin's 'offensive systems.'"
To return to the initial question of where Victoria Nuland is, the long answer would be that while
she is not much in the news, she is continuing to provide support for policies that the White House
apparently approves of. Late last month, she was again in Kiev. She criticized Russia for its lack
of press freedom and its "puppets" in the Donbas region
while telling
a Ukrainian audience about a "strong U.S. commitment to stand with Ukraine as it stays on the path
of a clean, democratic, European future. … We remain committed to retaining sanctions that apply
to the situation in Crimea until Crimea is returned to Ukraine." Before that, she was in
Cyprus and France discussing
"a range of regional and global issues with senior government officials."
But one has to suspect that, at this point, she is mainly waiting to see what happens in November.
And wondering where she might be going in January.
Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council for the National
Interest.
"... The pedophile scandals among the U.K.'s elite and officialdom are now well know even among the snoozers and comatose. But the snoozers can't connect the dots that infestations of pedophiles and perverts in government is by design. A number of U.K. police investigators have been openly murdered over the years for stumbling onto high-level pedophiles. ..."
"... As I have often mentioned on these pages previously, I do believe pedophiles and various other perverts are actively recruited into positions of power so that they can be compromised and controlled by the criminal cabal. ..."
The case of well-connected Jewish billionaire Jeffrey Epstein made a
splash about a year ago. Convicted of sex with under-aged girls, since
then related news has been largely suppressed. Epstein is in a position
to compromise high level people by providing under-aged girls for the
likes of Prince Andrew and Bill Clinton. Dossiers and lewd photos with
teenyboppers may be called upon as needed.
I actually believe these
activities are a requirement for entrance into the Crime Syndicate inner
circle. In fact, this goes along way in explaining how an obscure Arkansas
governor who can't keep it in his pants can go on to become president
of the United States and his wife the leading presidential candidate
now. According to John Perkins in Confession of an Economic Hitman,
the motives of psychopaths at the top of pyramid are sex, money and
power.
Now it has been revealed that Bill Clinton was in reality a dedicated
regular reveler on Epstein's jet, Lolita Express. The mainstream media
has suddenly "discovered" that instead of being an infrequent "acquaintance"
of Epstein, Clinton was listed on the flight logs 26 times in just three
years. One wonders why such a story wasn't revealed much earlier?
Curiously, faux nationalist Donald Trump also has some Epstein involvement,
including a rape accusation (at an Epstein party) that so far has gotten
little Dominant Media (aka MSM) play. Trump's other friends were described
here.
In addition, another one-two punch story is emerging of Clinton Foundation
slush funds being used for "investments" with Bill's alleged mistress,
and yet another member of the Tribe, Julia Tauber McMahon, known as
"The Energizer." With the sleaze coming in all directions, is the takedown
of the Clintons at hand; and if so, why and by whom? Is somebody else
is in the wings to replace Hillary? Does the Epstein slime blob end
up slurping Trump?
The pedophile scandals among the U.K.'s elite and officialdom
are now well know even among the snoozers and comatose. But the snoozers
can't connect the dots that infestations of pedophiles and perverts
in government is by design. A number of U.K. police investigators have
been openly murdered over the years for stumbling onto high-level pedophiles.
As I have often mentioned on these pages previously, I do believe
pedophiles and various other perverts are actively recruited into positions
of power so that they can be compromised and controlled by the criminal
cabal. For more background on this general topic, see "Belgium's
Dutoux Pedophile and Child Rape Case: A Road Map for Deep-State Criminality,"
"Crime Syndicate Sexual Entrapment Operations" and "Wikispooks: Covert
Blackmail Ops."
In exploring sex offender Epstein's background story, what's particularly
interesting is how out of the blue this former math teacher was given
important positions in the organization of Jewish cabalist multi-billionaire
Ace Greenberg during the 1970s and '80s. As you may recall, the Greenberg
syndicate included Bear Stearns, the firm that nearly brought down the
world economy. Greenberg was the plutocrat who took down Elliott Spitzer
by way of a scandal. As the U.K.'s Independent reports:
Among [Epstein's] pupils was the son of Bear Stearns chairman
Ace Greenberg. In 1976, after a few years teaching the children
of the wealthy, he accepted a job offer from Mr. Greenberg that
allowed him to oversee their money.
Four years later, he was made a partner, but by 1982 he had
left to set up his own boutique investment company, J. Epstein and
Co. He reportedly only accepted clients prepared to invest a minimum
of $1 billion, though many profiles of Epstein admit a lack of hard,
verifiable facts about his business have added to the air of mystery."
Epstein was not just a run-of-the-mill sex offender but someone with
friends in high places that he liked to entertain in a certain manner
and who shared his proclivities.
Also notable and named in a lawsuit involving Epstein is the well-known
Zionist Israeli Hasbara mouthpiece and Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz,
who represented Epstein in his 2007 sex-offender case.
The claim from Jane Doe No. 3 (who joined three others) alleges that
Dershowitz himself participated in sex acts with underage girls. As
Epstein's legal representation, Dershowitz then arranged a secret non-prosecution
agreement (NPA) with the federal government in the cases of JD No. 1
and No. 2. According to the complaint, Dershowitz managed to influence
immunity from prosecution for all co-conspirators, including himself.
Prince Andrew also attempted to influence the U.S. judicial process
in the matter through lobbyist ties. Epstein served 13 months under
State charges.
Progressives who are fed up with the Democratic leadership's adherence to the status quo are
calling for a major #DemExit on July 29. However, progressive groups, such as Black Men for
Bernie, are urging voters to stay in the party until they have a chance to vote in their states'
primaries, especially if they live in closed or semi-closed primary states.
Abstaining from #DemExit until after state and local primaries is especially important for Florida,
which has a closed primary. On August 30, Professor and legal expert Tim Canova has a chance to unseat
Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, whose tenure as the head of the Democratic
Party has been fraught with controversy and more recently, allegations of election fraud and rigging.
A mass exodus, therefore, could sabotage progressives' own agenda to elect officials who are challenging
incumbents and establishment candidates. As of now, 23 states and territories have local and state
primaries up until September 13, so it is imperative for current members of the Democratic party
to stay until they've voted and then commit to #DemExit.
the former First Lady took a long bathroom break, but now a law-enforcement source with inside
connections is alleging that Clinton was missing from the stage due to health issues stemming from
a previous brain injury.
These long-lasting symptoms stemming from a concussion and blood clot, according to a neurologist,
suggest Clinton is suffering from post-concussion syndrome, which can severely impact her cognitive
abilities.
All that said, however, Clinton's campaign maintained to Breitbart News that she is in good health
and can serve as President of the United States.
"Strong source just told me something I suspected. Hillary's debate 'bathroom break' wasn't that,
but flare up of problems from brain injury," wrote John Cardillo on
Twitter
.
Cardillo, who previously worked as an officer who provided VIP security details for the New York
Police Department (NYPD), told Breitbart News that he knows of two additional sources who have commented
about Clinton's health problems, which have even impacted her ability to walk to her car after delivering
a speech.
"I got this from both a [federal agent] … and I also got it from a New York [NYPD] guy who worked
security at a Hillary event in New York City," Cardillo told Breitbart News, adding:
These are two people that aren't just personal friends. I worked with one and then post law-enforcement
worked with another on some related things. So, these aren't anonymous people. These are good
friends. Both of them told me the same thing, that after her speeches, whether she did a talk
or a policy speech, she had to sit behind – she would come off the podium backstage – and have
to sit and rest before making it back to the car because she was so fatigued, dizzy and disoriented.
Cardillo said these two security officials don't know each other and do not live in the same state,
but "their stories were almost identical."
One of the men told him that Clinton was "very pale, kind of disoriented. He said she looked like
she was about to faint. She was very pale, almost sweaty."
Cardillo said one of the incidents occurred while she was Secretary of State. The event worked
by the NYPD official was roughly a year ago.
Veteran Republican strategist Roger Stone, who previously worked with GOP frontrunner Donald Trump,
told Breitbart News that he has also heard about Clinton's long-term health problems.
"A number of New York Democrats, very prominent, well-known, wealthy New York Democrats, told
me last year that Hillary had very significant health issues and that they were surprised that she
was running in view of her health problems and her lack of stamina," Stone told Breitbart News. "So
far, she's run a very controlled campaign,"
"I don't think she has the physical stamina to be president," he stated. "I have no doubt that
Marco Rubio won't call her on it, but Trump certainly would."
"We also know that in the emails, of course, Huma Abedin… says that she is easily confused," Stone
added, referencing Clinton's close confidant Abedin
comment in an email , "She's often confused," referring to Clinton.
Trump, Stone's former boss, certainly hasn't been shy in questioning whether Clinton has the "stamina"
to be president.
"She goes out and she sees you guys for about 10 minutes, she sees you for a little while, it's
all rehearsed and staged," Trump said in a recent interview on Fox News' Media Buzz.
"They'll pick a couple of people out of the audience that are like, you know, 100 percent. She'll
sit around a little plastic table, they'll talk to the people for a while. It's ridiculous," Trump
added. "And then she goes away for five or six days and you don't see her. She goes to sleep."
Neurologist Dr. Daniel Kassicieh, D.O., reviewed news reports of Clinton's head injury in light
of the recent information revealed from the security sources that are raising questions about her
current health status.
Kassicieh, who has run his own Sarasota, Florida, practice for 20 years, is a board-certified
neurologist and the medical director of the Florida Headache and Movement Disorder Center. He is
a doctor of osteopathic medicine, which is similar to a medical doctor but can involve at a minimum
of 100 more classroom hours of specific training. That additional training is focused on the osteopathic-or
the musculoskeletal system-aspects of medicine. He is a Fellow of the American Academy of Neurology
(FAAN) and a Fellow of the American College of Neuro-psychiatrists (FACN). Kassicieh is a registered
Republican in Sarasota, but his purely medical analysis is troubling for Clinton.
"They were trying to poo-poo this off as a minor concussion, but I would just say that reading
it and trying to take all the politics out of it, and just read it purely from a medical standpoint,"
Kassicieh explained:
Considering the point of what happened with Hillary over this time period… the timeline… and
then what has happened here more recently… the break at the debate, I saw that and even the commentators
that were sitting there made a comment that, 'Gee, that seems awful long for a break.' Just looking
at it from a neurological standpoint, the risk factors for developing post-concussion syndrome,
one of them is age, and she was 65 when this happened… just from a physiologic standpoint that's
an older individual. Being female is a risk factor for post-concussion syndrome as well.
"For someone who has treated many post-concussion syndrome patients and that's what I really believe
she's suffering from based on reading these reports and reading what's happened," Kassicieh said.
"I think she has latent
post-concussion syndrome , and I can understand that as a politician they would want to be covering
that up." He stated:
I would say as a neurologist having seen many post-concussion syndrome patients that I would
not want a president who I knew had post-concussion syndrome being president because their super
high-level cognitive abilities are clearly impaired and even their routine multitasking high-stress
abilities are affected because post-concussion syndrome patients in general don't tolerate even
moderate work, stress-related environments.
Kassicieh added that if suffering from post concussion syndrome, Clinton's symptoms could appear
"well beyond a year" after her concussion.
"A transverse sinus thrombosis [blood clot] is a rare condition of a clot forming in the venous
sinus cavities surrounding the brain," Kassicieh told Breitbart News, referencing an
ABC News report from 2012 that detailed Clinton's head injury and blood clot following a fall.
He explained:
These venous sinuses drain blood out of the brain. The [injury] incidence is only about 3 per
1,000,000 adults. The transverse sinus is less commonly affected than the main sagittal venous
sinus. The cause of transverse sinus clots is not well understood although trauma and dehydration
have been described as risk factors. Mrs. Clinton suffered from both.
Dr. Nicholas C. Bambakidis also analyzed the facts for Breitbart News. He is the director of cerebrovascular
and skull base surgery, and the program director of neurological surgery at University Hospitals
Case Medical Center in Cleveland, Ohio, and a professor of neurosurgery and radiology at the CWRU
School of Medicine in Cleveland,
"These types of clots are usually formed spontaneously without an obvious cause," Bambakidis said
in an email:
They can be associated with dehydration, a predisposition to blood clotting disorders, are
more common in women and may be associated with oral contraceptive medication, severe head trauma,
brain surgery, or infection. If untreated, they can progress and lead to bleeding in the brain
or swelling, and a stroke or even death. The treatment is generally anticoagulation and treatment
of any underlying cause.
Bambakidis said that if treated early and quickly, there are no longstanding issues with a person's
health.
"Typically, if caught early and treated adequately (as seems to have been done in this incident)
there is a full recovery without any consequences (normal cognition, memory, etc)," he said.
Dr. Jane Orient, the executive director of the politically conservative Association of American
Physicians and Surgeons also reviewed the 2012 ABC News report about Clinton's concussion and blood
clot. She said she thought the ABC report appeared medically accurate.
"Factors predisposing to clots include air travel, dehydration, hormones, immobilization as during
surgery, blood abnormalities, cancer," Orient said. "Concussions can cause long-term damage including
cognitive problems, even when standard studies including CT or MRI look normal."
"Not saying Mrs. Clinton has any of the above–just speaking generally and hypothetically," she
clarified.
One former member of Orient's group is Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), an ophthalmologist. He was a member
of AAPS for more than 20 years before his election to the U.S. Senate. He is now also running for
president on the Republican side in 2016.
Neurologist Kassicieh agreed with Orient about the possibility of Clinton suffering from long-term
cognitive symptoms.
"Concussions in older adults can be more serious, resulting in a condition known as post-concussion
syndrome. This condition can be characterized by symptoms of persistent dizziness, complaints of
memory difficulties, forgetfulness, loss of ability to focus on complex tasks or concepts and indecisiveness,"
Kassicieh explained. He added, "Latent depression and overt anxiety are also common in this condition."
Kassicieh noted that although a Clinton spokesperson told the press that Clinton "got over this
quickly," another
ABC report quotes former President Bill Clinton saying that his wife's injury "required six months
of very serious work to get over."
"Other reports in the same article show an interesting timeline for Hillary over the next several
months, showing that she was not fully functional in her capacity as [Secretary of State]," Kassicieh
added:
As a neurologist, I would interpret these and more recent events involving Hillary as possibly
showing signs of post-concussion syndrome. This condition could have serious impact on the cognitive
and intellectual functioning of an individual, particularly a high level job as [President of
the United States].
Dr. Drew Pinsky, nationally syndicated radio talk show host heard on KABC radio "Dr. Drew Midday
Live," also spoke to Breitbart News about Clinton's health and explained that experiencing symptoms
for more than a year after a head injury is very serious.
"In my clinical experience, it's very common for them to have six months and even up to a year
of exercise intolerance, and sort of [needing] frequent rest, and can easily get overwhelmed," he
said of head injury patients. "But after a year, that's something else."
He said symptoms like Clinton's, as an elderly person in her 60s, "are very serious."
"Those are not trivial symptoms," Pinsky stressed:
If my patient came in with that, the first thing I would do is put them on a treadmill. I would
get a sleep study, make sure they don't have sleep apnea. I would do all sorts of metabolic studies
and make sure there wasn't something metabolic. I would actually do some extensive cancer screenings.
Why is this person suddenly having exercise intolerance?
Pinsky added that if Clinton is overworking herself, "I hope she has a medical team attending
to her."
Breitbart News sent a detailed set of questions regarding these questions raised by law enforcement
and medical professionals to Clinton's campaign.
The specific questions sent to Nick Merrill, a spokesman for Clinton, include:
1.) Does Secretary Clinton have difficulty with fatigue, dizziness and being disoriented? Does
she have difficulty after speeches and during debates continuing for lengthy periods of time–or
for instance walking back to her car after events?
2.) Is she suffering from latent post concussion syndrome?
3.) Is she being completely honest with the public about her health? Does she have a clean
bill of health?
4.) Is she able to conduct high level cognitive abilities on the same level she has been able
to throughout her life? Is she able to conduct routine multitasking high stress abilities on the
same level she has been able to throughout her life?
5.) Does she have or did she have a transverse sinus thrombosis, or blood clot?
6.) Is she capable of serving as President of the United States with these conditions and symptoms?
7.) Has she done tests with a doctor on a treadmill? Has she gotten a doctor-supervised sleep
study? Has she worked with a doctor on metabolic studies? Has she gotten cancer screenings?
8.) Does she have a medical team attending to her? What are the details of that?
In response, Merrill told Breitbart News that Clinton's doctors have already answered the questions
in Clinton's health statement.
"These questions are all addressed in her health statement," Merrill told Breitbart News, referring
to a letter from Clinton's doctor, Dr. Lisa Bardack-the chair of internal medicine at the Mount Kisco
Medical Group in New York.
The letter, labeled a "healthcare statement" and dated on July 28, 2015-which was released along
with Clinton's tax filings-is two full pages long and includes a complete description from Dr. Bardack
clearing Clinton as fit to serve as president.
"This letter summarizes the health history and current medical evaluation of Hillary Rodham Clinton,"
Dr. Bardack wrote. "I am an internist and the Chairman of the Department of Medicine at the Mount
Kisco Medical Group in Mount Kisco, New York. I have served as Mrs. Clinton's personal physician
since 2001, during which time I have been involved in all aspects of her healthcare."
The letter states that Clinton is a "healthy 67-year-old female whose current medical conditions
include hypothyroidism and seasonal pollen allergies."
"Her past medical history is notable for a deep vein thrombosis in 1998 and in 2009, an elbow
fracture in 2009 and a concussion in 2012," Dr. Bardack continues.
"In December of 2012, Mrs. Clinton suffered a stomach virus after traveling, became dehydrated,
fainted and sustained a concussion," the doctor wrote:
During follow-up evaluations, Mrs. Clinton was found to have a transverse sinus venous thrombosis
and began anti-coagulation therapy to dissolve the clot. As a result of the concussion, Mrs. Clinton
also experienced double vision for a period of time and benefitted from wearing glasses with a
Fresnel Prism. Her concussion symptoms, including the double vision, resolved within two months
and she discontinued the use of the prism. She had follow-up testing in 2013, which revealed complete
resolution of the effects of the concussion as well as total dissolution of the thrombosis. Mrs.
Clinton also tested negative for all clotting disorders. As a precaution however, it was decided
to continue her on daily anticoagulation.
The letter continues by detailing her current medication list, which includes Armour Thyroid-a
hormone used to treat an under-active thyroid– plus various antihistamines, Vitamin B12 and the blood-thinner
Coumadin.
"She was also advised in 1998 to take Lovenox, a short-acting blood thinner, when she took extended
flights; this medication was discontinued when she began Coumadin," Dr. Bardack continued:
Her Coumadin dose is monitored regularly and she has experienced no side effects from her medications.
She takes no other medications on a regular basis and has no known drug allergies. She does not
smoke and drinks alcohol occasionally. She does not use illicit drugs or tobacco products. She
eats a diet rich in lean protein, vegetables and fruits. She exercises regularly, including yoga,
swimming, walking and weight training.
Dr. Bardack noted that Clinton's family history also complicates matters: her father "lived into
his 80s and died after having a stroke" while her mother "lived into her 90s and passed away after
having congestive heart failure." One of her brothers-it's not clear whether it's Tony or Hugh Rodham,
according to this letter-"had premature heart disease," Dr. Bardack wrote.
"Due to her family history, she underwent a full cardiac evaluation, which was negative," the
doctor wrote. "She had a coronary calcium score of zero and a normal carotid ultrasound."
She's also had cancer screenings: "Her routine health maintenance is up to date, and has included
a normal colonoscopy, gynecologic exam, mammogram, and breast ultrasound."
She had a physical on March 21, 2015, which revealed, according to Dr. Bardack, that Clinton was
in top-notch health.
"In summary, Mrs. Clinton is a healthy female with hypothyroidism and seasonal allergies, on long-term
anticoagulation," Dr. Bardack wrote. "She participates in a healthy lifestyle and has had a full
medical evaluation, which reveals no evidence of additional medical issues or cardiovascular disease.
Her cancer screening evaluations are all negative. She is in excellent physical condition and fit
to serve as President of the United States."
Clinton's own campaign manager Robby Mook wouldn't commit during a mid-June 2015 interview on
CBS's Face The Nation to release Clinton's full health records.
"I will let Hillary decide that," Mook replied when John Dickerson asked him if Clinton would
release her full healthcare records. "But I can tell you she has been hitting the campaign trail
hard."
The letter from Clinton's doctor-not her full healthcare records, but just a mere statement-came
after that Mook interview.
Hillary Clinton's health issues are drastically worse than she has revealed publicly - and the
potential presidential candidate tried to keep her medical information private for fear that it would
damage her bid for the White House in 2016, according to a new book.
The 66-year-old former secretary of state has suffered more fainting spells than publicly known,
is prone to have blood clots, and may be at serious risk of a stroke, according to the book, "Blood
Feud: The Clintons vs. the Obamas," by Edward Klein.
Modal Trigger
The medical scare that forced Clinton to be rushed to New York-Presbyterian Hospital on Dec. 30,
2013, revealed how serious the situation is.
"She has to be carefully monitored for the rest of her life," doctors warned former President
Bill Clinton before Hillary was released from the hospital, according to the book.
The book claims Hillary was taken to New YorkPresbyterian after a fainting spell and concussion
that she suffered in her seventh-floor office at the State Department - not at her home, as claimed.
Hillary was initially treated at a State Department facility and was transferred to her home to
recover. Bill Clinton, however, insisted Hillary be flown to New York City and be treated by specialists
there, Klein claims.
During her visit to the Manhattan hospital, the presumed 2016 Democratic front-runner was diagnosed
with several problems, including the clots.
Hillary had a right transverse venous thrombosis, or a blood clot, between her brain and skull.
"The unique thing about clotting in the brain is that it could have transformed into a stroke,"
a cardiac specialist with knowledge of Hillary's condition says in the book.
The clots are especially a threat while flying, when blood pools while sitting, and she did a
lot of flying while at the State Department.
In addition to a 2005 fainting spell during a speech in Buffalo, Hillary also fainted while boarding
her plane in Yemen in 2009, which caused her to fall and fracture her elbow.
Meanwhile, coming after Hillary's recent comments that she was "dead broke" when she left the
White House, she played the poor card again, telling The Guardian that she is not "truly well off"
when compared to the super rich.
"We pay ordinary income tax," she told the paper, "unlike a lot of people who are truly well off,
not to name names; and we've done it through dint of hard work."
Among her issues are "blinding headaches" that have "frequently plagued her," he claimed. As Radar
reported, other insiders have claimed she has had a series of strokes and
may be suffering from MS.
In fact, the friend claimed, Clinton even turned to sleeping pills like Ambien and Lunesta in
her desperation, but they offered no relief. Said the friend, "She said they made her less sharp
the next day.
"There were incidents on the campaign trail when she felt faint and nearly swooned," he claimed.
"Those incidents were kept secret."
Clinton's health has long been an issue in this year's election cycle, most recently when the
candidate disappeared from the ABC Democratic presidential debate stage in December for an extended
period of time for what her campaign said was an
extended bathroom break.
Breitbart News previously
reported that a law enforcement source believed the extended break stemmed from a flare-up of
a previous brain injury, though the Clinton campaign refuted the report.
@xxSJWxx @Calvinus @CorporatistNation I think that xxSJWxx misunderstood where I am at... I
AGREE 100% that Hillary should go down for racketeering etc... Watch
Clinton Cash!!! What I said was... IF
THE VOTES WERE ACTUALLY "COUNTED"... WE WOULD HAVE A DIFFERENT NOMINEE... E.G., BERNIE SANDERS...
The Votes were NOT counted and so we have this unethical sociopath named Hillary who in my opinion
is also a Meglomaniac... who WILL start World War Three given half a chance. So lets hope that
there is a judge somewhere with courage and integrity who will indict her.
IF you want to be FULLY informed on The Clinton Foundation, The Clinton Global Initiative and
just what scoundrels Bill and Hill are... Then you MUST watch "Clinton Cash!"
I watched "Clinton Cash" TWICE last night rather than watch the "Sh*tShow!" #Vote2DefeatHER#VoteJillNOTHill
When one really examines the overall plan, the overall structure of the design of the banksters,
it really shouldn't be that difficult to reduce inequality:
The Clintons and the Bankers
1992: The Blackstone Group, at that time the wealthiest private equity firm (private
bank) in the world, would provide presidential candidate, Bill Clinton, with free office space
to solicit campaign donations. (Blackstone Group was founded by David Rockefeller protégé, Peter
G. Peterson, with Rockefeller family seed money.)
1993: In response to a request from the JP Morgan Bank, the Group of 30 (lobbyists for
the central bankers founded by a grant from the Rockefeller Foundation in 1978) publishes
a paper promoting the widespread adoption of credit derivatives, with the caveat that "legal risk"
should be removed. (Members of the G30 includes Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner, whose first
position after college was with Kissinger Associates, founded by Henry Kissinger, David Rockefeller's
right-hand man.)
1993: Mortgage Bankers Association publishes a paper outlining the structure and concept
of MERS, or Mortgage Electronic Registry System, a necessity for rapid mortgage securitizations
(credit derivatives) and shuffling home loans between lenders so that homeowners couldn't find
the actual owner.
1993: The SEC - under Clinton - will drop the requirement for investment firms to report
on the identity of the major shareholders. (This is to obscure the ownership - if you don't know
who the owners are, you won't know who owns everything.)
Next, President Clinton's aiding and abetting the bankers:
Clinton will sign NAFTA (actually version 2.0, after LBJ's Border Industrialization Program)
which includes a clause to allow for the foreign ownership of Mexican banks - previously only
allowed to be Mexican-owned.
Within one year 90% of Mexican banks are foreign owned, principally by US banks.
Next, Clinton will sign the Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act, allowing
for full interstate banking - a major step in the cartel formation.
Next up, Clinton signs the Telecommunications Act of 1996, allowing for the consolidation of
corporate media and reconstitution of AT&T into one entity.
The Investment Company Act of 1996 is signed into law, allowing for unlimited number of investors
per hedge fund or similar funds. The combination of the potential for an unlimited number of credit
default swaps, and an unlimited number of commodity futures purchases, and an unlimited number
of investors per fund, allows for ultra-speculation.
Next the Big Three: the REIT Modernization Act, the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization
Act and the Commodity Futures Modernization Act - these together will set the stage for the greatest
transfer of wealth in human history, the global economic meltdown (and kill the New Deal entirely).
1997: Years after this date, investigative gumshoe reporter, Greg Palast, would uncover
a secret 1997 memorandum between Timothy Geithner and Larry Summers, urging for the inclusion
of the "credit derivatives-acceptance clause" in the WTO's Financial Services Agreement (so that
the various governmental signatories around the world would accept Wall Street's fantasy finance
Ponzi scheme).
The legal advisors in the creation of the Mortgage Electronic Registry System - or MERS - were
the attorneys at Covington & Burling, the same law firm from which Eric Holder, President Obama's
choice for attorney general to contain the banker meltdown, came from.
So Covington & Burling, which has long enjoyed a strategic partnership with Kissinger Associates,
was the legal advisor of record, and their man, Eric Holder, was appointed by the president to
insure no bankers were prosecuted, and this entire criminal conspiracy would not be exposed. President
Obama also appointed Judith ("Jami") Miscik, then president and vice-chair of Kissinger Associates,
to his Intelligence Advisory Board.
And the then CEO of Fannie Mae, the fellow who promoted the large-scale adoption of mortgage
securitizations, James Johnson, had a longstanding relationship with David Rockefeller and Henry
Kissinger; Johnson was the business contact for the American Friends of Bilderberg, Inc. (directors:
David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, Richard Perle, et al.).
So, I just looked at the wordles that Lambert used in the Kitchen Table post and I didn't see
the word 'liberal' anywhere. However, if you made a wordle from Rush Limbaugh's broadcast career,
'liberal' would be one of the bigger words. I guess Thomas Frank is attacking 'liberals' from
the left? One thing is for sure, the word is dirtier than ever. It just makes me want to use it
more and more. It's so dirty!
Everyone at Davos calls themselves [neo]liberals. The Joint Chiefs of Staff go into the woods
and do primal screams, "we're liberals and we're going to turn the Middle East into glass!!!!
We're so liberal!!" That's what they're doing at the Bohemian Grove. They all gather around Henry
Kissinger and sing about being liberals in their hearts.
Davos People are the quintessential [neo]liberals. USians are as liberal as they are
Christian: they only say it in order to be accepted by people who have been told that only
self-described liberals are worthy...
Only the sex-obsessed writers at Cosmopolitan could try that line out... In the article
The Clintons and the Reality of a Long Marriage, the women's magazine attempts to
make the case that the Clinton marriage is actually one that everyone should look up to.
Apparently, hating philandering men is no longer a part of the feminist agenda. At least, as long
as one's wife is running for president.
... ... ...
But virtuous Hillary Clinton stuck by her man! She "could have put her husband's recklessness behind
her like a bad haircut and moved on to continue her change-making and achievements without him too.
But she stayed." And now, the sweet old couple "get to be doting grandparents together, mutually
supporting each other in their latest acts, and potentially becoming the first married to couple
to ever both be President, which will make a good Christmas letter."
Hillary shouldn't be painted
as "a doormat, a punching bag, a fool" for staying married to Bill. It's a sign of strength and nobility!
Or a savvy politician who is trying to be elected President.
The writer's marital counseling goes on. "In the Clinton's marriage model, you screw up. You forgive.
You grow. And you grow old, together, making new memories and celebrating old ones with the same
person you've known since she was "a girl," someone you fell in love with many years ago in the spring."
As gag-inducing as this is, it can't be a surprise. A serial adulterer who's still a popular national
figure and married? That's Cosmo's idea of a hero.
"... Clinton would want to widen the gulf between AIPAC and Donald Trump, the likely Republican nominee. "We need steady hands, not a president who says he's neutral on Monday, pro-Israel on Tuesday, and who knows what on Wednesday, because everything is negotiable," she said to applause, out-hawking the man who is running on a platform of Middle Eastern war crimes. ..."
"... In doing so, she offered a bridge to #NeverTrump neoconservatives like Max Boot and Robert Kagan, who has already written that, should Trump be the nominee, "the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... It is a strange, strange spectacle, this yearly AIPAC conference, where U.S. politicians from across the political spectrum are compelled to stand in front of a bunch of Israeli flags and proclaim unquestioning fealty to a foreign ethno-state. ..."
"... This year of all years, Clinton could have afforded to show a bit of courage before AIPAC. Jews will vote Democratic no matter what. Sixty-nine percent of them voted for Obama in 2012, despite the well-known tension between him and Netanyahu. ..."
"... Her correspondence with adviser Sid Blumenthal-a man loathed by the Israel lobby for not disavowing his anti-Zionist son, Max-suggests that she's aware of the damage Netanyahu is doing to the cause of peace in the Middle East. But if she is, she doesn't care about it enough to take even a tiny political risk, to tell a crowd something other than exactly what it wants to hear. Either Clinton's AIPAC speech was driven by belief, or it was driven by cynicism. It's hard to say which is worse. ..."
ny presidential candidate speaking to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, during
an election year is going to bow to the hawkish elements of the Israel lobby. Hillary Clinton's keynote
speech at AIPAC's annual meeting Monday, however, was more debased than it needed to be, promising
that under her administration, Israel will be spared even the mild rebukes it has suffered under
President Obama. A symphony of pandering, it attempted to outflank Donald Trump on the right and
will end up outraging a large chunk of the left.
As Joe Biden acknowledged in his AIPAC
speech on Sunday, Israel's
"steady and systematic process of expanding settlements, legalizing outposts, seizing land" is making
a two-state solution impossible. The settlements are pushing Israel toward a one-state reality, in
which Jews rule over the Arabs with whom they are geographically intermingled. Clinton's speech,
however, barely nodded toward this reality, and when it did, it was with a promise to protect Israel
from the consequences of flouting international law. Advertisement
Here is the entirety of Clinton's remarks about settlements:
"Everyone has to do their part by avoiding damaging actions, including with respect to
settlements. Now, America has an important role to play in supporting peace efforts. And as president,
I would continue the pursuit of direct negotiations. And let me be clear-I would vigorously oppose
any attempt by outside parties to impose a solution, including by the U.N. Security Council."
She spent significantly more time railing against the "alarming"
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement
, which is gaining traction on college campuses nationwide. Pledging to "take our alliance to the
next level," Clinton said that one of the first things she'd do in office is invite the Israeli prime
minister to the White House. That was a barely veiled rebuke to Obama, who never treated Benjamin
Netanyahu with the
deference the prime minister felt entitled to. Before the speech, some had
hoped that Clinton
might offer a word of solidarity or encouragement to beleaguered progressives in Israel. She gave
them nothing. It's understandable that Clinton would want to widen the gulf between AIPAC and
Donald Trump, the likely Republican nominee. "We need steady hands, not a president who says he's
neutral on Monday, pro-Israel on Tuesday, and who knows what on Wednesday, because everything is
negotiable," she said to applause, out-hawking the man who is running on a platform of Middle Eastern
war crimes.
In doing so, she offered a bridge to #NeverTrump neoconservatives like Max Boot and
Robert Kagan, who has already
written that, should Trump be the nominee, "the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton.
The party cannot be saved, but the country still can be." Anti-Trump neoconservatives, however, are
a minuscule group of people. And in seeking their approval, Clinton has further alienated left-wing
voters, particularly young ones. Polls show that Americans under 30 are far more
critical of Israel than are older voters. Liberal Democrats
sympathize more with the Palestinians than they do with Israel. There is already deep suspicion
of Clinton's foreign-policy instincts among Bernie Sanders' supporters; Clinton doesn't need to give
them new reasons to distrust her.
It is a strange, strange spectacle, this yearly AIPAC conference, where U.S. politicians from
across the political spectrum are compelled to stand in front of a bunch of Israeli flags and proclaim
unquestioning fealty to a foreign ethno-state.
This year of all years, Clinton could have afforded to show a bit of courage before AIPAC. Jews
will vote Democratic no matter what. Sixty-nine percent of them voted for Obama in 2012, despite
the well-known tension between him and Netanyahu. Unlike Obama, Clinton is going to be running against
a demagogue with German roots who plays footsie with white supremacists and reportedly kept a
volume of Hitler's speeches beside his bed. She'll have all the Jewish support she needs without
sucking up to the Likud. So why is she doing it?
Her
correspondence with adviser Sid Blumenthal-a man loathed by the Israel lobby for not disavowing
his anti-Zionist son, Max-suggests that she's aware of the damage Netanyahu is doing to the cause
of peace in the Middle East. But if she is, she doesn't care about it enough to take even a tiny
political risk, to tell a crowd something other than exactly what it wants to hear. Either Clinton's
AIPAC speech was driven by belief, or it was driven by cynicism. It's hard to say which is worse.
have to disagree with Bernie, DWS didn't do the right thing - she just got
caught, the right thing would have been to put a stop to planted stories
with no attribution and ensure a level playing field. Anyone US side want
to tell me if the thing about Bill Clinton meeting Epstein on numerous occasions
is actually true?
his does not look like a common seizure, unless seizures are so common to her that she already
knows how to control it. It is strange, but the lady behind her is even more strange, she keeps looking
at the journalists, she glances at Hillary but shows no surprise at all, nor try to help. It is almost
as if she is part of it.
The expression of one reporter seems to be pure fear:
"... Well, it's obvious that Hillary wanted to keep some information from the public finding out. The information that she wanted to keep from the public probably didn't concern national security so much as her own private dealings. Nobody, I think, in American history has merged their public service as secretary of state or president with their private gains to the extent that Hillary really has. And by that I mean the Clinton Foundation, overall. ..."
"... She's going to Saudi Arabia, she's going to Europe, she's going to the Near Eastern countries. Saudi Arabia has asked her–and this is all very public–we want more arms. We want to buy arms in America. We know that Saudi Arabia is one of the major contributors to the Clinton Foundation. ..."
"... Well, lo and behold, the military-industrial complex is one of the big contributors to the Clinton Foundation, as is Saudi Arabia, and many of the parties who are directly affected by her decisions. Now, my guess is what she didn't want people to find out, whether on Freedom of Information Act or others, are the lobbying she's doing for her own foundation, which in a way means her wealth, her husband's wealth, Bill Clinton's wealth, and the power that both of them have by getting a quarter billion dollars of grants into the foundation during her secretary of state. ..."
"... We don't have any evidence one way or the other. So certainly there is no evidence. There is only the appearance of what looks to me to be an inherent conflict of interest with the foundation. ..."
On Thursday morning, the media fest and political fest around Hillary Clinton's email scandal
continued, as the head of the FBI, James Comey, spoke at a congressional House oversight committee.
Here's a little clip of what was said there. But let me just foreshadow–maybe the emails aren't the
real issue that should be in front of these hearings. Now, here's the chairman of the House Oversight
Committee, Jason Chaffetz, questioning James Comey and a bit of his answer.
JASON CHAFFETZ: It seems to a lot of us that the average Joe, the average American, that if they
had done what you laid out in your statement, that they'd be in handcuffs. And I think there is a
legitimate concern that there is a double standard. Your name isn't Clinton, you're not part of the
powerful elite, that Lady Justice will act differently.
JAMES COMEY: I believe this investigation was conducted consistent with the highest traditions
of the FBI. Our folks did it in an apolitical and professional way. There are two things that matter
in a criminal investigation of a subject. And so when I look at the facts we gathered here–as I said,
I see evidence of great carelessness. But I do not see evidence that is sufficient to establish that
Secretary Clinton, or those with whom she was corresponding, both talked about classified information
on email, and knew when they did it they were doing something that was against the law. So give that
assessment of the facts and my understanding of the law, my conclusion was, and remains, no reasonable
prosecutor would bring this case. No reasonable prosecutor would bring the second case in 100 years
focused on gross negligence.
JAY: Now joining us from New York is Michael Hudson. Michael's a Distinguished Research Professor
of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City. His latest book is Killing the Host: How
Financial Parasites and Debt Bondage Destroy the Global Economy. Thanks for joining us, Michael.
MICHAEL HUDSON: Good to be back here, Paul.
JAY: First, let's talk a little bit about what we just heard. The chairman of the House Oversight
Committee says, is there a double standard here? Somebody else might be in handcuffs, and Hillary
Clinton's not being charged. I guess a lot of people are asking that question. The FBI director says
this doesn't rise to the level of criminality; it's carelessness. I don't know the law well enough.
I'm certainly not a lawyer. But it seems to me that the deliberate, willful decision to use a private
server–and some people have said one of the reasons could be to avoid Freedom of Information Act
requests–and I don't know if that rises to the level of criminality. But it's sure wrong.
HUDSON: Well, it's obvious that Hillary wanted to keep some information from the public finding
out. The information that she wanted to keep from the public probably didn't concern national security
so much as her own private dealings. Nobody, I think, in American history has merged their public
service as secretary of state or president with their private gains to the extent that Hillary really
has. And by that I mean the Clinton Foundation, overall.
Here's the problem, you can imagine. She's going to Saudi Arabia, she's going to Europe, she's
going to the Near Eastern countries. Saudi Arabia has asked her–and this is all very public–we want
more arms. We want to buy arms in America. We know that Saudi Arabia is one of the major contributors
to the Clinton Foundation. On the other hand, Hillary's in a position to go to Raytheon, to
Boeing, and say look, do I have a customer for you. Saudi Arabia would love to buy your arms. Maybe
we can arrange something. I'm going to do my best. By the way, you know, my foundation is–you know,
I'm a public-spirited person and I'm trying to help the world. Would you like to make a contribution
to my foundation?
Well, lo and behold, the military-industrial complex is one of the big contributors to the
Clinton Foundation, as is Saudi Arabia, and many of the parties who are directly affected by her
decisions. Now, my guess is what she didn't want people to find out, whether on Freedom of Information
Act or others, are the lobbying she's doing for her own foundation, which in a way means her wealth,
her husband's wealth, Bill Clinton's wealth, and the power that both of them have by getting a quarter
billion dollars of grants into the foundation during her secretary of state.
JAY: As far as we know, there's no direct evidence that she did precisely what you're saying.
And
That they actually say–"Give money to the foundation; I will facilitate such-and-such a contract."
There's no evidence of that, correct?
HUDSON: That's right. And partly there's no evidence because her private emails are not subject
to [inaud.]. They're not subject to finding out this. We don't have any evidence one way or the
other. So certainly there is no evidence. There is only the appearance of what looks to me to be
an inherent conflict of interest with the foundation.
JAY: And there's no direct evidence that any abnormal amount of money has gone to Bill Clinton,
in terms of fees and expenses. One can assume he's well-compensated. But it does have charitable
status, it has to file a 990. They are under charitable law regulations, and so far I don't know
of any reporting that says that they have violated the–.
HUDSON: You're right. The advantage of being under charitable law is it's in a foundation that–you
can look at it in effect as your savings account. And you can treat it–you can do with a foundation
whatever you want.
Now, if you or I had a quarter billion dollars, what we'd want to do is influence policy. Influence
the world. Well, that's what they want to do. They want to use the foundation to support policies
that they want. And here we're not dealing with unexplained enrichment. This isn't money that comes
into them that goes into an offshore account in Switzerland or the Cayman Islands. It's hidden in
plain sight. It's all the foundation. It's tax-exempt. It's legitimate. So she's somehow been able
to legitimize a conflict of interest, and what that used to be called corruption in office. Or at
least the appearance of what could be corruption in office.
And the fact is, that is what there has been a blacked-out screen painted over it, and we don't
have any idea what she's been saying to these affected parties that not only has she been dealing
with, the secretary of state, but it turned out to be major contributors to her and Bill's foundation.
JAY: Now, the reason the emails rose to such prominence is because it was the potential of criminal
charges. That seems to have ended now. The Clinton foundation certainly has been reported upon in
various places in the mainstream press. It never rose to the same level of attention as the emails.
But why do you think that is? Because you think there's enough fodder there that that could have
been quite a media fest. Feast, I should say.
HUDSON: Well, there's no direct link between the foundation that says it's existing to promote
various social purposes, and Hillary's actions as secretary of state. But there's such overlap there.
I can't think of any public official at cabinet level or above, in memory who's ever had an overlapping
between a foundation that they had and had control, personally, and their public job. So there's
never been so great a blurring of categories.
JAY: So why isn't this a bigger issue in the media? Corporate media?
HUDSON: I don't–I think the media are supporting Hillary. And that's a good question. Why are they
supporting her so much with all of this? Why aren't they raising this seemingly obvious thing? I
think the media want two things that Hillary wants. They want the trade agreements to essentially
turn over policy to, trade policy to corporations, and regulatory policy to–.
JAY: You're talking
about TTIP and [TTP].
HUDSON: [They're neocons.] They're the agreement of politics. If the media agree with her politics
and says, okay, we want to back her because she's backing the kind of world we want, a neocon world,
a neoliberal world, then they're going to say, this is wonderful. We can now distract attention onto
did she leak a national secret. Well, the secrets that are really important aren't the national classification
secrets. They're the personal, personal, the big-picture secrets. And it's the big picture we don't
have a clue of as a result of all of these erasures.
JAY: Okay, thanks very much for joining us, Michael.
HUDSON: Good to be here.
JAY: And thank you for joining us on the Real News Network.
"... ...if you are a hard-core promoter of wars like Robert Kagan, Dick Cheney, Henry Kissinger, Jamie Weinstein, Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Richard Perle, George Shultz, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and many others, you have either endorsed or said very positive things about Hillary Clinton. How to explain this? ..."
"... But if you believe that the U.S. military is a force for good that hardly ever kills anyone worthy of redemption, that the chief role of the military is to rescue poor innocents from evil by overthrowing tyrants and spreading democracy by drone missile, if you believe air wars are more humane because in air wars nobody gets hurt, if you think presidents checking off kill lists on Tuesdays is ideal as long as it's the right presidents doing it, if you cheer for diversity in the U.S. military and want the Selective Service expanded to force every 18-year-old woman to register for the draft, if you believe Honduras and Ukraine and Libya had it coming or you have no idea what I'm referring to, if you think suggesting the abolition of NATO or a halt to overthrowing governments is crazy talk, and if you believe a good heavy bombing campaign of Syria would be the perfect way to demonstrate that we care about Syrians and value them as human beings, you just might be a Democrat. ..."
"... I've studied the marketing of wars , and the most successful war marketing campaigns in the United States include, in order from most to least necessary: ..."
"... The demonization of an entire foreign population. ..."
"... The demonization of a particular foreign person. ..."
"... The pretense of urgency, inevitability, and ideally of the state of being already underway. ..."
"... The pretense of upholding the rule of law. ..."
"... The pretense of humanitarianism. ..."
"... Point #7 will pick up a section of the population's support, even among people opposed to some of the other justifications. But alone it won't work. Points #1 and #2 can do well without #7. Any of these points can be strengthened or undone by partisanship if the war is labeled the possession of one political party or the other. And once the war is really up and rolling, a new justification slides into the #1 spot, namely the need to "support the troops" by killing more of them. ..."
...if you are a hard-core promoter of wars like Robert Kagan, Dick Cheney,
Henry Kissinger, Jamie Weinstein, Max Boot, Eliot Cohen, Richard Perle, George
Shultz, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and many others, you have either
endorsed or said very
positive things about Hillary Clinton. How to explain this? Are the
most rabid war supporters on one side and the most dependable war makers getting
nominated by the other? Well, maybe.
But if you believe that the U.S. military is a force for good that hardly
ever kills anyone worthy of redemption, that the chief role of the military
is to rescue poor innocents from evil by overthrowing tyrants and spreading
democracy by drone missile, if you believe air wars are more humane because
in air wars nobody gets hurt, if you think presidents checking off kill lists
on Tuesdays is ideal as long as it's the right presidents doing it, if you cheer
for diversity in the U.S. military and want the Selective Service expanded to
force every 18-year-old woman to register for the draft, if you believe Honduras
and Ukraine and Libya had it coming or you have no idea what I'm referring to,
if you think suggesting the abolition of NATO or a halt to overthrowing governments
is crazy talk, and if you believe a good heavy bombing campaign of Syria would
be the perfect way to demonstrate that we care about Syrians and value them
as human beings, you just might be a Democrat.
Yes, Hillary Clinton is the most dependable war monger nominated by a major
party in the United States in many years. She has the most
consistent and lengthy
record of doing what she's paid to do, of marketing U.S. weaponry abroad,
of manufacturing justifications for wars, of lobbying branches of the U.S. government
and foreign governments to support wars. And she'll do so while keeping up a
pretense of abiding by some selection of laws.
... ... ...
I've studied the marketing
of wars , and the most successful war marketing campaigns in the United
States include, in order from most to least necessary:
The pretense of a threat to anyone in the United States, most powerfully
if it is a threat of torture or rape or death by hand or knife. It need
not be the least bit realistic.
The demonization of an entire foreign population.
The demonization of a particular foreign person.
Revenge.
The pretense of urgency, inevitability, and ideally of the state
of being already underway.
The pretense of upholding the rule of law.
The pretense of humanitarianism.
Point #7 will pick up a section of the population's support, even among
people opposed to some of the other justifications. But alone it won't work.
Points #1 and #2 can do well without #7. Any of these points can be strengthened
or undone by partisanship if the war is labeled the possession of one political
party or the other. And once the war is really up and rolling, a new justification
slides into the #1 spot, namely the need to "support the troops" by killing
more of them.
"... Manafort mentioned the return of Glass-Steagall specifically as a counterpoint against Hillary Clinton, arguing it was Democrats that were the ones actually beholden to big banks. "We believe the Obama-Clinton years have passed legislation that has been favorable to the big banks, which is why you see all the Wall Street money going to her," he said. "We are supporting the small banks and Main Street." ..."
"... Good! Screw the Clintons and crony capitalism. ..."
"... Bob Rubin already cashed the checks....Mission Accomplished. ..."
"... Laugh Track Deafening) ..."
"... How different would it be now if everyone in that photo had died simultaneously BEFORE Clinton signed it? ..."
"... Panic attacks and violent pangs on Wall Street tomorrow? Or will they just pour billions more into the Clinton corruption campaign? ..."
"... Hang the Clintons, Bushes, and all the damned banksters with them. Then your reforms might mean something ..."
While we know better than to trust politician promises, we were surprised to read that today the
GOP joined the Democrats in calling for a repeal of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, the Financial Services Modernization
Act of 1999 pushed through by none other than Bill Clinton, and will seek a return to Glass-Steagall,
the banking law launched in 1933 in the aftermath of the Great Depression meant to prohibit commercial
banks from engaging in the investment business, and which according to many was one of the catalysts
that led to the Global Financial Crisis.
According to
The Hill, Paul Manafort, Donald Trump's campaign manager, told reporters gathered in Cleveland
Monday that the GOP platform would include language advocating for a return of that law, which was
repealed under President Bill Clinton, husband of, well you know...
"We also call for a reintroduction of Glass-Steagall, which created barriers between what big
banks can do," he said.
Including that language in the GOP platform comes shortly after Democrats agreed to similar language
in their own, calling for an "updated and modernized version" of the law.
However before anyone gets their hopes up, recall that a party platform is not binding but is thought
to reflect the values of the party.... until the values change as a result of Wall Street "incentives"
because if there is one thing US "commercial banks" can not afford it is a separation of their depository
and investment activities.
The GOP platform has not yet been officially released, although the convention is expected to
approve it later Monday. Nonetheless, the embrace of Glass-Steagall by both parties is a telling
indication of how unpopular Wall Street remains with the public, years after the financial crisis.
Manafort mentioned the return of Glass-Steagall specifically as a counterpoint against Hillary Clinton,
arguing it was Democrats that were the ones actually beholden to big banks. "We believe the Obama-Clinton
years have passed legislation that has been favorable to the big banks, which is why you see all
the Wall Street money going to her," he said. "We are supporting the small banks and Main Street."
"... The U.S. Navy stewards who served as butlers at the White House were usually the first to discover physical evidence of Clinton's philandering, says Byrne. ..."
"... According to Byrne, the lipstick was clearly not the shade worn by Lewinsky or Hillary. He believed it belonged to a young White House receptionist who was also having an affair with Clinton. ..."
"... Identifying for the first time something he says was dubbed the 'jogging list', he recalls how, early in Clinton's first administration, women 'dressed as if they were going clubbing or working out' would wait by the White House south-east gate for him to take his daily exercise. ..."
"... His bodyguards would collect their names and carry out security checks on them. 'Agents . . . insinuated that this list was used by President Clinton to try to meet these women,' says Byrne. ..."
"... The account chimes with previous claims that the Clintons fought on at least one occasion over his affair with Lewinsky. Byrne gilds Mrs Clinton's aggressive image by recounting how - some years later - she and her husband visited the Secret Service's firing range. ..."
"... For Hillary - gaining in the polls over Donald Trump and potentially just months away from becoming America's first female President - 11th-hour revelations about how the Clintons behaved in the White House last time round may be enough to have her hurling more than vases and Bibles. ..."
The U.S. Navy stewards who served as butlers at the White House were usually the first to
discover physical evidence of Clinton's philandering, says Byrne.
One, who he names as Nel, shared that evidence with Byrne, revealing that over a period of time,
he had been finding and secretly cleaning White House embossed towels stained with lipstick.
Anxious to protect the presidency from embarrassment, Nel was washing them by hand rather than
sending them to the laundry.
According to Byrne, the lipstick was clearly not the shade worn by Lewinsky or Hillary. He
believed it belonged to a young White House receptionist who was also having an affair with Clinton.
... ... ..
There were many other women besides Lewinsky, Eleanor Mondale and the unnamed receptionist, says
Byrne.
Identifying for the first time something he says was dubbed the 'jogging list', he recalls
how, early in Clinton's first administration, women 'dressed as if they were going clubbing or working
out' would wait by the White House south-east gate for him to take his daily exercise.
His bodyguards would collect their names and carry out security checks on them. 'Agents .
. . insinuated that this list was used by President Clinton to try to meet these women,' says Byrne.
He recalls an incident in December 1997 when he heard on his two-way radio that Monica Lewinsky
was at one of the White House gates.
The guard had been instructed to delay her entrance . . . because Mr Clinton was already ensconced
with Eleanor Mondale. Suspecting the truth, Lewinsky - according to Byrne - furiously gestured at
herself and told the guard: 'What's he want with her when he has this?' (Mondale's affair with Clinton
was strongly rumoured at the time although she denied it. She died of brain cancer in 2011.)
Was Hillary aware of his philandering? Byrne suspects that she knew about some of her husband's
affairs but not Lewinsky, who, at 22, was young enough to be their daughter.
... ... ...
The account chimes with previous claims that the Clintons fought on at least one occasion
over his affair with Lewinsky. Byrne gilds Mrs Clinton's aggressive image by recounting how - some
years later - she and her husband visited the Secret Service's firing range.
Mrs Clinton chose an old Thompson sub-machine-gun and, 'smiling ear-to-ear' let rip, pumping bullets
into the male target's crotch area. Witnesses laughed, looked away in embarrassment or glanced at
the President, says Byrne.
Almost as ferocious as the Clintons' fight related by Byrne is the current battle between the
Democrats and Republicans over this explosive book.
And it's not just historic allegations being thrown around. Even at 69, Mr Clinton's sex life
is still proving controversial, with his charity foundation recently facing questions over a $2 million
donation to a company partly owned by a woman alleged to be his mistress.
The Clinton camp has dismissed the memoir as 'fantasy' without addressing specific claims. Also,
some media supporters have noted that some of Byrne's claims contradict what he told the 1998 official
inquiry that led to Bill Clinton's impeachment.
(Others argue that Byrne, who clearly likes Mr Clinton much more than his wife, was lying to protect
him at the time, but feels no such qualms about damaging Hillary).
Some former Secret Service agents allege Byrne was too low-ranking to see everything he claims,
and accuse him of recycling old rumours.
Others, however, have rushed to his defence.
Dan Emmett, a respected former agent and Secret Service historian, says Byrne spent 'many hundreds
of hours' just feet from the President, adding: 'He was without question in a position to see and
hear at least some of the things he claims.'
For Hillary - gaining in the polls over Donald Trump and potentially just months away from
becoming America's first female President - 11th-hour revelations about how the Clintons behaved
in the White House last time round may be enough to have her hurling more than vases and Bibles.
"... On Monday, Raffi Williams, deputy press secretary for the Republican Party, tweeted, "Woman Suing Jeffrey Epstein For Sexual Slavery Claimed Bill Clinton Must Have Known" and linked to a post that in turn referred to a Daily Mail story from 2011. The Drudge Report went for the more sensational "BUBBA AND THE PALM BEACH PEDOPHILE" and linked to the same story. Conservative viral news sites Twitchy and IJReview piled on, as did pundits at conservative websites, including Breitbart and the Blaze . ..."
"... But unsealed court documents revealed that he had been the subject of a much larger federal probe into alleged prostitution and could have faced 10 years in prison or more, if the case had gone forward. After his guilty plea, two of his alleged victims, who had were underage at the time of their encounter with Epstein, sued him in federal court, claiming that he had a "sexual preference and obsession for underage girls" and that he had sexually assaulted them (and many others). Epstein has consistently denied criminal wrongdoing and downplayed his 2008 conviction, telling the New York Post that he is " not a sexual predator ." ..."
"... Clinton's relationship with Epstein is old news. It's long been publicly known that Clinton and other notable figures hobnobbed with Epstein. Still, the new headlines the case has generated have given GOPers a fresh opportunity to try to link Clinton to a sex scandal. Williams, the GOP spokesman, was attempting to draw attention to a three-year-old story that does not implicate Clinton in any lawbreaking. That article, which relies on court documents, recounts the story of Virginia Roberts, who alleged that she became Epstein's sex slave at the age of 15 and that Clinton had once had dinner with Epstein and two girls whom she believed were underage (but she didn't know their ages). But, according to the Daily Mail, Roberts said that "as far as she knows, the ex-President did not take the bait." Roberts did say that she believed Clinton had to have been aware of Epstein's alleged illegal activities, but provided no evidence to support her assumption. ..."
Conservatives think they've found new ammunition for their campaign against
the Clintons-a new Clinton sex scandal. Or sort of.
On Monday, Raffi Williams,
deputy press secretary for the Republican Party,
tweeted, "Woman Suing Jeffrey Epstein For Sexual Slavery Claimed Bill Clinton
Must Have Known" and linked to a post that in turn referred to a Daily Mail
story from 2011. The Drudge Report went for the more
sensational "BUBBA AND THE PALM BEACH PEDOPHILE" and linked to the same
story. Conservative viral news sites Twitchy and
IJReview piled on, as did pundits at conservative websites, including
Breitbart and the Blaze.
What has the right in a tizzy is a six-year-old lawsuit against Jeffrey Epstein,
a former Democratic donor who
has been accused of luring underage girls to his island resort to give massages
before ultimately sexually assaulting them. Epstein, a billionaire hedge fund
manager, pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting an underage woman and served 13
months in prison. But unsealed court documents
revealed that he had been the subject of a much larger federal probe into
alleged prostitution and could have faced 10 years in prison or more, if the
case had gone forward. After his guilty plea, two of his alleged victims, who
had were underage at the time of their encounter with Epstein, sued him in federal
court,
claiming that he had a "sexual preference and obsession for underage girls"
and that he had sexually assaulted them (and many others). Epstein has consistently
denied criminal wrongdoing and downplayed his 2008 conviction, telling the
New York Post that he is "not
a sexual predator."
Last week a new anonymous allegation was introduced in the case, with a court
filing charging that Prince Andrew, Queen Elizabeth's second son, had sexually
abused an underage girl when he was a guest at Epstein's house in the US Virgin
Islands. (Prince Andrew has denied any wrongdoing.) And on Monday, The Smoking
Gun
resurfaced old court documents revealing that Epstein's phone book included
telephone numbers and email addresses for Bill Clinton. ("Now that Prince Andrew
has found himself
ensnared in the sleazy sex slave story of wealthy degenerate Jeffrey Epstein,
Bill Clinton can't be too far behind," the site declared.)
Clinton's relationship with Epstein is old news. It's long been publicly
known that Clinton and other notable figures hobnobbed with Epstein. Still,
the new headlines the case has generated have given GOPers a fresh opportunity
to try to link Clinton to a sex scandal. Williams, the GOP spokesman, was attempting
to draw attention to a three-year-old story that does not implicate Clinton
in any lawbreaking. That article, which relies on court documents, recounts
the story of Virginia Roberts, who alleged that she became Epstein's sex slave
at the age of 15 and that Clinton had once had dinner with Epstein and two girls
whom she believed were underage (but she didn't know their ages). But, according
to the Daily Mail, Roberts said that "as far as she knows, the ex-President
did not take the bait." Roberts did say that she believed Clinton had to have
been aware of Epstein's alleged illegal activities, but provided no evidence
to support her assumption.
Clinton and Epstein were indeed once close. The former president used Epstein's
private jet. And the presence of numerous teenage girls on the financier's private
island might have struck a visitor as unusual or even troublesome.
This just one case of Clinton's family corruption and probably not the most outrageous one. It is
now more clear why she deleted so many emails. Clinton faces many questions about whether she helped
her family foundation collect millions of dollars from questionable people, countries and organizations
when she was secretary of state.
Notable quotes:
"... A major Democratic donor personally lobbied then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's office for a seat on a sensitive government intelligence board, telling one of her closest aides that if appointed he would make Clinton "look good." ..."
"... The emails shed new light on how Fernando got a spot on the International Security Advisory Board . He resigned in 2011, days after his appointment and after his selection was questioned. ..."
"... In recent weeks, emails obtained by Citizens United show the appointment perplexed the State Department's professional staff, according to ABC News , and that dozens of State Department officials worked overtime to quickly obtain Fernando's security clearance, according to Fox News . ..."
"... Reines appeared to mock the appointment by responding to Samuelson: "Not the most compelling response I've ever seen since it's such a dense topic the board resolves around. Couldn't he have landed a spot on the President's Physical Fitness Council?" ..."
Rajiv Fernando lobbied top Clinton aide for a seat on sensitive intelligence board. He had
little experience in the field and resigned after appointment was scrutinized. The Chicago businessman
donated to Clinton, Obama and the Clinton Foundation.
A major Democratic donor personally lobbied then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's office
for a seat on a sensitive government intelligence board, telling one of her closest aides that if
appointed he would make Clinton "look good."
Rajiv Fernando acknowledged that he may not have
the experience to sit on a board that would allow him the highest levels of top-secret access, but
he assured deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin in newly released 2009 emails that he was talking to
two professors who were "getting me up to speed on the academics behind the field."
Fernando, who contributed to Clinton, her
family's foundation and Barack Obama,
described himself as one of "Hillary's people" and mentioned that he recently had sent an ailing
Clinton flowers to wish her a speedy recovery.
The emails shed new light on how Fernando got a spot on the
International Security Advisory Board.
He resigned in 2011, days after his appointment and after his selection was questioned.
... ... ...
In recent weeks, emails obtained by Citizens United show the appointment perplexed the State
Department's professional staff, according to
ABC News, and that dozens of State Department officials worked overtime to quickly obtain Fernando's
security clearance, according to
Fox News.
Reines
appeared to mock the appointment by responding to Samuelson: "Not the most compelling response
I've ever seen since it's such a dense topic the board resolves around. Couldn't he have landed a
spot on the President's Physical Fitness Council?"
Fernando founded Chopper Trading, a high-frequency trading firm that was acquired by the Chicago
firm DRW Trading Group in 2015. In an economic speech last year, Clinton criticized high-frequency
traders. Providence, Rhode Island, sued Chopper Trading and other financial companies, charging they'd
defrauded the city, which managed funds for its employees.
"... If Donald Trump, as seems more than likely, prevails in the GOP primary, then a number of neocons may defect to the Clinton campaign. Already Robert Kagan announced in the Washington Post ..."
"... The impulse of the neocons to return to the Democratic Party should not be wholly surprising. In 1972, for example, Robert L. Bartley, the editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Washington Post ..."
"... For its part, neoconservatism has always had a nationalistic streak. But Trump represents everything that the neocons believed that they had purged from the GOP. He represents continuity with the Buchananite wing, the belief that America should tend to its own knitting before launching hopeless wars abroad. When it comes to foreign policy, however, the second generation of neocons such as Kagan does not trace its lineage back to Ohio Senator Robert Taft but to the one that Republicans in the early 1950s reviled: the Truman administration. ..."
Anyone looking for further converts to the Hillary Clinton campaign might do well to look at the
Marco Rubio campaign. If Clinton is the leading liberal hawk, Rubio is the foremost neocon candidate.
In 2014 National Review published an article about him titled "The
neocons return."
Whether it's Cuba or Iran or Russia, he stakes out the most
intransigent line: "I disagree with voices in my own party who argue we should not engage at
all, who warn we should heed the words of John Quincy Adams not to go 'abroad, in search of monsters
to destroy.'" Not surprisingly, he's surrounded himself with neocon advisers, ranging from Max Boot
to Jamie Fly to Elliott Abrams.
If Donald Trump, as seems more than likely, prevails in the GOP primary, then a number of
neocons may defect to the Clinton campaign. Already
Robert Kagan announced in the Washington Post on Thursday that he intends to back Hillary
Clinton if Donald Trump receives the GOP nomination. The fact is that the loyalty of the neocons
has always been to an ideology of American exceptionalism, not to a particular party.
This is what separates the neocon conversion to Clinton from previous examples of Republicans
endorsing Barack Obama. Colin Powell wasn't making an ideological statement. He was making a practical
one, based on his distaste for where the GOP was headed. For the neocons this is a much more heartfelt
moment. They have invested decades in trying to reshape the GOP into their own image, and were quite
successful at it. But now a formidable challenge is taking place as the GOP reverts to its traditional
heritage.
The impulse of the neocons to return to the Democratic Party should not be wholly surprising.
In 1972, for example, Robert L. Bartley, the editorial page editor of the Wall Street Journal,
wrote that the fledgling neoconservatives represented "something of a swing group between the two
major parties." He was right. The neoconservatives had their home in the Democratic Party in the
1960s. Then they marched rightward, in reaction to the rise of the adversary culture inside the Democratic
Party. George McGovern's run for the presidency in 1972, followed by the Jimmy Carter presidency,
sent them into the arms of Ronald Reagan and the GOP.
But it wasn't until the George W. Bush presidency that the neocons became the dominant foreign
policy force inside the GOP. They promptly proceeded to wreck his presidency by championing the war
in Iraq. Today, having wrecked it, they are now threatening to bolt the GOP and support Hillary Clinton
rather than Donald Trump for the presidency.
Something like this scenario is
what I predicted in the New York Times in July 2014. Trump wasn't around then as a force
inside the GOP. But already it seemed clear that some of the leading neocons such as Kagan were receptive
to Clinton. Now, in a Washington Post column, Kagan has gone all in.
He decries Republican obstructionism, antipathy to Obama, and the rise of Trump. The tone is apocalyptic.
According to
Kagan,
"So what to do now? The Republicans' creation will soon be let loose on the land, leaving to
others the job the party failed to carry out. For this former Republican, and perhaps for others,
the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The party cannot be saved, but the country
still can be."
This itself represents a curious case of neocon hyperbole. Kagan is an eloquent writer, but he
elides the fact that many of Trump's positions are not all that different from what the GOP has espoused
in the past when it comes to domestic issues. It is on foreign affairs where Trump represents a marked
shift and it is this that truly troubles the neocon wing.
Trump has made it clear that he's dubious about foreign interventions. He's indicated that he
would treat with Russian president Vladimir Putin. His entire foreign policy credo, such as it is,
seems to have a
Jacksonian pedigree-don't tread on me.
For its part, neoconservatism has always had a nationalistic streak. But Trump represents
everything that the neocons believed that they had purged from the GOP. He represents continuity
with the Buchananite wing, the belief that America should tend to its own knitting before launching
hopeless wars abroad. When it comes to foreign policy, however, the second generation of neocons
such as Kagan does not trace its lineage back to Ohio Senator Robert Taft but to the one that Republicans
in the early 1950s reviled: the Truman administration.
Here we come full circle. The origins of the neocons are in the Democratic Party. Should Clinton
become the Democratic nominee and Trump the Republican one, a number of neocons may make common cause
with Clinton. Watch Rubio's ranks first.
Jacob Heilbrunn is editor of the National Interest.
"... Prominent neocon Robert Kagan has endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton for president, saying she represents the best hope for saving the United States from populist billionaire Donald Trump, who has repudiated the neoconservative cause of U.S. military interventions in line with Israel's interests. ..."
"... Then referring to himself, he added, "For this former Republican, and perhaps for others, the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The [Republican] party cannot be saved, but the country still can be." ..."
"... Kagan, who I've known since the 1980s when he was a rising star on Ronald Reagan's State Department propaganda team (selling violent right-wing policies in Central America), has been signaling his affection for Clinton for some time, at least since she appointed him as an adviser to her State Department and promoted his wife Victoria Nuland, a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, to be the State Department's chief spokesperson. Largely because of Clinton's patronage, Nuland rose to assistant secretary of state for European affairs and oversaw the provocative "regime change" in Ukraine in 2014. ..."
"... "I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she will pursue it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not going to call it that; they are going to call it something else." ..."
"... Now, Kagan, whose Project for the New American Century wrote the blueprint for George W. Bush's disastrous Iraq War, is now abandoning the Republican Party in favor of Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... While Kagan's op-ed surely makes some accurate points about Republicans, his endorsement of Hillary Clinton raises a different issue for Democrats: Do they want a presidential candidate who someone as savvy as Kagan knows will perpetuate neocon strategies around the world? Do Democrats really trust Hillary Clinton to handle delicate issues, such as the Syrian conflict, without resorting to escalations that may make the neocon disasters under George W. Bush look minor by comparison? ..."
"... Perhaps Robert Kagan's endorsement of Hillary Clinton and what that underscores about the likely foreign policy of a second Clinton presidency might finally force war or peace to the fore of the campaign. ..."
Exclusive: Hillary Clinton's cozy ties to Washington's powerful neocons
have paid off with the endorsement of Robert Kagan, one of the most influential neocons. But it also
should raise questions among Democrats about what kind of foreign policy a President Hillary Clinton
would pursue, writes Robert Parry.
Prominent neocon Robert Kagan has endorsed Democrat Hillary Clinton for president, saying
she represents the best hope for saving the United States from populist billionaire Donald Trump,
who has repudiated the neoconservative cause of U.S. military interventions in line with Israel's
interests.
In a Washington Post
op-ed published on Thursday, Kagan excoriated the Republican Party for creating the conditions
for Trump's rise and then asked, "So what to do now? The Republicans' creation will soon be let loose
on the land, leaving to others the job the party failed to carry out."
Then referring to himself, he added, "For this former Republican, and perhaps for others,
the only choice will be to vote for Hillary Clinton. The [Republican] party cannot be saved, but
the country still can be."
While many of Kagan's observations about the Republican tolerance and even encouragement of bigotry
are correct, the fact that a leading neocon, a co-founder of the infamous Project for the New American
Century, has endorsed Clinton raises questions for Democrats who have so far given the former New
York senator and Secretary of State mostly a pass on her pro-interventionist policies.
The fact is that Clinton has generally marched in lock step with the neocons as they have implemented
an aggressive "regime change" strategy against governments and political movements that don't toe
Washington's line or that deviate from Israel's goals in the Middle East. So she has backed coups,
such as in Honduras (2009) and Ukraine (2014); invasions, such as Iraq (2003) and Libya (2011); and
subversions such as Syria (from 2011 to the present) all with various degrees of disastrous results.
Yet, with the failure of Republican establishment candidates to gain political traction against
Trump, Clinton has clearly become the choice of many neoconservatives and "liberal interventionists"
who favor continuation of U.S. imperial designs around the world. The question for Democrats now
is whether they wish to perpetuate those war-like policies by sticking with Clinton or should switch
to Sen. Bernie Sanders, who offers a somewhat less aggressive (though vaguely defined) foreign policy.
Sanders has undermined his appeal to anti-imperialist Democrats by muting his criticism of Clinton's
"regime change" strategies and concentrating relentlessly on his message of "income inequality" for
which Clinton has disingenuously dubbed him a "single-issue candidate." Whether Sanders has the will
and the time to reorient his campaign to question Clinton's status as the new neocon choice remains
in doubt.
A Reagan Propagandist
Kagan, who I've known since the 1980s when he was a rising star on Ronald Reagan's State Department
propaganda team (selling violent right-wing policies in Central America), has been signaling his
affection for Clinton for some time, at least since she appointed him as an adviser to her State
Department and promoted his wife Victoria Nuland, a former top aide to Vice President Dick Cheney,
to be the State Department's chief spokesperson. Largely because of Clinton's patronage, Nuland rose
to assistant secretary of state for European affairs and oversaw the provocative
"regime change" in Ukraine in 2014.
Later in 2014, Kagan told The New York Times that he hoped that his neocon views which he had
begun to call "liberal interventionist" would prevail in a possible Hillary Clinton administration.
The Times reported that Clinton "remains the vessel into which many interventionists are pouring
their hopes" and quoted Kagan as saying:
"I feel comfortable with her on foreign policy. If she pursues a policy which we think she
will pursue it's something that might have been called neocon, but clearly her supporters are not
going to call it that; they are going to call it something else."
Now, Kagan, whose Project for the New American Century wrote the blueprint for George W. Bush's
disastrous Iraq War, is now abandoning the Republican Party in favor of Hillary Clinton.
... ... ...
While Kagan's op-ed surely makes some accurate points about Republicans, his endorsement of
Hillary Clinton raises a different issue for Democrats: Do they want a presidential candidate who
someone as savvy as Kagan knows will perpetuate neocon strategies around the world? Do Democrats
really trust Hillary Clinton to handle delicate issues, such as the Syrian conflict, without resorting
to escalations that may make the neocon disasters under George W. Bush look minor by comparison?
Will Clinton even follow the latest neocon dream of "regime change" in Moscow as the ultimate
way of collapsing Israel's lesser obstacles - Iran, Syria, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Palestinian
resistance? Does Clinton have the wisdom to understand that neocon schemes are often half-baked (remember
"the cakewalk" in Iraq) and that the risk of overthrowing Vladimir Putin in Moscow might lead not
to some new pliable version of Boris Yeltsin but to a dangerous Russian nationalist ready to use
the nuclear codes to defend Mother Russia? (For all Putin's faults, he is a calculating adversary,
not a crazy one.)
The fact that none of these life-and-death foreign policy questions has been thoroughly or intelligently
explored during the Democratic presidential campaign is a failure of both the mainstream media moderators
and the two candidates, Sanders and Clinton, neither of whom seems to want a serious or meaningful
debate about these existential issues.
Perhaps Robert Kagan's endorsement of Hillary Clinton and what that underscores about the
likely foreign policy of a second Clinton presidency might finally force war or peace to the fore
of the campaign.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative,
either in
print here or as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com).
"... Finally, there is the stench of corruption, dating back to Hillary's impossible-by any legitimate means-trick of parlaying $1,000 into $100,000 in a series of commodities trades in 1978. The Clintons and their backers seriously expect the rubes to believe that large financial firms happily forked over their hefty speaking fees purely out of interest in what they had to say, or that Middle Eastern and Taiwanese moneybags gave big bucks to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was secretary of state out of their deep belief in the foundation's lofty goals. Why has Hillary refused to release the transcripts of her Goldman speeches, wiped her server and foot-dragged on releasing allegedly personal emails? ..."
"... If my readers are representative, Clinton and the Democratic Party are about to have a long-overdue day of reckoning. ..."
hy do progressives reject Hillary Clinton? The highly educated, high-income, finance-literate readers
of my website, Naked Capitalism , don't just overwhelmingly favor Bernie Sanders. They also say "Hell no!" to Hillary Clinton
to the degree that many say they would even vote for Donald Trump over her.
And they don't come by these views casually. Their conclusions are the result of careful study
of her record and her policy proposals. They believe the country can no longer endure the status
quo that Clinton represents-one of crushing inequality, and an economy that is
literally killing
off the less fortunate-and any change will be better.
One reader writes
:
Story Continued Below
"If Clinton is the nominee 9 out of 10 friends I polled will [do one of three things]:
A. Not vote for president in November. B. Vote for Trump. C. Write in Bernie as a protest vote.
"We are all fifty-somethings with money and college educations. Oh, and we are all registered
Democrats."
"I don't want to vote for Trump. I want to vote for Bernie. But I have reached the point where
I feel like voting for Trump against Clinton would be doing my patriotic duty. … If the only way
to escape a trap is to gnaw off my leg, I'd like to think I'd have the guts to do it."
To be sure, not all of my Sanders-supporting readers would vote for Trump. But only a minority
would ever vote for Clinton, and I'd guess that a lot of them would just stay home if she were the
nominee. Many of my readers tend to be very progressive, and they have been driven even further in
that direction by their sophisticated understanding of the inequities of Wall Street, especially
in the run-up to and the aftermath of the financial crisis, when no senior executives went to jail,
the biggest banks got bigger, and Hillary paid homage to Goldman Sachs. True progressives, as opposed
to the Vichy Left, recognize that the Clintons only helped these inequities along. They recognize
that, both in the 1990s and now, the Clintons do not and have never represented them. They believe
the most powerful move they can take to foster change is to withhold their support.
Some of them also have very reasoned arguments for Trump. Hillary is a known evil. Trump is unknown.
They'd rather bet on the unknown, since it will also send a big message to Team Dem that they can
no longer abuse progressives. I personally know women in the demographic that is viewed as being
solidly behind Hillary-older, professional women who live in major cities-who regard Trump as an
acceptable cost of getting rid of the Clintons.
Who does Naked Capitalism represent? The site, which I describe as "fearless commentary
on finance, economics, politics and power," receives 1.3 million to 1.5 million page views a month
and has amassed approximately 80 million readers since its launch in 2006. Its readership is disproportionately
graduate school-educated, older, male and high income. Despite the overall predominance of male readers,
many of the fiercest critics of Clinton in the commentariat are women, with handles like HotFlash,
Katniss Everdeen, Martha r, Portia, Bev and Pat.
What they also object to is that the larger bloc of Sanders voters has been treated with abuse
and contempt by the Clinton camp, despite the fact that their positions-such as strengthening Social
Security and Medicare, stronger educational funding and higher minimum wages-have for decades polled
by solid majorities or, at worst, ample pluralities in the electorate at large.
By contrast, the Democratic Party in the Clinton and Obama administrations has consistently embraced
and implemented policies that strip workers of economic and legal rights to benefit investors and
the elite professionals that serve them. Over time, the "neoliberal" economic order-which sees only
good, never bad, in the relentless untrammeling of capital and the deregulation of markets-has created
an unacceptable level of economic insecurity and distress for those outside the 1 percent and the
elite professionals who serve them.
The result is that the U.S. economy is becoming lethal to the less fortunate, according to the
New York Times , which
reported this week
that U.S. death rates have risen for the first time in a decade. The increase
in death rates among less educated whites since 2001 is roughly the size of the AIDS epidemic. One
cause, the opioid epidemic, resulted from Purdue Pharma
overselling the effectiveness
of reformulated OxyContin, then recommending higher dosages when
it failed to work properly, which experts deemed a prescription for creating addicts, according to
a number of lawsuits. This was permitted by the U.S. government, leading to thousands of unnecessary
deaths. Despite President Barack Obama's Panglossian claim that the economy is doing well,
the spike in suicides to levels over those during the financial crisis belies that
.
Yet the Clinton campaign is in such denial about this that it has become vitriolic in its verbal
and tactical attacks on Sanders and his supporters-rather than recognizing that the stunning success
of his campaign is proof of their abject policy failures. The message is clear: The Clintons believe,
as Bill himself put it, that the true progressives have nowhere to go.
But in fact, they've been leaving. The Clinton and Obama administrations presided over the worst
losses in congressional and state races in modern history in 1994, 2010 and 2012. And voter preferences
were clear. Under Obama, it was the Blue Dog, Third Way Democrats who were turfed out, while candidates
with strong stances on economic justice kept their seats. Similarly, as political scientist Tom Ferguson
pointed out in a
Roosevelt Institute paper
, Obama's loss of a Senate majority when Republican Scott Brown won
in Massachusetts was the result of his focus on bailing out banks rather than aiding distressed homeowners
(or forcing mortgage services to give modifications to borrowers who still had adequate income, as
banks had done historically). The level of votes for Brown was strongly correlated with the amount
of foreclosures in those particular districts.
True progressives know that the Clinton and Obama presidencies have brought inequality to Gilded
Era, banana-republic levels. They know that Obama's policies, which the Clintons embrace, have had
all of the post-crisis income gains
accrue to the top 1 percent
. In addition, corporate profits have risen to nearly double the
ratio to GDP that Warren Buffett deemed unsustainably high in the early 2000s. Unlike China, they've
also ushered in an era of high unemployment and underemployment, as reflected in unheard-of low levels
of labor force participation and unemployment among the young in a nominal expansion.
The Clintons' dismal record, which Hillary cannot run away from, speaks for itself. And this is
what makes many progressives I know unable to support her, even if she wins the nomination. Consider
the reasons why they feel this way:
Social Security . Bill Clinton
made a deal with Newt Gingrich to privatize Social Security, but Monica Lewinsky derailed his plans
. Sanders has promised to strengthen Social Security. By contrast, Clinton wants to "preserve"
it, which includes means-testing. That would put Social Security on a path to being a welfare program,
not a universal safety net, making it vulnerable in the long run. Bill Clinton's ending of welfare
is an illustration of the regular pattern, dating back to England's Poor Law of 1834, of gutting
safety nets for the poor.
Climate change . Sanders calls for a full-bore, Marshall-Plan level commitment to reducing
carbon output. Hillary talks about climate change but pushed for fracking in Europe while secretary
of state. The Clintons remain firmly committed to fracking, which ruins water supplies and releases
large amounts of methane.
Minimum wage. Inflation-adjusted minimum wage increases under Clinton were negligible-virtually
identical to those under George H.W. Bush. Obama promised a minimum wage increase to $9.50 an hour
and failed to act in the first four years of his presidency. Sanders wants to raise minimum wages
to $15 an hour, while Clinton stands pat with the administration plan to increase wages to $12 an
hour by 2020.
Trade deals . Bill Clinton ushered in NAFTA, which was touted as positive for growth and
employment, and is now widely acknowledged to have cost nearly a million jobs. Even one of its chief
promoters, former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich, now deems it to have been a failure for American
workers. Hillary consistently backed the Trans-Pacific Partnership until Sanders made an issue of
it, and she's recently returned to supporting it. The potential growth and income gains from this
agreement and its European sister, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, are only marginally
positive, while the loss of national sovereignty would be enormous. These agreements would enable
foreign investors to challenge laws for labor, environmental and consumer protection, for threatening
future profits.
Health care . Sanders wants single-payer, government-provided health care. Around the world,
single payer has uncontestably demonstrated that it delivers better results overall at vastly lower
cost. Obamacare took single payer off the table, instead rearranging the current costly, clumsy system
while guaranteeing profits for health insurers and Big Pharma. Clinton at most has offered patches,
but the pressure from Sanders has compelled her to suggest an early buy-in for Medicare.
That's before we get to the Clintons' loyalty to the Robert Rubin and neoliberal fetish of balanced
budgets, which most economists say are not necessary. The recent European experience with austerity
shows how disastrous that approach is, particularly in the wake of a financial crisis. Hillary's
hawkishness means an even greater commitment to military spending, so voters are assured to get more
guns and less butter were she to become president.
The Sanders supporters I interact with also reject Hillary's trickle-down feminism as a substitute
for economic and social justice. Clinton is correct when she points out that there is a glass-ceiling
issue for women. There are fewer female CEOs, billionaires and senators. Women in the elite don't
have it as good as men. But pray tell, what is having more women, or Hispanics or blacks, in top
roles going to do for nurses and hospital orderlies, or the minority group members disproportionately
represented in low-wage jobs like part-time fast food workers? Class mobility has become close to
nonexistent in America. If you are born in one of the lower-income cohorts, you are almost certain
to stay there.
As a woman who broke through an important glass ceiling on Wall Street-Christina Mohr, the first
woman to become partner in mergers and acquisitions at Lazard-told a shocked group at Radcliffe seeking
better career opportunities for women many years ago: "Nothing will change until women own the means
of production." And that sort of change comes from the bottom up.
Then there are questions of competence. Hillary has a résumé of glittering titles with disasters
or at best thin accomplishments under each. Her vaunted co-presidency with Bill? After her first
major project, health care reform, turned into such a debacle that it was impossible to broach the
topic for a generation, she retreated into a more traditional first lady role. As New York senator,
she accomplished less with a bigger name and from a more powerful state
than Sanders did
. As secretary of state, she participated and encouraged strategically pointless
nation-breaking in Iraq and Syria. She bureaucratically outmaneuvered Obama, leading to U.S. intervention
in Libya, which he has called the worst decision of his administration. And her plan to fob her domestic
economic duties off on Bill comes off as an admission that she can't handle being president on her
own.
Mind you, these issues are all topics in the current debates. But what is as important, but not
as obvious, is the way that most citizens have been stripped of legal and economic protections. As
economist Michael Hudson put it, "Most inequality does not reflect differing levels of productivity,
but distortions resulting from property rights or other special privileges." The Clinton era brought
in weaker anti-trust enforcement, which allowed companies to accumulate more market share and with
it, more ability to extract rents. Binding arbitration, which strips employees and consumers of their
right to a day in court, has become widespread. Pensions, which used to be sacrosanct (and still
are if you are a CEO), are regularly renegotiated. Banks got away with predatory servicing and wrongful
foreclosures. Not only was the 2012 National Mortgage Settlement a "get out of liability almost free"
card so large that it was tantamount to a second bailout, but banks were not required to fix their
faulty servicing platforms, assuring that they'd revert to foreclosure abuses again when delinquencies
rise. And let us not forget that senior bankers are a protected class, exempt from prosecution.
Finally, there is the stench of corruption, dating back to Hillary's impossible-by any legitimate
means-trick of parlaying $1,000 into $100,000 in a series of commodities trades in 1978. The Clintons
and their backers seriously expect the rubes to believe that large financial firms happily forked
over their hefty speaking fees purely out of interest in what they had to say, or that Middle Eastern
and Taiwanese moneybags gave big bucks to the Clinton Foundation while Hillary was secretary of state out of their deep belief in the foundation's lofty goals. Why has Hillary refused
to release the transcripts of her Goldman speeches, wiped her server and foot-dragged on releasing
allegedly personal emails?
The Sanders voters in Naked Capitalism 's active commentariat also explicitly reject lesser-evilism,
the cudgel that has previously kept true lefties somewhat in line. They are willing to gamble, given
that outsider presidents like Jimmy Carter and celebrity governors like Arnold Schwarzenegger and
Jesse Ventura didn't get much done, that a Trump presidency represents an acceptable cost of inflicting
punishment on the Democratic Party for 20 years of selling out ordinary Americans.
The Clintons, like the Bourbons before the French Revolution, have ensconced themselves in such
a bubble of operative and media sycophancy that they've mistakenly viewed escalating distress and
legitimate demands from citizens as mere noise. Sanders voters are taking their cue from Talleyrand,
the statesman who navigated the Revolution and the turbulent 50 years that followed with remarkable
success: "I have never abandoned a party before it abandoned itself."
If my readers are representative, Clinton and the Democratic Party are about to have a long-overdue
day of reckoning.
The presumptive GOP nominee was referring to Bill's
numerous trysts with women over the years. Trump accused Hillary of being
the reason for Bill's infidelities, and shamed her for mistreating the women
Bill cheated with.
"And just remember this," Trump said. "She was an unbelievably nasty, mean
enabler, and what she did to a lot of those women is disgraceful."
"... Summers also gives a pean to the fact that big bad government was no longer such a big presence in the financial markets (Treasury bonds outstanding were going down) meant that financial players were out there, doing a marvelous job of allocating. This was two years after Greenspan had already voiced doubts about the dot-com bubble with his "irrational exuberance" remark. ..."
"... At 14:00, Bill Clinton takes the stage, and at around 16:00, he turns his pitch on how great the economy is. He cites productivity gains that were later called into question (I recall a Barrons article in 1999 or 2000 that identified that all of the productivity gains for the previous period (a quarter? a year?) were entirely due to increases in computer manufacturing, and that in turn was due to hedonic price adjustments. In other words, the Barrons article raised big red flags about the extent of the New Economy productivity miracle. ..."
"... One commentor at Daily Bail pointed out how Clinton later attempted to deny his enthusiasm for shredding Glass Steagall. From Bill Clinton on deregulation: 'The Republicans made me do it!' at the Columbia Journalism Review in 2013: ..."
"... The large point is the Clintons have been loyal followers of the Robert Rubin school of thinking, that bankers should run the economy, not just ours but everywhere. And he and his acolytes have been extremely successful in promoting finance-friendly policies around the world. And despite the wreckage of the global financial crisis, there has been little change in either the fealty to neoliberal ideology or the power of financiers. But both are seen as less and less legitimate by broader society, which is a key first step in reducing their influence. ..."
"... Can never say it enough, SCUMBAGS all. ..."
"... Hey Bill, all you had to do was veto all and we'd still be 'Great' ..."
"... In the case of Gramm-Leach, it's hard to see how a veto would have made any difference except on a purely symbolic level – it passed both Houses with veto-proof majorities (90-8, with 2 not voting in the Senate; 362-57, with 15 not voting in the House). It's pretty disingenuous of ol' Bill to blame those Evil Republicans for it, though, since 84% of Senate Democrats and 75% of House Democrats voted in favor of it. ..."
"... Can't watch more than a minute of Larry and 20 secs of Phil. Comparing laws condoning slavery to those protecting working people from the rentiers, enough to make one vomit. There are humans, and there are humanoids, these are the latter. I'll skip listening to the used-car salesman from AK. ..."
"... Doublespeak, lies, and mainstream media haigography allow the neoliberal leaders to continue to remain influential across the nation. Closed political systems mean that real outside challenges to the status quo remain very difficult. The rise of Sanders and unfortunately Trump speak to the poor job that our leaders have done since the recent economic collapse and an awakening in the people that the status quo will no longer do. Perhaps after another feckless Clinton administration spars with an increasingly right wing Congress we'll get an actual change. ..."
April 28, 2016 by
Yves Smith Michael M. Thomas insisted, correctly, that we post on
a wee bit of history unearthed by Daily Bail : a video showing the key actors in the passage
of the bill that formally ended Glass Steagall patting each other on the back. Well, almost all of
the key actors. Most of the speakers make a point of singling out former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin
as a moving force, along with former New York Senator Al Damato.
Mind you, despite the self-congratulatory tone of this meeting, Glass Steagall was a dead letter
when it was formally dismantled. The only reason for taking the final step of tearing it down was
that the insurer Travelers had cheekily struck a deal to buy Citigroup, and Glass Steagall stood
in the way. Glass Steagall had been breached when Credit Suisse invested in bulge bracket investment
bank First Boston in 1988, which enabled the bank to take a majority interest in 1990 as part of
a rescue. During the 1990s, financial regulators liberalized the rules under which banks could engage
in investment banking activities, to the point that it merely took a little attention to certain
structural and accounting niceties for banks to operate largely unfettered.
This clip is a reminder of the ideology that got us into our current mess: rising inequality and
debt levels, a global meltdown that led to the greatest looting of the public purse in history, followed
by stagnation and deflation that is too widely blamed on the march of technology and not on poor
policies and overt corruption. And this thinking is very much alive.
You'll see Phil Gramm, at the outset, praise "free markets" even though that is an intellectually
incoherent notion and depict the New Deal reforms as the result of Depression-bottom lack of faith.
At around 12:00, Larry Summers tells the audience how great it is that the Federal government has
been running a surplus. In fact, the Federal government acting as a fiscal drag meant some other
sector had to dissave, as in borrow and spend, to make up for that to keep the economy from contracting.
Since businesses had already gotten in the habit of being overly short-termist, it was consumers
who were increasingly taking up the slack. And as we know now, high levels of consumer debt are a
negative for growth. Yet that was the driver of the Clinton "prosperity".
Summers also gives a pean to the fact that big bad government was no longer such a big presence
in the financial markets (Treasury bonds outstanding were going down) meant that financial players
were out there, doing a marvelous job of allocating. This was two years after Greenspan had already
voiced doubts about the dot-com bubble with his "irrational exuberance" remark.
At 14:00, Bill Clinton takes the stage, and at around 16:00, he turns his pitch on how great the
economy is. He cites productivity gains that were later called into question (I recall a Barrons
article in 1999 or 2000 that identified that all of the productivity gains for the previous period
(a quarter? a year?) were entirely due to increases in computer manufacturing, and that in turn was
due to hedonic price adjustments. In other words, the Barrons article raised big red flags about
the extent of the New Economy productivity miracle.
But even allowing for the fact that some and probably most of the gains were real, you'll see
Clinton try to sell a Big Lie: that productivity gains were tied to increased worker prosperity.
As numerous commentators pointed out, that story had stopped being true as of roughly 1976. Businesses
once did share the benefits of productivity gains with workers, but as labor bargaining power weakened,
kept it for themselves. Clinton continues with his canards, praising "open borders" as keeping inflation
low. The mechanism by which inflation is contained is by restricting wage growth. A prosperous, full
employment economy will feature strong growth in pay levels, and will at some point lead to pricing
pressure (mind you, profit levels in the US are now so far outside historical norms that businesses
could go a long way in increasing wages if they weren't so greedy). So his low inflation story is
again at odds with his effort to depict everything as rosy for average workers.
Bill Clinton sat down with Fareed Zakaria last week ….Clinton's comment about his record on
regulation is an actual newsmaker, because it's a giant whopper:
What happened? The American people gave the Congress to a group of very conservative Republicans.
When they passed bills with the veto proof majority with a lot of Democrats voting for it,
that I couldn't stop, all of a sudden we turn out to be maniacal deregulators. I mean, come
on. I know Senator Warren said the other day, admitted when she introduced a bill to reinstate
the division between commercial and investment banks, she admitted that the repeal of Glass-Steagall
did not cause one single solitary financial institution to fail.
This is, to be kind, bullshit….Clinton installed Robert Rubin and Larry Summers in the Treasury,
which resulted in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which officially did in Glass-Steagall and the Commodity
Futures Modernization Act, which left the derivatives market a laissez-faire Wild West (not to
mention a disastrous strong dollar policy that was a critical and underrated factor in the bubble).
He also reappointed Ayn Rand-acolyte Alan Greenspan, who has as much responsibility as anyone
for creating the crisis, as Fed chairman-twice….his administration actively encouraged the big
deregulatory legislation, and squashed its own dissenters, like Brooksley Born, who saw disaster
ahead.
There's even more detail in the CJR story, in case you'd ever need to cite it to Clintonistas.
The large point is the Clintons have been loyal followers of the Robert Rubin school of thinking,
that bankers should run the economy, not just ours but everywhere. And he and his acolytes have been
extremely successful in promoting finance-friendly policies around the world. And despite the wreckage
of the global financial crisis, there has been little change in either the fealty to neoliberal ideology
or the power of financiers. But both are seen as less and less legitimate by broader society, which
is a key first step in reducing their influence.
Yeah, NAFTA, GATT, Telecom Act, 'Crime' Bill, Steagall, CFMA. etc.all because the bad Repubs
made me.
Hey Bill, all you had to do was veto all and we'd still be 'Great', as Trump would say. Instead,
well, we know you and your wife enjoy the perks, and the power, and the cash, the cash, the cash…
Hey Bill, all you had to do was veto all and we'd still be 'Great'
In the case of Gramm-Leach, it's hard to see how a veto would have made any difference except
on a purely symbolic level – it passed both Houses with veto-proof majorities (90-8, with 2 not
voting in the Senate; 362-57, with 15 not voting in the House). It's pretty disingenuous of ol'
Bill to blame those Evil Republicans for it, though, since 84% of Senate Democrats and 75% of
House Democrats voted in favor of it.
Can't watch more than a minute of Larry and 20 secs of Phil. Comparing laws condoning slavery
to those protecting working people from the rentiers, enough to make one vomit. There are humans,
and there are humanoids, these are the latter. I'll skip listening to the used-car salesman from
AK.
And it bears repeating that Obama was nothing but an extension of the Clinton administration
as evidenced both in overt policy, double speak, and appointment of Clinton era heads of departments
who descended from the tree of Rubin.
Doublespeak, lies, and mainstream media haigography allow the neoliberal leaders to continue
to remain influential across the nation. Closed political systems mean that real outside challenges
to the status quo remain very difficult. The rise of Sanders and unfortunately Trump speak to
the poor job that our leaders have done since the recent economic collapse and an awakening in
the people that the status quo will no longer do. Perhaps after another feckless Clinton administration
spars with an increasingly right wing Congress we'll get an actual change.
I think we miss something if we ignore the post-Soviet collapse as part of this. America was
going to rule the world and it was going to do so through control of the global financial system.
To do that, it needed mega financial institutions even less transparent and responsible than the
IMF and World Bank. An alliance for private sector gain and global dominance more massive than
anything Walter Wriston could have dreamed of was created to enhance American power and push the
Washington Consensus.
The American state and American corporations would strengthen and flourish. Millions of Americans
would not. They would be the collateral damage in the drive for global domination. The whole Washington
duopoly was on board. They neither knew nor cared what the cost would be for average Americans.
Hey, given the ideology of the Republicans and Democrats, anyone who could not pull themselves
up by their bootstraps ("compete!") via will (Republican) or education (Democrats) wasn't worth
shit anyway. Welcome to Social Darwinian post-Soviet America.
Good points which bear repeating. This is a lot of the motivation, and those that are in "the
club" have done very nicely. For the proles? Who cares? F*ck 'em.
"Here lies W. C. Fields. I would rather be living in Philadelphia."
"This was an epitaph Fields proposed for himself in a 1925 article in Vanity Fair. It refers
to his long standing jokes about Philadelphia (his actual birthplace), and the grave being one
place he might actually not prefer to be."
Fields was not fond of Philadelphia.
My late father was a fan of W.C and liked to quote him from time to time.
"After a lobbying campaign from Enron, the CFTC exempted it from regulation in trading of energy
derivatives. Subsequently, (Wendy) Gramm resigned from the CFTC and took a seat on the Enron Board
of Directors and served on its Audit Committee. While on the board of directors she received donations
from Enron to support the Mercatus Center."
She is now "a distinguished senior scholar at George Mason University's Mercatus Center, a
free-market think tank based in Washington D.C."
Wendy Gramm is certainly "distinguished" for derivatives deregulation AND not seeing any problem
with Enron's books while serving on the audit committee.
It would be staggering to count how many billions/trillions of dollars the corrupt crony-capitalist
Gramms have cost the American economy while bloviating about "free markets".
I was thinking of Wendy also. Where is Greenspan mentioned in this? It is worth mentioning
the Senators who voted against this:
"Richard C. Shelby of Alabama, voted against the legislation. He was joined by seven Democrats:
Barbara Boxer of California, Richard H. Bryan of Nevada, Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, Tom
Harkin of Iowa, Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland, Mr. Dorgan and Mr. Wellstone. "
and then there is the Cassandra Booksley Born, CFTC Chair who warned against it also.
Nice Onion video. These people are praising a bill (and its precedents) that will bring financial
disaster to every saver and pensioner in the western world. Dante was prescient in creating the
eighth and ninth circles where the fraudulent and treacherous people reside, closest to Satan
himself. The speakers in the video are prime users of Newspeak. Clinton manifests himself as,
to quote
Shakespeare
, ""Thou clay-brained guts, thou knotty-pated fool, thou whoreson obscene greasy tallow-catch!"
What I never can understand is why politicians (who are the government) attack the government
(themselves) as obstructionist and unnecessary to their world because the financiers want to be
the government which would mean that all actions and laws would be for the creation of more wealth
for the already wealthy–a world of horror which we are now getting a taste of!
Thanks for the post and history lesson. I cannot bear to watch it. Have to watch my blood pressure.
But good to keep laying it out there in the hopes that some may actually learn from history.
I held my nose and voted for Clinton the first time but refused to do so the second time. Won't
do it a third time, either. Gimme a break from these rapacious pillaging Clintons!! Ugh.
Although the final repeal in 1999 of the Glass Steagall separation of banking functions was
mostly symbolic, I think it eased the way for the Commodity Futures Modernization Act a year later.
That abomination made the regulation of Credit Default Swaps illegal, which was troublesome, to
say the least.
One thing I learned very early on and found most, even very smart people never get is that
while technicians can be indispensable to a effort's success, they have to be very carefully bounded,
as they are convinced (and very convincing) that the technically perfect word is identical to
the perfect world. In a technically perfect world filled with technically perfect people, restrictions
such as Glass-Steagall are unnecessary and perhaps even absurd. That's just not where we live.
A tidbit from the late '90's: Travelers was one of the companies represented by the insurance
agency I worked for at the time. Months before the repeal of GS, the regular Travelers rep. along
with the regional VP were making the rounds of agency visits with trunk loads of Travelers logo
freebies (pens, mouse pads, mugs, jackets, etc.) Agency personnel were encouraged to take as much
of anything they might want because the branded items were now obsolete – a new logo for Travelers/Citi.
had already designed and new stuff was already in the works.
I asked the VP if perhaps this might be premature & his reply was no, the word was out at Travelers
that "the wheels have been greased."
The same Travelers VP I mentioned above, a long time insurance man, also opined that the main
reason for the merger was so that "Sandy Weil could become the highest paid corporate exec. in
the U.S."
To make life flourish relies on optimizing signaling both biological and money based. Since
hardly anybody understands this parasites like the Clinton's and know-thing's like Trump get voted
into office.
Thx for the great piece…
Haven't the stomach to watch the video…
Even now I can't watch any of the contemporary news that includes BC…..
Just thinking of the names in the piece makes me want to scream bloody murder…..
I felt the same way in 2007 when learning who Obama was bringing into office with him "on his
team"…..I said we are now really finished as a nation…..
Capitalism is a "game"; all games need rules………..
I believe we have gone too far this time; a totally false supported economy will continue until
we will have a collapse that will be horrendous. It will make the Depression look like a picnic.
We have not dealt with the elephant in the room: "un-corralled greed".
Nice to read all the comments; makes me feel I'm not "alone".
(caveat: was a Democrat for years; rebelled in 1980……denounced them as I tried to lead a local
Democrat Club group when I learned of Obama's advisers; went non-partisan)
"This is, to be kind, bullshit….Clinton installed Robert Rubin and Larry Summers in the Treasury,
which resulted in the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which officially did in Glass-Steagall and the Commodity
Futures Modernization Act, which left the derivatives market a laissez-faire Wild West (not to
mention a disastrous strong dollar policy that was a critical and underrated factor in the bubble)."
The statement is nonsense because it fails to establish a direct cause-and-effect link between
or among Clinton, Robert Rubin, Larry Summers and the creation of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
Thank goodness their names are on the act, otherwise it would be difficult to disprove the nonsense
that's being circulated about it. Neither Rubin, Summers nor Clinton wrote the GLB act. It was
written by the Republican senators whose names are on the Act: Senators Gramm, Leach and Bliley.
It was veto-proof, as Clinton indicates, because the majority of Congress approved it. The article
attempts to connect something that's not connectable and thus fails to convince me that Clinton,
Rubin and Summers created the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act.
Last time I checked Presidents, the Secretary of Treasury, and other non-elected scum(Summers)
do not 'officially' write bills, nor are able to put their names on one. Of course lobbying for
it, publicly and private, sitting next to Phil Gramm in some DC restaurant rehearsing the spin,
and then gushing over the moment when signing it is a 'connection' in the real world.
Within the context of present day events, the video is cringe-worthy. I was a Clinton supporter
at the time – too busy with work to follow detail. It's embarrassing to admit that.
I could never stand Phil Gramm (actually hated him with a passion!) and eventually came to
loathe Larry Summers. Clinton is a really smart guy, and I think he really believed a lot of his
rhetoric at the time. Clinton was a power broker who didn't really see everything behind the curtain
(no pun intended), or far enough into the future result of his actions (perhaps his major fatal
flaw?)
What the (above) video reminds me of is a scene from a great old Peter O'Toole movie (The Ruling
Class), where "Jack" (O'toole) a paranoid madman who believes he is the Second Coming is made
the UK's national leader. O'Toole lets out a gurgle of pure unadulterated madness as he realizes
he is IN CHARGE and can finally realize his gargantuan fantasies (man, could O'Toole ACT!) here
–
where Jack addresses the House of Lords,seen as mad 'Jack' sees them – alternately royal-robed
and proper and alternately cobwebbed bunch of mummified corpses, representative of the musty rot
of the privilege that Jack will use at his pleasure to realize his mad fantasies.
Mad, unadulterated,finally realized POWER!! That's what we're witnessing in this election cycle
in a way that, in reality, approaches the madness of O'Toole's character.
Does anyone really think that Bill really knew anything about the consequences. I think he
was simply going along with what he was being fed by Rubin et. al. He was more likely focused
on who he was going to sleep with next…..and she might have been planted to feed him a little
pillow talk to help Weill make his billions.
I said earlier that I thought the deployment of a sizeable military force to Costa Rica
for a drug interdiction was a cover story.
I should add that I can think of one circumstance which could make the use of the U.S. military
in a drug-interdiction operation appropriate.
Consider that the CIA may be the central power in the drug trade worldwide. Consider that
two U.S. Presidents – George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton – stand accused of being at the apex
of that drug trade, Bush while he was CIA Director and Clinton while he was Governor of Arkansas.
Clinton not only allowed the use of Mena Airport as the entry point for CIA cocaine shipments;
he also himself was said to have received some of them personally from drug smuggler Barry
Seal, who was later assassinated. Bush oversaw the use of El Salvador's Ilopango Airport as
the CIA hub for the drug trade, had many meetings with drug smugglers, and was alleged to have
made many large-sum payoffs personally.
To break the CIA's hold on the drug trade, the only force that I can think of that could
be used would be the American military. That is the only circumstance that I can see that would
make the deployment of a sizeable American force to a friendly and benign country like Costa
Rica explicable: To break the grip of the CIA – or perhaps to be in place to intervene locally
should an operation be planned in the United States to clamp down on the CIA domestically.
Seem far-fetched?
Maybe. We shall see.
I don't have time any more to redo the research I did years ago in which Barry Seal says
Clinton met him at Mena airport and personally took possession of a container full of cocaine.
I don't have time to track down material on the CIA's role in the torture and execution of
DEA agent Enrique Camarena in Mexico or on the torture and murder of Chip Tatum, like Seal
a drug smuggler turned whistleblower, or on the key role of Ilopango airport in El Salvador
in the CIA drug trade.
So to give you some evidence on these matters, I reproduce an article that was slated to
be published in the Washington Post in, I believe, January 1995 exposing Clinton and his Mena
connection to the drug trade and Bush and his role in it.
The article was cancelled by the Post at the last minute, undoubtedly for the same reasons
that many investigations of all these matters over the years were suppressed. (Let's hope they
don't cancel the publication of this latest investigative scoop on black defense contractors.)
The article is followed by a comment from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard on its suppression by
the Post.
It's a long article and I don't expect you to read it all, but I furnish it as proof of
the connection to … no, the leadership in … the drug trade of Bill Clinton and George H.W.
Bush.
For heaven's sake, the next time we have a HAARP-induced earthquake or hurricane, don't
give your hard-earned money to former Presidents Bush and Clinton. Light a cigar with it instead.
It will do as much good.
The Crimes of Mena
www.whatreallyhappened.com/
Reposted at http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/the_crimes_of_mena.htm
The Suppressed Article
This is the article which had been scheduled to appear in the Washington Post. After having
cleared the legal department for all possible questions of inaccurate statements, the article
was scheduled for publication when just as the presses were set to roll, Washington Post Managing
Editor Bob Kaiser (Like George Bush, a member of the infamous "Skull & Bones Fraternity), killed
the article without explanation.
According to the sidebar which appeared with the Penthouse Magazine version of this story,
Bob Kaiser refused to even meet with Sally Denton and Roger Morris, hiding in his office while
his secretary made excuses.
This is the story that couldn't be suppressed. An investigative report into a scandal that
haunts the reputations of three presidents – Reagan, Bush, and Clinton.
THE CRIMES OF MENA
By Sally Denton and Roger Morris
Barry Seal – gunrunner, drug trafficker, and covert C.I.A. operative extraordinaire – is
hardly a familiar name in American politics. But nine years after he was murdered in a hail
of bullets by Medellin cartel hit men outside a Salvation Army shelter in Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
he has come back to haunt the reputations of three American presidents.
Seal's legacy includes more than 2,000 newly discovered documents that now verify and quantify
much of what previously had been only suspicion, conjecture, and legend. The documents confirm
that from 1981 to his brutal death in 1986, Barry Seal carried on one of the most lucrative,
extensive, and brazen operations in the history of the international drug trade, and that he
did it with the evident complicity, if not collusion, of elements of the United States government,
apparently with the acquiescence of Ronald Reagan's administration, impunity from any subsequent
exposure by George Bush's administration, and under the usually acute political nose of then
Arkansas governor Bill Clinton.
The newly unearthed papers show the real Seal as far more impressive and well-connected
than the character played by Dennis Hopper in a made-for-TV movie some years ago, loosely based
on the smuggler's life. The film portrayed the pudgy pilot as a hapless victim, caught in a
cross fire between bungling but benign government agencies and Latin drug lords.
The truth sprinkled through the documents is a richer – and altogether more sinister – matter
of national and individual corruption. It is a tale of massive, socially devastating crime,
of what seems to have been an official cover-up to match, and, not least, of the strange reluctance
of so-called mainstream American journalism to come to grips with the phenomenon and its ominous
implications – even when the documentary evidence had appeared.
The trail winds back to another slightly bruited but obscure name – a small place in western
Arkansas called Mena.
Of the many stories emerging from the Arkansas of the 1980s that was crucible to the Clinton
presidency, none has been more elusive than the charges surrounding Mena. Nestled in the dense
pine and hardwood forests of the Ouachita Mountains, some 160 miles west of Little Rock, once
thought a refuge for nineteenth-century border outlaws and even a hotbed of Depression-era
anarchists, the tiny town has been the locale for persistent reports of drug smuggling, gunrunning,
and money laundering tracing to the early eighties, when Seal based his aircraft at Mena's
Intermountain Regional Airport.
From first accounts circulating locally in Arkansas, the story surfaced nationally as early
as 1989 in a *Penthouse* article called "Snowbound," written by the investigative reporter
John Cummings, and in a Jack Anderson column, but was never advanced at the time by other media.
Few reporters covering Clinton in the 1992 campaign missed hearing at least something about
Mena.
But it was obviously a serious and demanding subject – the specter of vast drug smuggling
with C.I.A. involvement – and none of the major media pursued it seriously During 1992, the
story was kept alive by Sarah McClendon, *The Nation*, and *The Village Voice*.
Then, after Clinton became president, Mena began to reappear. Over the past year, CBS News
and *The Wall Street Journal* have reported the original, un-quieted charges surrounding Mena,
including the shadow of some C.l.A. (or "national security") involvement in the gun and drug
traffic, and the apparent failure of then governor Clinton to pursue evidence of such international
crime so close to home.
"Seal was smuggling drugs and kept his planes at Mena," *The Wall Street Journal* reported
in 1994. "He also acted as an agent for the D.E.A. In one of these missions, he flew the plane
that produced photographs of Sandinistas loading drugs in Nicaragua. He was killed by a drug
gang [Medellin cartel hit men] in Baton Rouge. The cargo plane he flew was the same one later
flown by Eugene Hasenfus when he was shot down over Nicaragua with a load of contra supplies.
In a mix of wild rumor and random fact, Mena has also been a topic of ubiquitous anti-Clinton
diatribes circulated by right-wing extremists – an irony in that the Mena operation was the
apparent brainchild of the two previous and Republican administrations.
Still, most of the larger American media have continued to ignore, if not ridicule, the
Mena accusations. Finding no conspiracy in the Ouachita's last July, a *Washington Post* reporter
typically scoffed at the "alleged dark deeds," contrasting Mena with an image as "Clan destination,
Arkansas … Cloak and Dagger Capital of America."
Noting that *The New York Times* had "mentioned Mena primarily as the headquarters of the
American Rock Garden Society," the *Columbia Journalism Review* in a recent issue dismissed
"the conspiracy theories" as of "dubious relevance."
A former Little Rock businessman, Terry Reed, has coauthored with John Cummings a highly
controversial book, Compromised: Clinton, Bush, and the C.I.A., which describes a number of
covert activities around Mena, including a C.I.A. operation to train pilots and troops for
the Nicaraguan Contras, and the collusion of local officials. Both the book and its authors
were greeted with derision.
Now, however, a new mass of documentary evidence has come to light regarding just such "dark
deeds" – previously private and secret records that substantiate as never before some of the
worst and most portentous suspicions about what went on at Mena, Arkansas, a decade ago.
Given the scope and implications of the Mena story, it may be easy to understand the media's
initial skepticism and reluctance. But it was never so easy to dismiss the testimony arid suspicions
of some of those close to the matter: Internal Revenue Service Agent Bill Duncan, Arkansas
State Police investigator Russell Welch, Arkansas Attorney General J. Winston Bryant, Congressman
Bill Alexander, and various other local law-enforcement officials and citizens.
All of these people were convinced by the late eighties that there existed what Bryant termed
"credible evidence" of the most serious criminal activity involving Mena between 1981 and 1986.
They also believed that the crimes were committed with the acquiescence, if not the complicity,
of elements of the U.S. government. But they couldn't seem to get the national media to pay
attention.
During the 1992 campaign, outside advisers and aides urged former California governor Jerry
Brown to raise the Mena issue against Clinton – at least to ask why the Arkansas governor had
not done more about such serious international crime so close to home. But Brown, too, backed
away from the subject. I'll raise it if the major media break it first," he told aides. "The
media will do it, Governor," one of them replied in frustration, "if only you'll raise it."
Mena's obscure airport was thought by the I.R.S., the F.B.I., U.S. Customs, and the Arkansas
State Police to be a base for Adler Berriman "Barry" Seal, a self-confessed, convicted smuggler
whose operations had been linked to the intelligence community. Duncan and Welch both spent
years building cases against Seal and others for drug smuggling and money laundering around
Mena, only to see their own law-enforcement careers damaged in the process.
What evidence they gathered, they have said in testimony and other public statements, was
not sufficiently pursued by the then U.S. attorney for the region, J. Michael Fitzhugh, or
by the I.R.S., Arkansas State Police, and other agencies. Duncan, testifying before the joint
investigation by the Arkansas state attorney general's office and the United States Congress
in June 1991, said that 29 federal indictments drafted in a Mena-based money-laundering scheme
had gone unexplored. Fitzhugh, responding at the time to Duncan's charges, said, "This office
has not slowed up any investigation … [and] has never been under any pressure in any investigation."
By 1992, to Duncan's and Welch's mounting dismay, several other official inquiries into
the alleged Mena connection were similarly ineffectual or were stifled altogether, furthering
their suspicions of government collusion and cover-up. In his testimony before Congress, Duncan
said the I.R.S. "withdrew support for the operations" and further directed him to "withhold
information from Congress and perjure myself."
Duncan later testified that he had never before experienced "anything remotely akin to this
type of interference…. Alarms were going off," he continued, "and as soon as Mr. Fitzhugh got
involved, he was more aggressive in not allowing the subpoenas and in interfering in the investigative
process."
State policeman Russell Welch felt he was "probably the most knowledgeable person" regarding
the activities at Mena, yet he was not initially subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury.
Welch testified later that the only reason he was ultimately subpoenaed at all was because
one of the grand jurors was from Mena and "told the others that if they wanted to know something
about the Mena airport, they ought to ask that guy [Welch] out there in the hall."
State Attorney General Bryant, in a 1991 letter to the office of Lawrence Walsh, the independent
counsel in the Iran-Contra investigation, wondered "why no one was prosecuted in Arkansas despite
a mountain of evidence that Seal was using Arkansas as his principle staging area during the
years 1982 through 1985."
What actually went on in the woods of western Arkansas? The question is still relevant for
what it may reveal about certain government operations during the time that Reagan and Bush
were in the White House and Clinton was governor of Arkansas.
In a mass of startling new documentation – the more than 2,000 papers gathered by the authors
from private and law-enforcement sources in a year-long nationwide search – answers are found
and serious questions are posed.
These newly unearthed documents – the veritable private papers of Barry Seal – substantiate
at least part of what went on at Mena.
What might be called the Seal archive dates back to 1981, when Seal began his operations
at the Intermountain Regional Airport in Mena. The archive, all of it now in our possession,
continues beyond February 1986, when Seal was murdered by Colombian assassins after he had
testified in federal court in Las Vegas, Fort Lauderdale, and Miami for the U.S. government
against leaders of the Medellin drug cartel.
The papers include such seemingly innocuous material as Seal's bank and telephone records;
negotiable instruments, promissory notes, and invoices; personal correspondence address and
appointment books; bills of sale for aircraft and boats; aircraft registration, and modification
work orders.
In addition, the archive also contains personal diaries; handwritten to-do lists and other
private notes; secretly tape-recorded conversations; and cryptographic keys and legends for
codes used in the Seal operation.
Finally, there are extensive official records: federal investigative and surveillance reports,
accounting assessments by the I.R.S. and the D.E.A., and court proceedings not previously reported
in the press – testimony as well as confidential pre-sentencing memoranda in federal narcotics-trafficking
trials in Florida and Nevada – numerous depositions, and other sworn statements.
The archive paints a vivid portrait not only of a major criminal conspiracy around Mena,
but also of the unmistakable shadow of government complicity. Among the new revelations:
Mena, from 1981 to 1985, was indeed one of the centers for international smuggling traffic.
According to official I.R.S. and D.E.A. calculations, sworn court testimony, and other corroborative
records, the traffic amounted to thousands of kilos of cocaine and heroin and literally hundreds
of millions of dollars in drug profits. According to a 1986 letter from the Louisiana attorney
general to then U.S. attorney general Edwin Meese, Seal "smuggled between $3 billion and $5
billion of drugs into the U.S."
Seal himself spent considerable sums to land, base, maintain, and specially equip or refit
his aircraft for smuggling. According to personal and business records, he had extensive associations
at Mena and in Little Rock, and was in nearly constant telephone contact with Mena when he
was not there himself. Phone records indicate Seal made repeated calls to Mena the day before
his murder. This was long after Seal, according to his own testimony, was working as an $800,000-a-year
informant for the federal government.
A former member of the Army Special Forces, Seal had ties to the Central Intelligence Agency
dating to the early 1970s. He had confided to relatives and others, according to their sworn
statements, that he was a C.I.A. operative before and during the period when he established
his operations at Mena. In one statement to Louisiana State Police, a Seal relative said, "Barry
was into gunrunning and drug smuggling in Central and South America … and he had done some
time in El Salvadore [sic]." Another then added, "lt was true, but at the time Barry was working
for the C.I.A."
In a posthumous jeopardy-assessment case against Seal – also documented in the archive –
the I.R.S. determined that money earned by Seal between 1984 and 1986 was not illegal because
of his "C.I.A.-D.E.A. employment."
The only public official acknowledgment of Seal's relationship to the C.I.A. has been in
court and congressional testimony, and in various published accounts describing the C.I.A.'s
installation of cameras in Seal's C-123K transport plane, used in a highly celebrated 1984
sting operation against the Sandinista regime in Nicaragua.
Robert Joura, the assistant special agent in charge of the D.E.A.'s Houston office and the
agent who coordinated Seal's undercover work, told *The Washington Post* last year that Seal
was enlisted by the C.I.A. for one sensitive mission – providing photographic evidence that
the Sandinistas were letting cocaine from Colombia move through Nicaragua. A spokesman for
then Senate candidate Oliver North told *The Post* that North had been kept aware of Seal's
work through "intelligence sources."
Federal Aviation Administration registration records contained in the archive confirm that
aircraft identified by federal and state narcotics agents as in the Seal smuggling operation
were previously owned by Air America, Inc., widely reported to have been a C.I.A. proprietary
company. Emile Camp, one of Seal's pilots and a witness to some of his most significant dealings,
was killed on a mountainside near Mena in 1985 in the unexplained crash of one of those planes
that had once belonged to Air America.
According to still other Seal records, at least some of the aircraft in his smuggling fleet,
which included a Lear jet, helicopters, and former U.S. military transports, were also outfitted
with avionics and other equipment by yet another company in turn linked to Air America.
Among the aircraft flown in and out of Mena was Seal's C-123K cargo plane, christened Fat
Lady. The records show that Fat Lady, serial number 54-0679, was sold by Seal months before
his death. According to other files, the plane soon found its way to a phantom company of what
became known in the Iran-Contra scandal as "the Enterprise," the C.I.A.-related secret entity
managed by Oliver North and others to smuggle illegal weapons to the Nicaraguan Contra rebels.
According to former D.E.A. agent Celerino Castillo and others, the aircraft was allegedly involved
in a return traffic in cocaine, profits from which were then used to finance more clandestine
gunrunning.
F.A.A. records show that in October 1986, the same Fat Lady was shot down over Nicaragua
with a load of arms destined for the Contras. Documents found on board the aircraft and seized
by the Sandinistas included logs linking the plane with Area 51 – the nation's top-secret nuclear-weapons
facility at the Nevada Test Site.
The doomed aircraft was co-piloted by Wallace Blaine "Buzz" Sawyer, a native of western
Arkansas, who died in the crash. The admissions of the surviving crew member, Eugene Hasenfus,
began a public unraveling of the Iran-Contra episode.
An Arkansas gun manufacturer testified in 1993 in federal court in Fayetteville that the
C.I.A. contracted with him to build 250 automatic pistols for the Mena operation. William Holmes
testified that he had been introduced to Seal in Mena by a C.I.A. operative, and that he then
sold weapons to Seal.
Even though he was given a Department of Defense purchase order for guns fitted with silencers,
Holmes testified that he was never paid the $140,000 the government owed him. "After the Hasenfus
plane was shot down," Holmes said, "you couldn't find a soul around Mena."
Meanwhile, there was still more evidence that Seal's massive smuggling operation based in
Arkansas had been part of a C.I.A. operation, and that the crimes were continuing well after
Seal's murder. In 1991 sworn testimony to both Congressman Alexander and Attorney General Bryant,
state police investigator Welch recorded that in 1987 he had documented "new activity at the
[Mena] airport with the appearance of … an Australian business [a company linked with the C.I.A.],
and C-130s had appeared…."
At the same time, according to Welch, two F.B.I. agents officially informed him that the
C.I.A. "had something going on at the Mena Airport involving Southern Air Transport [another
company linked with the C.I.A.] … and they didn't want us [the Arkansas State Police] to screw
it up like we had the last one."
The hundreds of millions in profits generated by the Seal trafficking via Mena and other
outposts resulted in extraordinary banking and business practices in apparent efforts to launder
or disperse the vast amounts of illicit money in Arkansas and elsewhere. Seal's financial records
show from the early eighties, for example, instances of daily deposits of $50,000 or more,
and extensive use of an offshore foreign bank in the Caribbean, as well as financial institutions
in Arkansas and Florida.
According to I.R.S. criminal investigator Duncan, secretaries at the Mena Airport told him
that when Seal flew into Mena, there would be stacks of cash to be taken to the bank and laundered."
One secretary told him that she was ordered to obtain numerous cashier's checks, each in an
amount just under $10,000, at various banks in Mena and surrounding communities, to avoid filing
the federal Currency Transaction Reports required for all bank transactions that exceed that
limit.
Bank tellers testified before a federal grand jury that in November 1982, a Mena airport
employee carried a suitcase containing more than $70,000 into a bank. "The bank officer went
down the teller lines handing out the stacks of $1,000 bills and got the cashier's checks."
Law-enforcement sources confirmed that hundreds of thousands of dollars were laundered from
1981 to 1983 just in a few small banks near Mena, and that millions more from Seal's operation
were laundered elsewhere in Arkansas and the nation.
Spanish-language documents in Seal's possession at the time of his murder also indicate
that he had accounts throughout Central America and was planning to set up his own bank in
the Caribbean.
Additionally, Seal's files suggest a grandiose scheme for building an empire. Papers in
his office at the time of his death include references to dozens of companies, all of which
had names that began with Royale. Among them: Royale Sports, Royale Television Network, Royale
Liquors, Royale Casino, S.A., Royale Pharmaceuticals, Royale Arabians, Royale Seafood, Royale
Security, Royale Resorts … and on and on.
Seal was scarcely alone in his extensive smuggling operation based in Mena from 1981 to
1986, commonly described in both federal and state law-enforcement files as one of the largest
drug-trafficking operations in the United States at the time, if not in the history of the
drug trade. Documents show Seal confiding on one occasion that he was "only the transport,"
pointing to an extensive network of narcotics distribution and finance in Arkansas and other
states. After drugs were smuggled across the border, the duffel bags of cocaine would be retrieved
by helicopters and dropped onto flatbed trucks destined for various American cities.
In recognition of Seal's significance in the drug trade, government prosecutors made him
their chief witness in various cases, including a 1985 Miami trial in absentia of Medellln
drug lords; in another 1985 trial of what federal officials regarded as the largest narcotics-trafficking
case to date in Las Vegas; and in still a third prosecution of corrupt officials in the Turks
and Caicos Islands. At the same time, court records and other documents reveal a studied indifference
by government prosecutors to Seal's earlier and ongoing operations at Mena.
In the end, the Seal documents are vindication for dedicated officials in Arkansas like
agents Duncan and Welch and local citizens' groups like the Arkansas Committee, whose own evidence
and charges take on new gravity – and also for *The Nation*, *The Village Voice*, the Association
of National Security Alumni, the venerable Washington journalists Sarah McClendon and Jack
Anderson, Arkansas. reporters Rodney Bowers and Mara Leveritt, and others who kept an all-too-authentic
story alive amid wider indifference.
But now the larger implications of the newly exposed evidence seem as disturbing as the
criminal enormity it silhouettes. Like his modern freebooter's life, Seal's documents leave
the political and legal landscape littered with stark questions.
What, for example, happened to some nine different official investigations into Mena after
1987, from allegedly compromised federal grand juries to congressional inquiries suppressed
by the National Security Council in 1988 under Ronald Reagan to still later Justice Department
inaction under George Bush?
Officials repeatedly invoked national security to quash most of the investigations. Court
documents do show clearly that the C.I.A. and the D.E.A. employed Seal during 1984 and 1985
for the Reagan administration's celebrated sting attempt to implicate the Nicaraguan Sandinista
regime in cocaine trafficking.
According to a December 1988 Senate Foreign Relations Committee report, "cases were dropped.
The apparent reason was that the prosecution might have revealed national-security information,
even though all of the crimes which were the focus of the investigation occurred before Seal
became a federal informant."
Tax records show that, having assessed Seal posthumously for some $86 million in back taxes
on his earnings from Mena and elsewhere between 1981 and 1983, even the I.R.S. forgave the
taxes on hundreds of millions in known drug and gun profits over the ensuing two-year period
when Seal was officially admitted to be employed by the government.
To follow the l.R.S. Iogic, what of the years, crimes, and profits at Mena in the early
eighties, before Barry Seal became an acknowledged federal operative, as well as the subsequently
reported drug-trafficking activities at Mena even after his murder – crimes far removed from
his admitted cooperation as government informant and witness?
"Joe [name deleted] works for Seal and cannot be touched because Seal works for the C.I.A.,"
a Customs official said in an Arkansas investigation into drug trafficking during the early
eighties. "A C.I.A. or D.E.A. operation is taking place at the Mena airport," an F.B.I. telex
advised the Arkansas State Police in August 1987, 18 months after Seal's murder. Welch later
testified that a Customs agent told him, "Look, we've been told not to touch anything that
has Barry Seal's name on it, just to let it go."
*The London Sunday Telegraph* recently reported new evidence, including a secret code number,
that Seal was also working as an operative of the Defense Intelligence Agency during the period
of the gunrunning and drug smuggling.
Perhaps most telling is what is so visibly missing from the voluminous files. In thousands
of pages reflecting a man of meticulous organization and planning, Barry Seal seems to have
felt singularly and utterly secure – if not somehow invulnerable – at least in the ceaseless
air transport and delivery into the United States of tons of cocaine for more than five years.
In a 1986 letter to the D.E.A., the commander and deputy commander of narcotics for the Louisiana
State Police say that Seal "was being given apparent free rein to import drugs in conjunction
with D.E.A. investigations with so little restraint and control on his actions as to allow
him the opportunity to import drugs for himself should he have been so disposed."
Seal's personal videotapes, in the authors' possession, show one scene in which he used
U.S. Army paratroop equipment, as well as military like precision, in his drug-transporting
operation. Then, in the middle of the afternoon after a number of dry runs, one of his airplanes
dropped a load of several duffel bags attached to a parachute. Within seconds, the cargo sitting
on the remote grass landing strip was retrieved by Seal and loaded onto a helicopter that had
followed the low-flying aircraft. "This is the first daylight cocaine drop in the history of
the state of Louisiana," Seal narrates on the tape. If the duffel bags seen in the smuggler's
home movies were filled with cocaine – as Seal himself states on tape – that single load would
have been worth hundreds of millions of dollars.
Perhaps the videos were not of an actual cocaine drop, but merely the drug trafficker's
training video for his smuggling organization, or even a test maneuver. Regardless, the films
show a remarkable, fearless invincibility. Barry Seal was not expecting apprehension.
His most personal papers show him all but unconcerned about the very flights and drops that
would indeed have been protected or "fixed," according to law-enforcement sources, by the collusion
of U.S. intelligence.
In an interview with agent Duncan, Seal brazenly "admitted that he had been a drug smuggler."
If the Seal documents show anything, an attentive reader might conclude, it is that ominous
implication of some official sanction. Over the entire episode looms the unmistakable shape
of government collaboration in vast drug trafficking and gunrunning, and in a decade-long cover-up
of criminality.
Government investigators apparently had no doubt about the magnitude of those crimes. According
to Customs sources, Seal's operations at Mena and other bases were involved in the export of
guns to Bolivia, Argentina, Peru, and Brazil, as well as to the Contras, and the importation
of cocaine from Colombia to be sold in New York, Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, and other cities,
as well as in Arkansas itself.
Duncan and his colleagues knew that Seal's modus operandi included dumping most of the drugs
in other southern states, so that what Arkansas agents witnessed in Mena was but a tiny fragment
of an operation staggering in its magnitude. Yet none of the putative inquiries seems to have
made a serious effort to gather even a fraction of the available Seal documents now assembled
and studied by the authors.
Finally, of course, there are somber questions about then governor Clinton's own role vis-a-vis
the crimes of Mena.
Clinton has acknowledged learning officially about Mena only in April 1988, though a state
police investigation had been in progress for several years. As the state's chief executive,
Clinton often claimed to be fully abreast of such inquiries. In his one public statement on
the matter as governor, in September 1991 he spoke of that investigation finding "linkages
to the federal government," and "all kinds of questions about whether he [Seal] had any links
to the C.l.A…. and if that backed into the Iran-Contra deal."
But then Clinton did not offer further support for any inquiry, "despite the fact," as Bill
Plante and Michael Singer of CBS News have written, "that a Republican administration was apparently
sponsoring a Contra-aid operation in his state and protecting a smuggling ring that flew tons
of cocaine through Arkansas."
As recently as March 1995, Arkansas state trooper Larry Patterson testified under oath,
according to *The London Sunday Telegraph*, that he and other officers "discussed repeatedly
in Clinton's presence" the "large quantities of drugs being flown into the Mena airport, large
quantities of money, large quantities of guns," indicating that Clinton may have known much
more about Seal's activities than he has admitted.
Moreover, what of the hundreds of millions generated by Seal's Mena contraband? The Seal
records reveal his dealings with at least one major Little Rock bank. How much drug money from
him or his associates made its way into criminal laundering in Arkansas's notoriously freewheeling
financial institutions and bond houses, some of which are reportedly under investigation by
the Whitewater special prosecutor for just such large, unaccountable infusions of cash and
unexplained transactions?
"The state offers an enticing climate for traffickers," I.R.S. agents had concluded by the
end of the eighties, documenting a "major increase" in the amount of large cash and bank transactions
in Arkansas after 1985, despite a struggling local economy.
Meanwhile, prominent backers of Clinton's over the same years – including bond broker and
convicted drug dealer Dan Lasater and chicken tycoon Don Tyson – have themselves been subjects
of extensive investigative and surveillance files by the D.E.A. or the F.B.I. similar to those
relating to Seal, including allegations of illegal drug activity that Tyson has recently acknowledged
publicly and denounced as "totally false."
"This may be the first president in history with such close buddies who have NADDIS numbers,"
says one concerned law-enforcement official, referring to the Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs
Intelligence System numbers assigned those under protracted investigation for possible drug
crimes.
The Seal documents are still more proof that for Clinton, the Arkansas of the eighties and
the company he kept there will not soon disappear as a political or even constitutional liability.
"I've always felt we never got the whole story there," Clinton said in 1991.
Indeed. But as president of the United States, he need no longer wonder – and neither should
the nation. On the basis of the Seal documents (copies of which are being given to the Whitewater
special prosecutor in any case), the president should ask immediately for a full report on
the matter from the C.I.A., the D.E.A., the F.B.I., the Justice Department, and other relevant
agencies of his own administration – including the long-buried evidence gathered by I.R.S.
agent Duncan and Arkansas state police investigator Welch. President Clinton should also offer
full executive-branch cooperation with a reopened congressional inquiry, and expose the subject
fully for what it says of both the American past and future.
Seal saw himself as a patriot to the end. He had dictated his own epitaph for his grave
in Baton Rouge: "A rebel adventurer the likes of whom in previous days made America great."
In a sense his documents may now render that claim less ironic than it seems.
The tons of drugs that Seal and his associates brought into the country, officials agree,
affected tens of thousands of lives at the least, and exacted an incalculable toll on American
society. And for the three presidents, the enduring questions of political scandal are once
again apt: What did they know about Mena? When did they know it? Why didn't they do anything
to stop it?
The crimes of Mena were real. That much is now documented beyond doubt. The only remaining
issues are how far they extended, and who was responsible.
From the July 1995 issue of *Penthouse* Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
On The Above
THE LONDON SUNDAY TELEGRAPH 29 JANUARY 1995 ARKANSAS DRUG EXPOSE MISSES THE POST BY AMBROSE EVANS-PRITCHARD IN WASHINGTON
IT MIGHT almost be called The Greatest Story Never Told. The article was typeset and scheduled
to run in today's edition of The Washington Post.
It had the enthusiastic backing of the editors and staff of the Sunday Outlook section,
where it was to appear after eleven weeks of soul-searching and debate.
Lawyers had gone through the text line by line.
Supporting documents had been examined with meticulous care. The artwork and illustrations
had been completed. The contract with the authors had been signed. Leonard Downie, the executive
editor of the newspaper, had given his final assent.
But on Thursday morning the piece was cancelled. It had been delayed before – so often,
in fact, that its non-appearance was becoming the talk of Washington – but this time the authors
were convinced that the story was doomed and would never make it into the pages of what is
arguably the worlds most powerful political newspaper. They have withdrawn it in disgust, accusing
the Post of a cover-up of the biggest scandal in American history.
In stark contrast, the managing editor, Robert Kaiser, left a message on my answering machine
saying that there was really nothing to "this non-existent story".
In a subsequent conversation, he dismissed the article as a reprise of rumors and allegations.
"I am confident that it doesn't have any great new revelations," he said.
Others are less confident. A copy of the article passed to The Sunday Telegraph – not, it
should be stressed, by its authors – appears to be absolutely explosive.
Based on an archive of more than 2,000 documents, it says that western Arkansas was a center
of international drug smuggling in the early 1980s – perhaps even the headquarters of the biggest
drug trafficking operation in history. It asks whether hundreds of millions of dollars in profits made their way "into criminal laundering in Arkansas's notoriously free-wheeling
financial institutions and bond houses".
The activities were mixed up with a U.S. intelligence operation at the Mena airport in Arkansas
that was smuggling weapons to the Nicaraguan Contras. Bill Clinton is not specifically accused
of involvement, but he was Governor of Arkansas at the time. The piece also notes that some
of his prominent backers had been the subject of extensive investigation by the Drug Enforcement
Administration and the FBI, and had been assigned files in NADDIS – the Narcotics & Dangerous
Drugs Intelligence System.
The article makes clear that the alleged scandal is not confined to the activities of the
Arkansas political machine and Mr. Clinton. It embraces the highest levels of the federal government
over several years. "For three Presidents of both parties – Messrs. Reagan, Bush and Clinton
– the old enduring questions of political scandal are once again apt," the article concludes.
"What did they know about Mena? When did they know it? Why didn't they do anything to stop
it?"
It is clear that The Washington Post took the article extremely seriously. It was to be
run at full length – roughly 4,000 words, taking up several pages in an almost unprecedented
spread across the Sunday Outlook section.
The authors, Dr. Roger Morris and Sally Denton, were told that they were being offered the
highest fee ever paid for a contribution to Outlook. They are veteran investigators with established
reputations. Morris worked for the National Security Council staff at the White House during
the Johnson and Nixon Administrations. He has taught at Harvard and has written a series of
acclaimed books on foreign policy.
Denton is the former head of news agency UPI's special investigative unit, and is the author
of the Bluegrass Conspiracy, which exposed the involvement of Kentucky political and law enforcement
figures in an international arms and drug smuggling ring.
Their research is concentrated on the activities of Barry Seal, a legendary smuggler who
operated from a company called Rich Mountain Aviation in the Ouachita Mountains west of Little
Rock. They have his bank and telephone records, invoices, appointment books, handwritten notes,
personal diaries and secretly-recorded conversations, as well as extensive police records and
surveillance reports.
Among other allegations they make are:
– Seal was using his fleet of aircraft to export weapons to Bolivia, Argentina and Brazil
in addition to the Nicaraguan Contras.
– The planes were carrying cocaine back up to Arkansas on the return journey for sale in
New York, Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis and other cities.
– Seal had ties to the CIA and felt that he could smuggle with impunity.
– Nine separate attempts to investigate Mena, by both state and federal authorities, were
stymied.
"Over the entire episode looms the unmistakable dark shape of U.S. government complicity
in vast drug trafficking and gun-running," the article says.
The broad picture is not new to readers of The Sunday Telegraph [DSO – thanks to the heroic
efforts of the author of this article], which published a story making some of the same points
on October 9th last year.
[DSO – headlined "Smugglers Linked to Contra Arms Deals", that article, also by Evans-Pritchard,
is partially displayed with caption with the present article]. The Wall Street Journal has
also done original reporting on the subject.
Big business loves bribing the Clintons. They get great returns on investment. In the last forty
years the Clintons have received over three billion from big money interests. Cenk Uygur, host of
the The Young Turks, breaks it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.
"Over four decades of public life, Bill and Hillary Clinton have built an unrivaled global network
of donors while pioneering fundraising techniques that have transformed modern politics and paved
the way for them to potentially become the first husband and wife to win the White House.
The grand total raised for all of their political campaigns and their family's charitable foundation
reaches at least $3 billion, according to a Washington Post investigation.
Their fundraising haul, which began with $178,000 that Bill Clinton raised for his long-shot 1974
congressional bid, is on track to expand substantially with Hillary Clinton's 2016 White House run,
which has already drawn $110 million in support. "*
"... Watch the very good summary below of American involvement in Iraq, 2003-2014, done by PBS Frontline . It specifically states that during the 2007 Surge to stabilize an Iraq that had been de-stabilized by the American invasion, the US gave about $400 million to the progenitor of ISIS, the Sunni Sons of Iraq . ..."
"... The unintended consequences of the American (and British) invasion was the creation of ISIS, funded by the American taxpayer. Sanders voted against those consequences ; Clinton, the old Klingon war-bird that she is, voted for them. ..."
"... Wow. Almost completely biased yet again. Did you watch the actual debate? Do these 5 points strike you as the main ones? I am Hillary Clinton and I approved this article. PS Obama? Kissinger? Both rate as crucial talking points last night and Hillary and no decent answer to Bernie on either ..."
"... I would love to see those transcripts, and have in fact written to her suggesting that she release them. I understand that Goldman Sachs paid good money to hear those speeches, and might like them to remain private, but I think it would be better for the nation, since she is running, for people to know what she said. ..."
"... Sanders catches Clinton on her advice from Henry Kissinger , Hillary doubles down on her assertion that getting advice from war criminals is good policy. I guess if she could get advice from Josef Mengele about Health care shed do that too? ..."
"... Lamest line of the night - when Hillary tried to make a big deal about there being a majority of women on stage . Sorry Hill, but that kind of sexism is just as offensive as if you said majority of straight people on stage . You come across like some gender supremacist. ..."
"... Im sorry, but as a woman and a feminist, I find this one of the most offensive things I have ever read! In what fucking universe is Hillary Clinton one of the most accomplished women in the world ? ..."
"... She was a bright student who chose to sacrifice her own career and tone down her own ambitions and persona to become the political wife so the man she married could have the career he wanted, then, once he left office, coatailed on his connections and name recognition to win a (open-goal) U.S. Senate Seat, in which she did nothing brave or revolutionary or remarkable and which she then abandoned for a decent presidential run of her own (I voted for her in 2008, as it happens) in which she threw in the towel far too early and easily in the face of the party establishment ordering her to. Her reward for this was a post as U.S. Secretary of State, where she distinguished herself by helping implement a series of foreign policy disasters (Libya alone she haunt her for the rest of her life, and no, I dont mean the irrelevant Benghazi incident, but the complete destruction of what was once one of the most stable countries in the region)... ..."
"... Killary proclaims listening to and following a war criminal and her neocon cohorts is somehow a good thing. ..."
"... Killary says may many past mistakes having nothing to do with my future ones. ..."
"... Faux-identity politics has run its course. ..."
"... Really believe Republicans havent changed? Eisenhower had a 92% income tax on the rich, supported unions and warned of our industrial military. Your bible thumping party would crucify Eisenhower and Jesus today. Conservatives golden rule is help the rich . ..."
"... Hillary Clinton has never had an original opinion on anything her whole political life. When she opens her mouth, all that comes out is a endless stream of views which safeguards the interests of the many wealthy organizations and institutions she has supported over the decades. ..."
"... And really, what does Clinton have other than serving a pretty disastrous tenure as Obamas Secretary of State? (At least Kerry, for all his faults, c.f. Ukraine, managed the Iran deal - all Clinton did was manage to utterly destroy Libya.) ..."
"... The only reason that Republicans find any support is because America is dumbing down. Based on my own observation because I happen to live in a very red state, by and large, Republican voters are willfully uninformed. Put a Republican in the Oval Office and our education system will not improve. Nor will the collective IQ of the American populace jump any curves. ..."
"... Ill take Sanders proven judgment over Clintons shoot first; ask questions later approach. ..."
"... Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldmans workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly for its role in the 2008 financial crisis. ..."
"... For some reason I have a feeling that the big banks wouldnt be asking Mr . Sanders to speak at their events. ..."
"... So if the Commander in Chief should be, first of all, a courageous person, who would you rather entrust the defense of the United States and the safety of its citizens; to Bernie Sanders or to Hillary Clinton. ..."
"... she voted for gw bushs disastrous war. that is not slavishly denigrating clinton, thats just a fact. she caved on the most important foreign policy issue since vietnam. ..."
"... This debate solidified my desire that Hillary NOT be Commander in Chief. She really did scare me that she would be too eager to go to war. The way she kept saying the words Commander in Chief, it made me feel she couldnt wait to get her fingers on the button. ..."
"... Why anyone would believe corporate clone Hillary Clinton is beyond me. Hillary Clinton has two guiding principles: the advancement of Hillary Clinton, and the enrichment of Hillary Clinton. ..."
Hypothetically, if Hillary is 500 delegates short of winning the nomination, while Bernie is only
short 200, and 600 of the 700 Supers break her way....
A scenario like that could very well happen; the DNC needs to abolish the Super Delegates once
and for all to remove the prospect of a rigged nomination process.
Watch the very good summary below of American involvement in Iraq, 2003-2014, done by PBS'
"Frontline". It specifically states that during the 2007 "Surge" to stabilize an Iraq that had
been de-stabilized by the American invasion, the US gave about $400 million to the progenitor
of ISIS, the Sunni "Sons of Iraq".
The "unintended consequences" of the American (and British) invasion was the creation of
ISIS, funded by the American taxpayer. Sanders voted against those "consequences"; Clinton, the
old Klingon war-bird that she is, voted for them.
Of course, daughter Chelsea, didn't have to get all dirty and bloody herself by going
to fight her mother's war, but your sons, daughters, fathers, and mothers did. Vote for more of
that with Clinton.
Wow. Almost completely biased yet again. Did you watch the actual debate? Do these 5 points
strike you as the main ones? I am Hillary Clinton and I approved this article. PS Obama? Kissinger?
Both rate as crucial talking points last night and Hillary and no decent answer to Bernie on either
I would love to see those transcripts, and have in fact written to her suggesting that she
release them. I understand that Goldman Sachs paid good money to hear those speeches, and might
like them to remain private, but I think it would be better for the nation, since she is running,
for people to know what she said.
... ... ...
1) Hillary tries to mention a local African American killed by police, forgets the name mid
sentence and struggles to get it out of her mouth. Came across as very rehearsed, especially when
it turns out the victims mom was in the audience, being used by the Clinton Campaign for an obvious
photo opportunity. Clinton wins the HAM HANDED Award.
2) Hillary tries to go after Sanders for disagreeing with Obama and comes across like an inside
the beltway clueless blithering idiot. She claims progressive creds, but she's totally unaware
of how disappointing Obama has been to the Left. Hillary exposed as another Washington Insider,
again.
3) Sanders command of the agenda while all Clinton could do is follow his lead quipping "me
too!" Clearly Sanders is in control of this race, Clinton is not, one is a leader, one is not.
Hillary should just step down for the good of the country and the party
4) Sanders catches Clinton on her "advice from Henry Kissinger", Hillary doubles down on
her assertion that getting advice from war criminals is good policy. I guess if she could get
advice from Josef Mengele about Health care she'd do that too?
5) Hillary wearing what looked to be a Star Trek (the original series) Admiral's uniform -
was that a nod to trekkies? I couldn't tell if it was a Star Fleet or a Romulan top. Anyway, cred
for Hillary for shouting out to Trekkies.
6) Lamest line of the night - when Hillary tried to make a big deal about there being a
"majority of women on stage". Sorry Hill, but that kind of sexism is just as offensive as if you
said "majority of straight people on stage". You come across like some gender supremacist.
of one of the most accomplished women in the world
I'm sorry, but as a woman and a feminist, I find this one of the most offensive things
I have ever read! In what fucking universe is Hillary Clinton "one of the most accomplished women
in the world"?
She was a bright student who chose to sacrifice her own career and tone down her own ambitions
and persona to become the "political wife" so the man she married could have the career he wanted,
then, once he left office, coatailed on his connections and name recognition to win a (open-goal)
U.S. Senate Seat, in which she did nothing brave or revolutionary or remarkable and which she
then abandoned for a decent presidential run of her own (I voted for her in 2008, as it happens)
in which she threw in the towel far too early and easily in the face of the party establishment
ordering her to. Her reward for this was a post as U.S. Secretary of State, where she "distinguished"
herself by helping implement a series of foreign policy disasters (Libya alone she haunt her for
the rest of her life, and no, I don't mean the irrelevant Benghazi incident, but the complete
destruction of what was once one of the most stable countries in the region)...
Sorry, Clinton may well be an intelligent and competent woman, but by what stretch of the imagination
is she "one of the most accomplished women in the world"? The U.S. perhaps - through arguably
not even - but the world? Seriously? And then you have the gall to claim Sanders supporters are
delusional?
Women like Angela Merkel or Christine Lagarde (like them or loathe them) could and would eat
the likes of Clinton for breakfast, and they accomplished what they have without any husband's
help!
1. Killary plays the sex card.
2. Killaty says little about her famaly's policy toward jailing nearly a third of all black men
and foreclosing on so many of their homes due to Bill's passing GlassSteagall.
3. Killary conveniently leaves out the fact that all key Latino and minority interest groups supported
Bernie's no vote.
4. Killary proclaims listening to and following a war criminal and her neocon cohorts is somehow
a good thing.
5. Killary says may many past mistakes having nothing to do with my future ones.
Both Cruz and Rubio are as white as Clinton and Sanders. And having parents who were part of the
upper-class who fled Cuba after the Revolution doesn't remotely reflect the personal histories
of the vast majority of Hispanic-Americans. (Nor, for that matter, does being the son of a wealthy
Kenyan student and middle-class white mother reflect the reality of 99% of African-Americans.)
Faux-identity politics has run its course. It was never as instrumental in Obama's
election(s) as was made out in the first place, and many of the minority for whom it was have
learned their lesson.
As the Republicans are painfully aware and Clinton is learning, blacks and Latinos and women
and young people aren't stupid - they will ultimately rather vote for the "old white man"
who represents their interests than the person they have slightly more of a genetic or cultural
link to who doesn't!
Well, Sanders was the first Senator to announce he was boycotting Netanyahu's speech to
Congress last year, and while he's certainly adopted a more mainstream line towards Israel in
recent years, he's still never spoken at or accepted support from AIPAC and makes it quite clear
in his policy brief that he believes Israel needs to end the siege of Gaza and withdraw from
the West Bank .
Clinton, on the other hand, is an AIPAC darling who doesn't even "believe" Gaza is under
siege and merely has some mealy-mouthed platitudes to offer about how settlement expansion
in the West Bank is not "helpful". (And one of her largest individual campaign donors is an
Israeli-American billionaire who she has assured she will, if elected, do everything in her power
to crack down on the BDS movement!)
At least Obama treated the extremist bunch who are now in power in Israel exactly how they
deserved.
You mean even more $100s of billions in U.S. "aid" than they were already getting and complete
diplomatic cover for their assault on Gaza and other assorted war crimes? If you think that's
tough love, I'd hate to see how your children turn out!
*For more background see
thisAl-Jazeera English piece or the Electronic Intifada's exhaustive coverage.
Sanders is far from perfect on this issue, but he's about as "progressive" as it is possible
for any high-profile U.S. politician to be. (And I really hope you weren't implying the
fact that he is Jewish makes him more likely to be pro-Israel - that is precisely the kind of
crap which helps those opposed to Palestinian rights paint all of us campaigning for them in a
bad light...)
Of course, Clinton distances herself from her supporters by running a tight campaign
Of course, that's the way how it works, Clinton left to her supporters to do the dirty work, and
then she distances herself from them, and continue to play an angel.
Really believe Republicans haven't changed? Eisenhower had a 92% income tax on the rich, supported
unions and warned of our industrial military. Your bible thumping party would crucify Eisenhower
and Jesus today. Conservatives golden rule is "help the rich".
You either misunderstood my comment, or you're being disingenuous.
What I find strange is The Guardian's evident pro-Clinton bias, even though it pretends to
be a progressive paper. Sanders is obviously the true progressive, not Clinton. So yes, it does
make me (and many, many other readers of The Guardian) wonder.
Hillary Clinton has never had an original opinion on anything her whole political life. When
she opens her mouth, all that comes out is a endless stream of views which safeguards the interests
of the many wealthy organizations and institutions she has supported over the decades.
At least when Bernie Sanders opens his mouth on any issue, there's no puppet strings moving
furiously up and down in the background.
What foreign policy credentials/experience did Obama have? (Or W. Bush or Bill Clinton for that
matter?)
And really, what does Clinton have other than serving a pretty disastrous tenure as Obama's
Secretary of State? (At least Kerry, for all his faults, c.f. Ukraine, managed the Iran deal -
all Clinton did was manage to utterly destroy Libya.)
The only reason that Republicans find any support is because America is dumbing down. Based
on my own observation because I happen to live in a very red state, by and large, Republican voters
are willfully uninformed. Put a Republican in the Oval Office and our education system will not
improve. Nor will the collective IQ of the American populace jump any curves.
Sanders' one weakness is he does not articulate a clear foreign policy. On the other hand,
these are complex issues that can't be reduced to talking points. Further, Sanders' voting record
on these issues is solid. Unlike Clinton he did vote against the war in Iraq. And he predicted
the unintended consequence of instability and thus ISIS. Clinton has far more experience but she
pretends her vote for a disastrous war in Iraq has no connection to ISIS. That's a serious lack
of judgment and/or honesty on her part.
I'll take Sanders' proven judgment over Clinton's "shoot first; ask questions later" approach.
This article is not balanced and thus disappointing. Same with Graves' opinion piece stating that
Sanders "squandered" his lead. Absurd.
Everything that comes out of Clinton's mouth is a strategic ploy for votes. She will say whatever
she and her advisors think she must say to get elected. If she is elected, she will maintain the
status quo, at least when it comes to the economy and campaign financing. Those are the two areas
that must be reformed before we can see any real progress.
Anyone who believes that Goldman Sachs and other Wall Street criminals are funding Clinton's
campaign because she's going to follow through with the real economic reforms that she's now promising
(copying Sanders) and that will eliminate their fraudulent business models is a fucking idiot.
What Wall Street type is going to donate to a candidate who's going to level the playing field
and thus destroy their business model? Are people really that stupid? (rhetorical question) Let's
see those transcripts from her speeches that she clearly does not want voters to see.
The truth is, Clinton's talking points have shifted and evolved to match Sanders' positions
that voters find attractive. This is a matter of record. She's an Establishment politician and
will be to the end. Sander is the real deal.
NEW YORK - "When Hillary Clinton spoke to Goldman Sachs executives and technology titans at
a summit in Arizona in October of 2013, she spoke glowingly of the work the bank was doing raising
capital and helping create jobs, according to people who saw her remarks.
"Clinton, who received $225,000 for her appearance, praised the diversity of Goldman's
workforce and the prominent roles played by women at the blue-chip investment bank and the tech
firms present at the event. She spent no time criticizing Goldman or Wall Street more broadly
for its role in the 2008 financial crisis.
"'It was pretty glowing about us," one person who watched the event said. "It's so far from
what she sounds like as a candidate now. It was like a rah-rah speech. She sounded more like a
Goldman Sachs managing director.' "
It's a tough question to ask, given the American track record on foreign policy. Who would you
listen to? American interests overseas have never been, shall we say, altruistic; more self serving
and clandestine. It's no wonder Bernie is focusing his attention on the national socio/political
climate. It seems ironic to think that any government can influence foreign policy in a positive
way while issues such a racism and a living wage are so rampantly out of balance in their own
nation.
So your "5 things we learned" is actually "A positive spin on 4 things about Clinton and one thing
Sanders said", whilst totally failing to mention the fact that Clinton outright lied about things
that Bernie had said in an attempt to make it seem like he actively opposes Obama, or that she
said, verbatim, that she wouldn't allow child refugees to settle in the US and to send them back
AS A MESSAGE.
This paper's coverage is getting more and more biased by the minute as its journalists realise
that "kooky old Sanders" is actually getting some traction with the American people.
That article by Lucia Gravesis a disgrace and cherry picks the one liners Sanders came back
to Hillary's attacks with, as though its somehow terrible for someone to defend themselves with
witty and quick comebacks.
People would start taking this paper seriously again if you guys actually paid attention to
whats going on, instead of just closing your eyes to all the evidence and continuing to hammer
out ridiculous articles bigging up your chosen candidate. There's a reason people aren't even
bothering to read your coverage anymore, and instead go straight to the comments to see what people
are actually thinking.
"Bernie should give a pledge that he will never take a red cent for a speech ever ever ever"
It's not about cents - it's hundreds of thousands per hour and behind closed doors, which is
an unsubtle way to bribe a future president. Sanders did give a speech recently to a University
that paid him $1,800. Transcripts are available and he donated all of the money to charity.
In both primaries Sanders beat the polls by 5-8%. Nationally he is now just 2 points off Clinton
according to the latest poll.
The MSMBS has created a reality bubble around Clinton, but nobody takes print media or TV news
seriously anymore, everybody knows they have to use multiple sources online to get a real balanced
picture. So everyday more and more people are learning about Sanders and liking what they see
- a consistent advocate for progressive policies even when it was neither profitable nor popular
to be one.
In particular voters are learning about his anti segregation campaigning in the 1960's and
his pro gay rights positions in the 1980's. When they look at Clinton's past they see a calculating
fair weather supporter on these issues, possibly based on the latest polling.
Also, her pockets full of Wall Street money is really damaging her and when she tries to defend
it she comes across as disingenuous (at best).
She is hiding behind Obama. Defending him while bringing up the fact that he took Wall Street
money does nothing to endear me to you. It makes me angry at Obama.
"Clinton dropped this critique on the senator from Vermont: "Journalists have asked who you
do listen to on foreign policy, and we have yet to know who that is." "
Let me finish the Guardian's reporting for them:
Sanders quickly responds "Well it ain't Henry Kissinger" - the audience applauds and laughs.
Exactly. ISIS is part of the unintended consequences that were created by the West's Middle East
adventure. "Blowback" as the security services have it. The same thing could be said about the
U.S. backing of the mujahadeen in Afghanistan, the better to scupper the Soviets. Elements of
the mujahadeen morphed into the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Bin Laden was a CIA asset at one time.
Bernie remembers what happened, Hillary dismisses it with the "2002 vote" quip. Hillary is
a tactician, Bernie is a strategist. I think a moral strategist makes a better C-in-C than a bought
and paid for tactician.
the point is electing a republican lite to deal with republican intransigence makes no sense whatever.
she will work with them to advance the neoliberal austerity agenda, which hurts the middle class,
and everybody else but the kind of people who pay her so much money to give a canned speech.
Let me get this straight. You have politicians who all his life was not afraid to swim against
the mainstream, neither he worried that it could jeopardize his political career.
And on the other hand, you have a careerist politician, which the whole of her life was "turning
with the wind", climbed the ladder of political power, both in its Democratic Party and in the
state too, and finally ended up with hundreds of millions of dollars on her private account, gained
thanks to its political influence.
So if the Commander in Chief should be, first of all, a courageous person, who would you
rather entrust the defense of the United States and the safety of its citizens; to Bernie Sanders
or to Hillary Clinton.
The same plan she and the establiment was shoving down our throats and digging in in our pockets...
And Putin wouldn't be Putin if US weren't prowling around the world. Why is Saudi Arabia is our
ally?
I think I'll soon just start skipping The Guardian's articles completely, and head straight to
the comments.
The articles read like pro-Clinton adverts, which seems strange coming from a self-proclaimed
progressive news source...
Fortunately, we do have The Nation, The Atlantic, Salon, Alternet, etc.
Am I the only one who's wondering why Bernie Sanders is not being asked a single question about
his position on the Palestinian problem, on the recent events involving Netanyahu and the Israeli
lobby in the USA trying to derails the Iran nuclear deal and so on?
I don't think we need now at the White House someone willing to follow Netanyahu's lead in
the Middle East... At least Obama treated the extremist bunch who are now in power in Israel exactly
how they deserved.
Hey, Guardian writers. I don't know if you ever come into the comments - but realise this. We
aren't morons. This isn't the Mail. We can see through it. A great many of us watched the debates,
follow the campaigns, know the facts from other sources. The internet is great like that, as corporate
media no longer has an exclusive stranglehold on framing and spin.
The constituents of your 'paper' are not easily hoodwinked and most, as you can see, find the
spin disgusting. You're going to keep haemorrhaging readers unless you either refocus on integrity
in journalism (unlikely, considering who's on the board), or fully commit to being a pseudo-intellectual
Buzzfeed. Best of luck.
she voted for gw bush's disastrous war. that is not slavishly denigrating clinton, that's
just a fact. she caved on the most important foreign policy issue since vietnam.
The American Public Broadcasting System's (PBS) "NewsHour" reports:*
--The cost of US health care is more than 2 1/2 times the average of 33 other countries,
--There are fewer doctors per person in the US than in 33 other countries. In 2010, the
U.S. had 2.4 doctors per 1,000 people; international average, 3.1.
--Hospital beds in the U.S. were 2.6 per 1,000 people in 2009; international average, 3.4.
--US life expectancy increased 9 years between 1960 and 2010, but 15 years in Japan, over
11 years on average in 33 other countries.
In other news, some of Clinton's speaker fees from Wall Street, 2013-15**:
This debate solidified my desire that Hillary NOT be Commander in Chief. She really did scare
me that she would be too eager to go to war. The way she kept saying the words "Commander in Chief,"
it made me feel she couldn't wait to get her fingers on the button.
When Hillary praised President Obama and criticized Bernie for some mild critiques he'd made
of the president, it was an utterly transparent ploy for the votes of African-Americans in South
Carolina. So obvious that I was a bit disgusted. Hillary and President Obama have a rocky history.
Any comments Bernie has made are tame compared to the stuff Hillary said about him during the
2008 campaign. I really wonder if people will buy Hillary trying to wrap herself so closely with
Obama.
At least try to understand what he is saying. He's saying her smile is false, he's not commenting
on her looks. Her smile is false, it's not natural, and I have no doubt she was coached to smile
in the way focus groups decided was the most electable. Trouble is a genuine smile is hard to
fake.
Please try to understand these things, context is everything.
Clinton drops a well-tuned response to Sanders' criticism of her vote in support of the
Iraq war: "I don't believe that a vote in 2002 is a plan to defeat Isis in 2016."
But it is a reflection of her judgement. We condemn Republicans, journalists, academics, etc.
who supported the Iraq War, but we are supposed to give Clinton a pass? Let's also not forget
that she supported the troop increase in Afghanistan and pushed for military action in Libya.
To be clear this is in relation to this being Obama's fault.
As for the Dems doing their best to lose a winnable election you may be right but Sanders really
has hit the nail on the head. It doesn't matter who wins no change will occur until the big money
and special interests are reined in and that won't happen unless and until there is a president
backed by a movement of ordinary people demanding change that is so large and undeniable that
politicians in Washington realize that unless they accede to the people's demands (as presented
by the President) and get behind the President in respect of such change they will actually lose
their seats... only incumbents fearful of losing their seats will vote for anything other than
what the lobbyists tell them to. Only then will change happen. I'd bet there is more certainty
that won't happen then Villa making a surprising comeback and not being relegated.
For the same reason they voted for Blair and Bush Dubya and Clinton and Bush Sr... Poor people,
the same people I honestly want to help as a responsible socialist democrat, are essentially stupid
and generally vote against their own interests hence the number of blue collar workers in the
US flocking to Donald Trump rallies. It defies belief but there it is, that and the fact that
smart people who aren't only out for themselves have better things to do like discover gravitational
waves, perform your surgery, teach and other less snazzy things then simply make money.
On the contrary. The economy crashed because the unfettered free markets failed. You don't need
someone who "understands" or in other words supports the free market status quo, you need someone
who understands the flaws of the markets and the need for regulation.
Uh? You do realize it was the deregulation of Wall Street that led to the collapse right? You
do realize Wall Street aready leads the government by the nose don't you (the very reason Sanders
quite rightly states that any reform will be impossible no matter who is elected President unless
they have a groundswell of popular support beneath them)? You are aware that laws and trade agreements
are written by Wall Street lawyers and that Wall Street is regulated by Wall Street lawyers due
to the continuous rotating door between government agencies and Wall Street? You do understand
that QE and bailouts were at the behest of and in the interest of Wall Street bound to create
asset bubbles they can make a lot of money insider trading on then exit and leave pension funds
on the hook and not designed to save the economy don't you?
Oh why do I bother you believe in "continuous growth" generated by perfect rationale markets
and of course unicorns and leprechauns waiting with your pot of gold.
Why anyone would believe corporate clone Hillary Clinton is beyond me. Hillary Clinton has
two guiding principles: the advancement of Hillary Clinton, and the enrichment of Hillary Clinton.
Lest we forget, in 2008 Hillary Clinton ran as a gun-loving churchgoer against Barack Obama.
"... Albright doesn't have a whole lot of empathy for those who find themselves on the disadvantageous
side of American foreign policy. She neither came down wholly for or wholly against the 2003 invasion
of Iraq. But that might just have been silly partisan politics and not due to any actual concern for
the lives of Iraqi civilians. In 1996, Albright stated that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due
to American sanctions was justified. ..."
"... From Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide ..."
"... Unlike Rwanda, Albright was involved in every step of Clinton's Balkan policy, although she
was not his Secretary of State until 1997. Before that, she was U.S. Ambassador to the UN, and served
as president of the Center for National Policy . She is a former student of Zbigniew Brzezinski . ..."
"... Albright actively advocated policies that led to American military action in 1999, and placed
all of the blame for the situation on the Belgrade government . (Does that ring a bell?) Albright's
contention was that "a little bombing" would encourage Milosevic to sign Rambouillet Peace Accords,
which would allow for the NATO occupation of Kosovo. ..."
"... The Clinton Administration demanded Milosevic's removal from power , and in 2000, Albright
rejected Vladimir Putin's offer to try to use his influence to defuse the situation. ..."
"... War may have been the American end game in the Balkans from the start. In 1992, the American
ambassador torpedoed Bosnian secession peace negotiations by convincing Bosnian Muslim leader Alija
Izetbegovic to refuse to sign the peace accords. The ensuing catastrophic civil war, which ended in
1995, was blamed on Bosnian Serbs and Milosevic. Colin Powell recalled, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, he was pressured by Albright in 1992 to use military force on Bosnia. ..."
"... Albright has never wavered from her stance on the Balkans. In 2012, she got into a shouting
match with pro-Serbian activists over her role in that conflict , calling the protesters "dirty Serbs."
..."
Madeleine Albright proves to the young, aspiring women of America that warmongering psychopathy
has no glass ceiling.
Former U.S. Secretary of State under Bill Clinton Madeleine Albright thinks there is "a
special place in hell" for young women if they don't vote for Hillary Clinton.
By repurposing her own
original quote, Albright has proven yet once again that she is an expert on hell's admission
standards because she's probably going there.
Of course it should come to no surprise that Albright is stumping for Hillary Clinton. After all,
she was Bill Clinton's Secretary of State, the first female to hold the office. And sure, Albright
has an interesting bio. She and her family, fleeing Czechoslovakia from approaching German army,
escaped to Serbia, and
she survived the Nazi Blitzkrieg of London.
Too bad she is a neocon monster.
Although she personally experienced the horrors of WWII, and had family members who died in the
Nazi death camps,
Albright doesn't have a whole lot of empathy for those who find themselves on the disadvantageous
side of American foreign policy. She neither came down
wholly for or wholly against the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But that might just have been silly partisan
politics and not due to any actual concern for the lives of Iraqi civilians. In 1996, Albright
stated that the deaths
of 500,000
Iraqi children due to American sanctions was justified.
When is genocide justified? Or when does it simply not matter?
Although the Clinton Administration's stated purpose for intervening in the Balkans was to stop
genocide, the Rwandan genocide in 1994 continued unabated. From Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide:
"Rather than respond with appropriate force, the opposite happened, spurred by the murders
of the Belgian Blue Berets and Belgium's withdrawal of its remaining troops. Exactly two weeks
after the genocide began – following strenuous lobbying for total withdrawal led by Belgium and
Britain, and with American UN Ambassador Madeleine Albright advocating the most token of forces
and the United States adamantly refusing to accept publicly that a full-fledged, Convention defined
genocide was in fact taking place – the Security Council made the astonishing decision to reduce
the already inadequate UNAMIR force to a derisory 270 men" (10.11)
"The lesson to be learned from the betrayal at ETO and other experiences was that the full
potential of UNAMIR went unexplored and unused, and, as result, countless more Rwandans died than
otherwise might have. If anyone in the international community learned this lesson at the time,
it was not evident at the UN. For the next six weeks, as the carnage continued, the UN dithered
in organizing any kind of response to the ongoing tragedy. The Americans, led by US Ambassador
Madeleine Albright, played the key role in blocking more expeditious action by the UN.[18] On
May 17, the Security Council finally authorized an expanded UNAMIR II to consist of 5,500 personnel.[19]
But there is perhaps no distance greater on earth than the one between the Security Council chambers
and the outside world. Once the decision to expand was finally made, as we will soon show in detail,
the Pentagon somehow required an additional seven weeks just to negotiate a contract for delivering
armed personnel carriers to the field; evidently it proved difficult to arrange the desired terms
for "maintenance and spare parts."[20] When the genocide ended in mid-July with the final RPF
victory, not a single additional UN soldier had landed in Kigali." 10.16
Unlike Rwanda, Albright was
involved in every step of
Clinton's Balkan policy, although she was not his Secretary of State until 1997. Before that,
she was U.S. Ambassador to the UN, and served as president of the
Center for National
Policy. She is a former student of
Zbigniew Brzezinski.
Not only did Albright support Clinton's bombing, she was a key figure in the conflict and in the
ousting of Slobodan Milosevic. Time went so far as to call the Balkan campaign "Madeleine's
War." Despite her assertions that the bombing of Yugoslavia was a humanitarian mission, it is
irrefutable at this point in history
that the U.S.
pretext for military intervention was fabricated.
War may have been the American end game in the Balkans from the start. In 1992, the American
ambassador
torpedoed Bosnian secession peace negotiations by convincing Bosnian Muslim leader Alija Izetbegovic
to refuse to sign the peace accords. The ensuing catastrophic civil war, which ended in 1995, was
blamed on Bosnian Serbs and Milosevic. Colin Powell recalled, as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, he
was pressured by Albright in 1992 to use military force on Bosnia.
Dirty Serbs, huh? And she wants to tell idealistic young American women, who still believe in
the American democratic process, how to vote? Yay, feminism!
Hillary Clinton is competing for the nomination of a party whose progressive base thinks, with considerable
justification, that her husband is to blame for letting Wall Street run amok-and that Barack Obama,
under whom she served, did too little to rein in the bankers who torpedoed the global economy. On
top of that, she faces a competitor who says what the people actually think: that the system is rigged,
that big banks should be restrained, and that people should go to jail.
So she has no choice but
to try to appear tough on Wall Street-but she has to do that without simply jettisoning twenty-five
years of "New Democrat" friendliness to business and without alienating the financial industry donors
she is counting on. So the "plan"
she announced yesterday has two messages. On the one hand, she wants to show that she has the right
approach to taming Wall Street. Unfortunately, it's just more of the same: another two dozen or so
regulatory tweaks, mainly of the arcane variety, that will produce more of the massive, loophole-ridden
rules that Dodd-Frank gave us.
Or, that could be the point. Her second message is a promise to the financial industry that, instead
of real structural reforms, she will continue the technocratic incrementalism of the Geithner era-which
has left the megabanks more or less the way they were on the eve of the financial crisis. Maybe,
for her base, that's a feature, not a bug.
William K. Black, author of The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One,…http://billmoyers.com/guest/william-k-black/
He developed the concept of "control fraud"-frauds in which the CEO or head of state uses the
entity as a "weapon,"
A court filing in a civil case in Florida last week included new allegations against Jeffrey E.
Epstein, a businessman who pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution, and two other high-profile
men: a member of the British Royal family and an American lawyer.
The motion filed in United States District Court in the Southern District of Florida alleges
that Mr. Epstein forced a teenage girl to have sexual relations with several men, including Prince
Andrew, Queen Elizabeth's second son, and Alan M. Dershowitz, a professor emeritus at Harvard
Law School. Both men have denied the allegations.
Jeffrey Epstein is not just a businessman. He's a billionaire, and he has already been convicted
of soliciting underaged prostitution.
About the royal: Some of you may argue that if there was
an encounter, the Prince may have been unaware of the girl's age. He has people. People who
make arrangements for him. One can see how such a fellow might hear the same knock on the door that
Neil Bush once heard. Perhaps, upon opening the door, his first reaction was something other than
"May I see your ID, Miss?"
That scenario seems plausible. However, as we shall see, that scenario is not what
has been alleged.
We will get to the Prince in a bit. For now, let's focus on Dershowitz.
On Saturday, Mr. Dershowitz said he "categorically and unequivocally" denied all of the allegations.
He said he would file disbarment proceedings against the lawyers who filed the motion, Bradley
J. Edwards, a lawyer in Florida, and Paul G. Cassell, a former federal judge and a law professor
at the University of Utah.
"They are lying deliberately, and I will not stop until they're disbarred," Mr. Dershowitz
said in a phone interview.
The very predictability of that furious reaction means that no lawyer would have filed such charges
against Dershowitz frivolously. Cassell has an impressive resume. He's not a young go-getter out
to make a name for himself.
I understand that there are a lot of women who have made iffy claims
against famous people. But this case seems different. Epstein has already pled guilty. Moreover,
Dershowitz was part of Epstein's legal team.
The full court filing was published on
Mondoweiss
a couple of days ago. We learn that the complainant, Jane Doe #3, was 15 years of age,and that she
was recruited by an Epstein associate named Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of Robert Maxwell (the late
news tycoon and known Mossad asset). The photo to the left shows the Prince with the girl who seems
to have been Jane Doe #3. Allegedly, the shot was taken by Epstein. (Note: In what follows, the term
NPA refers to non-prosecution agreement.)
Epstein then became enamored with Jane Doe #3, and with the assistance of Maxwell converted her
into what is commonly referred to as a "sex slave." Epstein kept Jane Doe #3 as his sex slave
from about 1999 through 2002, when she managed to escape to a foreign country and hide out from
Epstein and his co-conspirators for years. From 1999 and 2002, Epstein frequently sexually abused
Jane Doe #3, not only in West Palm Beach but also in New York, New Mexico, the U.S. Virgin Islands,
in international airspace on Epstein's private planes, and elsewhere.
Epstein also sexually
trafficked the then-minor Jane Doe, making her available for sex to politically-connected and
financially-powerful people. Epstein's purposes in "lending" Jane Doe (along with other young
girls) to such powerful people were to ingratiate himself with them for business, personal, political
and financial gain, as well as to obtain potential blackmail information.
One such powerful individual that Epstein forced then-minor Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations
with was former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, a close friend of Epstein's and well-known
defense attorney. Epstein required Jane Doe #3 to have sexual relations with Dershowiz on numerous
occasions while she was a minor, not only in Flroida but also on private planes, in New York,
New Mexico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. In addition to being a participant in the abuse of Jane
Doe #3 and other minors, Dershowitz was an eye-witness to the sexual abuse of many other minors
by Epstein and several of Epstein's co-conspirators. Dershowitz would later play a significant
role in negotiating the NPA on Esptein's behalf. Indeed, Dershowitz helped negotiate an agreement
that provided immunity from federal prosecution in the Southern District of Florida not only to
Epstein, but also to "any potential co-conspirators of Epstein." NPA at 5. Thus, Dershowitz helped
negotiate an agreement with a provision that provided protection for himself against criminal
prosecution in Florida for sexually abusing Jane Doe #3. Because this broad immunity would have
been controversial if disclosed, Dershowitz (along with other memebers of Epstein's defense team)
and the Government tried to keep the immunity provision secret from all of Epstein's victims and
the general public, even though such secrecy violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act.
There's a third named participant in these doings, one Jean Luc Brunel, a close Epstein friend and
a scout for various modelling agencies.
He would bring young girls (ranging from ages as young as twelve) to the United States for sexual
purposes and farm them out to his friends, especially Epstein. Brunel would offer the girls "modeling"
jobs. Many of the girls came from poor countries or impoverished backgrounds, and he lured them
in with a promise of making good money.
The Government was well aware of Jane Doe #3 when it was negotiating the NPA, as it listed her
as a victim in the attachment to the NPA. Moreover, even a rudimentary investigation of Jane Doe
#3's relationship with Epstein would have revealed the fact that she had been trafficked throughout
the United States and internationally for sexual purposes. Nonetheless, the Government secretly
negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein precluding any Federal prosecution in the
Southern District of Florida of Epstein and his co-conspirators. As with Jane Doe #1 and Jane
Doe #2, the Government concealed the non-prosecution agreement from Jane Doe #3 -- all in violation
of her rights under the CVRA -- to avoid Jane Doe #3 from raising powerful objections to the NPA
that would have shed tremendous light on Epstein and other powerful individuals that would likely
have prevented it from being conlcuded in the secretive manner in which it was.
The document also mentions a Jane Doe #4, an impoverished sixteen year old who was told that she
could make $300 by giving a "massage" to an old man in Palm Beach.
This matter seems very serious. We have too many details, too many corroborating witnesses (in
the form of four Jane Does). We have a photo. We have reports of the existence of many, many more
photos. The hugger-mugger involving the NPA seems downright ghastly -- yet all too credible.
Frankly, I would not rule out the possibility that Epstein was working for an intelligence agency
-- either Mossad or one of our own. The Maxwell connection points to Mossad.
This whole business has "honeytrap" written all over it.
The Clinton connection.
The
Daily Mail discloses that one of Epstein's, er, protegees was a woman named Johanna Sjoberg.
Since the story links her to Prince Andrew, it is tempting suppose that she is the aforementioned
Jane Doe #3. However, British newspapers have named another young woman, Virginia Roberts.
Miss Sjoberg worked for Epstein for four years, often massaging him as he lay on a couch in his
giant bathroom making phone calls to friends such as Bill Clinton and Cate Blanchett.
He kept
a little black book, containing the numbers of all his masseuses by a phone in the bathroom, she
said. She left after he started becoming 'more aggressive' in his demands that she 'do sexual
things to him'.
She said she was aware that the girls recruited by Epstein and his acolytes were not paid just
for massages but for 'sexual favours'.
Virginia Roberts revealed that as a 17-year-old 'erotic masseuse', she was flown by Epstein
to London to meet Prince Andrew,
Miss Sjoberg said: 'I'm not surprised he was sending girls abroad. I just did not think they
were so young.'
The Prince strongly denies any claim of impropriety, of course.
What about Epstein and Clinton?
Obviously, there is nothing wrong in taking a man's phone call, even a call from someone like Epstein.
However...
Bill Clinton was also named dozens of times in lawsuits against Epstein and was alleged to have
flown on his private jet more than 10 times.
Flight logs in lawsuits detailed that between 2002
and 2005 the former US President traveled around the world courtesy of his friend and stopped
at Epstein's Caribbean island Little St James where young girls were supposedly kept as sex slaves.
Clinton was deemed to be so close to Epstein that he was nearly deposed during the investigation
into his paedophilia.
Before he was jailed Epstein's other acquaintances are said to have been former Israeli Prime
Minister Ehud Barak; former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson; and former Treasury Secretary Larry
Summers.
Let's make the obvious point. If there is any evidence of wrongdoing against Bill Clinton, then Hillary's
chances at the nomination are over. A candidacy can withstand many things, but a statutory
rape scandal involving one's spouse? No.
Over the years, the casually-dressed, globe-trotting financier, who was said to log more than
600 flying hours a year, has been linked with Bill Clinton, Kevin Spacey, Chris Tucker and Manhattan-London
society figure Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the late media titan Robert Maxwell.
Epstein reportedly
flew Tucker and Spacey to Africa on his private jet as part of a charitable endeavour. Clinton,
meanwhile, flew on multiple occasions in the same plane to Epstein's private Caribbean island,
Little St James, between 2002 and 2005 as he developed his philanthropic post-presidential career.
It would later be alleged in court that Epstein organised orgies on that same private island in
the US Virgin Islands.
Reports in the US media say many of the A-list names broke off any links with the former maths
teacher after his arrest and conviction in 2008 of having sex with an underage girl whom he had
solicited. His arrest followed an 11-month undercover investigation at a mansion in Florida's
Palm Beach that Epstein owned.
In 2008, he pleaded guilty to a single charge of soliciting prostitution
and was handed a 18-month jail sentence. He served 13 months in jail and was obliged to register
as a sex offender. A 2011 report in the New York Post said that he celebrated his release from
jail and his return to a property he maintains in New York – a 45,000-sq-foot eight-storey mansion
on East 71st Street – with Prince Andrew.
The story goes on to give much useful information about Epstein's business dealings.
The financier, who was jailed for 18 months in 2008 after pleading guilty to solicitation for
prostitution, kept a sickening stash of images on a computer seized at his Palm Beach mansion
in 2006.
The six-year-old papers, seen by the Sunday People, state: "Some of the photographs in the defendant's
possession were taken with hidden cameras set up in [Epstein's] home in Palm Beach.
"On the
Day of his arrest, police found two hidden cameras and photographs of underage girls on a computer
in the defendant's home.
"[He] may have taken lewd photographs of Jane Doe 102 with his hidden cameras and transported
[them] to his other residences and elsewhere."
Court papers also allege that Maxwell presented nude pictures of her she had taken herself to
Epstein as a birthday present.
They add that Roberts' claims that she was forced to tell Epstein
all about her sexual encounters so he could use the information to "blackmail" the royal.
She further claims she was sex-trafficked to "many other powerful men, including numerous prominent
American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well known Prime Minister,
and other world leaders".
And now let's play our game: Who was that Prime Minister?
To-neeeeee...! If that's
you, you're gonna have to say so many rosaries that even the Virgin Mary will get sick of hearing
your voice.
This scandal places our right-wing media in a bind. Obviously, the right-wingers will want to
leap on anything that dirties the Clinton name. On the other hand, anything that reeks of Mossad
involvement is untouchable.
In the coming months, however many hours Clinton spends introducing herself to voters in small-town
America, she will spend hundreds more raising money in four-star hotels and multimillion-dollar homes
around the nation. The question is: "Can Clinton claim to stand for 'everyday Americans,' while
hauling in huge sums of cash from the very wealthiest of us?" This much cannot be disputed:
Clinton's connections to the financiers and bankers of this country - and this country's campaigns
- run deep. As Nomi Prins questions, who counts more to such a candidate, the person
you met over that chicken burrito bowl or the Citigroup partner you met over crudités and caviar?
The past, especially the political past, doesn't just provide clues to the present. In
the realm of the presidency and Wall Street, it provides an ongoing pathway for political-financial
relationships and policies that remain a threat to the American economy going forward.
When Hillary Clinton video-announced
her bid for the Oval Office, she claimed she wanted to be a "champion" for the American people. Since
then, she has attempted to recast herself as a populist and distance herself from some of the policies
of her husband. But Bill Clinton did not become president without sharing the friendships, associations,
and ideologies of the elite banking sect, nor will Hillary Clinton. Such relationships run too deep
and are too longstanding.
To grasp the dangers that the
Big Six banks (JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan
Stanley) presently pose to the financial stability of our nation and the world, you need to understand
their history in Washington, starting with the Clinton years of the 1990s. Alliances established
then (not exclusively with Democrats, since bankers are bipartisan by nature) enabled these firms
to become as politically powerful as they are today and to exert that power over an unprecedented
amount of capital. Rest assured of one thing: their past and present CEOs will prove as critical
in backing a Hillary Clinton presidency as they were in enabling her husband's years in office.
In return, today's titans of finance and their hordes of lobbyists, more than half of
whom held prior positions in the government, exact certain requirements from Washington.
They need to know that a safety net or bailout will always be available in times of emergency and
that the regulatory road will be open to whatever practices they deem most profitable.
Whatever her populist pitch may be in the 2016 campaign -- and she will have one -- note
that, in all these years, Hillary Clinton has not publicly condemned Wall Street or any individual
Wall Street leader. Though she may, in the heat of that campaign, raise the bad-apples or
bad-situation explanation for Wall Street's role in the financial crisis of 2007-2008, rest assured
that she will not point fingers at her friends. She will not chastise the people that pay her hundreds
of thousands of dollars a pop to speak or the ones that have long shared the social circles in which
she and her husband move. She is an undeniable component of the Clinton political-financial
legacy that came to national fruition more than 23 years ago, which is why looking back at the history
of the first Clinton presidency is likely to tell you so much about the shape and character of the
possible second one.
The 1992 Election and the Rise of Bill Clinton
Challenging President George H.W. Bush, who was seeking a second term, Arkansas Governor Bill
Clinton announced he would seek the 1992 Democratic nomination for the presidency on October 2, 1991.
The upcoming presidential election would not, however, turn out to alter the path of mergers or White
House support for deregulation that was already in play one iota.
First, though, Clinton needed money. A consummate fundraiser in his home state, he cleverly amassed
backing and established early alliances with Wall Street. One of his key supporters would later change
American banking forever. As Clinton put it, he received "invaluable early support" from Ken Brody,
a Goldman Sachs executive seeking to delve into Democratic politics. Brody took Clinton "to a dinner
with high-powered New York businesspeople, including Bob Rubin, whose tightly reasoned arguments
for a new economic policy," Clinton later wrote, "made a lasting impression on me."
The battle for the White House kicked into high gear the following fall. William Schreyer, chairman
and CEO of Merrill Lynch, showed his support for Bush by giving the maximum personal contribution
to his campaign committee permitted by law: $1,000. But he wanted to do more. So when one of Bush's
fundraisers solicited him to contribute to the Republican National Committee's nonfederal, or "soft
money," account, Schreyer made a $100,000 donation.
The bankers' alliances remained divided among the candidates at first, as they considered which
man would be best for their own power trajectories, but their donations were plentiful: mortgage
and broker company contributions were $1.2 million; 46% to the GOP and 54% to the Democrats. Commercial
banks poured in $14.8 million to the 1992 campaigns at a near 50-50 split.
Clinton, like every good Democrat, campaigned publicly against the bankers: "It's time to end
the greed that consumed Wall Street and ruined our S&Ls [Savings and Loans] in the last decade,"
he said. But equally, he had no qualms about taking money from the financial sector. In the early
months of his campaign, BusinessWeek estimated that he received $2 million of his initial
$8.5 million in contributions from New York, under the care of Ken Brody.
"If I had a Ken Brody working for me in every state, I'd be like the Maytag man with nothing to
do," said Rahm Emanuel, who ran Clinton's nationwide fundraising committee and later became Barack
Obama's chief of staff. Wealthy donors and prospective fundraisers were invited to a select series
of intimate meetings with Clinton at the plush Manhattan office of the prestigious private equity
firm Blackstone.
Robert Rubin Comes to Washington
Clinton knew that embracing the bankers would help him get things done in Washington, and what
he wanted to get done dovetailed nicely with their desires anyway. To facilitate his policies and
maintain ties to Wall Street, he selected a man who had been instrumental to his campaign, Robert
Rubin, as his economic adviser.
In 1980, Rubin had landed on Goldman Sachs' management committee alongside fellow Democrat Jon
Corzine. A decade later, Rubin and Stephen Friedman were appointed cochairmen of Goldman Sachs. Rubin's
political aspirations met an appropriate opportunity when Clinton captured the White House.
On January 25, 1993, Clinton appointed him as assistant to the president for economic policy.
Shortly thereafter, the president created a unique role for his comrade, head of the newly created
National Economic Council. "I asked Bob Rubin to take on a new job," Clinton later wrote, "coordinating
economic policy in the White House as Chairman of the National Economic Council, which would operate
in much the same way the National Security Council did, bringing all the relevant agencies together
to formulate and implement policy... [I]f he could balance all of [Goldman Sachs'] egos and interests,
he had a good chance to succeed with the job." (Ten years later, President George W. Bush gave the
same position to Rubin's old partner, Friedman.)
Back at Goldman, Jon Corzine, co-head of fixed income, and Henry Paulson, co-head of investment
banking, were ascending through the ranks. They became co-CEOs when Friedman retired at the end of
1994.
Those two men were the perfect bipartisan duo. Corzine was a staunch Democrat serving on the International
Capital Markets Advisory Committee of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (from 1989 to 1999). He
would co-chair a presidential commission for Clinton on capital budgeting between 1997 and 1999,
while serving in a key role on the Borrowing Advisory Committee of the Treasury Department. Paulson
was a well connected Republican and Harvard graduate who had served on the White House Domestic Council
as staff assistant to the president in the Nixon administration.
Bankers Forge Ahead
By May 1995, Rubin was impatiently warning Congress that the Glass-Steagall Act could "conceivably
impede safety and soundness by limiting revenue diversification." Banking deregulation was then inching
through Congress. As they had during the previous Bush administration, both the House and Senate
Banking Committees had approved separate versions of legislation to repeal Glass-Steagall, the 1933
Act passed by the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt that had separated deposit-taking and
lending or "commercial" bank activities from speculative or "investment bank" activities, such as
securities creation and trading. Conference negotiations had fallen apart, though, and the effort
was stalled.
By 1996, however, other industries, representing core clients of the banking sector, were already
being deregulated. On February 8, 1996, Clinton signed the Telecom Act, which killed many independent
and smaller broadcasting companies by opening a national market for "cross-ownership." The result
was mass mergers in that sector advised by banks.
Deregulation of companies that could transport energy across state lines came next. Before such
deregulation, state commissions had regulated companies that owned power plants and transmission
lines, which worked together to distribute power. Afterward, these could be divided and effectively
traded without uniform regulation or responsibility to regional customers. This would lead to blackouts
in California and a slew of energy derivatives, as well as trades at firms such as Enron that used
the energy business as a front for fraudulent deals.
The number of mergers and stock and debt issuances ballooned on the back of all the deregulation
that eliminated barriers that had kept companies separated. As industries consolidated, they also
ramped up their complex transactions and special purpose vehicles (off-balance-sheet, offshore constructions
tailored by the banking community to hide the true nature of their debts and shield their profits
from taxes). Bankers kicked into overdrive to generate fees and create related deals. Many of these
blew up in the early 2000s in a spate of scandals and bankruptcies, causing an earlier millennium
recession.
Meanwhile, though, bankers plowed ahead with their advisory services, speculative enterprises,
and deregulation pursuits. President Clinton and his team would soon provide them an epic gift, all
in the name of U.S. global power and competitiveness. Robert Rubin would steer the White House ship
to that goal.
On February 12, 1999, Rubin found a fresh angle to argue on behalf of banking deregulation. He
addressed the House Committee on Banking and Financial Services, claiming that, "the problem U.S.
financial services firms face abroad is more one of access than lack of competitiveness."
He was referring to the European banks' increasing control of distribution channels into the European
institutional and retail client base. Unlike U.S. commercial banks, European banks had no restrictions
keeping them from buying and teaming up with U.S. or other securities firms and investment banks
to create or distribute their products. He did not appear concerned about the destruction caused
by sizeable financial bets throughout Europe. The international competitiveness argument allowed
him to focus the committee on what needed to be done domestically in the banking sector to remain
competitive.
Rubin stressed the necessity of HR 665, the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999, or the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, that was officially introduced on February 10, 1999. He said it took "fundamental
actions to modernize our financial system by repealing the Glass-Steagall Act prohibitions on banks
affiliating with securities firms and repealing the Bank Holding Company Act prohibitions on insurance
underwriting."
The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act Marches Forward
On February 24, 1999, in more testimony before the Senate Banking Committee, Rubin pushed for
fewer prohibitions on bank affiliates that wanted to perform the same functions as their larger bank
holding company, once the different types of financial firms could legally merge. That minor distinction
would enable subsidiaries to place all sorts of bets and house all sorts of junk under the false
premise that they had the same capital beneath them as their parent. The idea that a subsidiary's
problems can't taint or destroy the host, or bank holding company, or create "catastrophic" risk,
is a myth perpetuated by bankers and political enablers that continues to this day.
Rubin had no qualms with mega-consolidations across multiple service lines. His real problems
were those of his banker friends, which lay with the financial modernization bill's "prohibition
on the use of subsidiaries by larger banks." The bankers wanted the right to establish off-book subsidiaries
where they could hide risks, and profits, as needed.
Again, Rubin decided to use the notion of remaining competitive with foreign banks to make his
point. This technicality was "unacceptable to the administration," he said, not least because "foreign
banks underwrite and deal in securities through subsidiaries in the United States, and U.S. banks
[already] conduct securities and merchant banking activities abroad through so-called Edge subsidiaries."
Rubin got his way. These off-book, risky, and barely regulated subsidiaries would be at the forefront
of the 2008 financial crisis.
On March 1, 1999, Senator Phil Gramm released a final draft of the Financial Services Modernization
Act of 1999 and scheduled committee consideration for March 4th. A bevy of excited financial titans
who were close to Clinton, including Travelers CEO Sandy Weill, Bank of America CEO, Hugh McColl,
and American Express CEO Harvey Golub, called for "swift congressional action."
The Quintessential Revolving-Door Man
The stock market continued its meteoric rise in anticipation of a banker-friendly conclusion to
the legislation that would deregulate their industry. Rising consumer confidence reflected the nation's
fondness for the markets and lack of empathy with the rest of the world's economic plight. On March
29, 1999, the Dow Jones Industrial Average closed above 10,000 for the first time. Six weeks later,
on May 6th, the Financial Services Modernization Act passed the Senate. It legalized, after the fact,
the merger that created the nation's biggest bank. Citigroup, the marriage of Citibank and Travelers,
had been finalized the previous October.
It was not until that point that one of Glass-Steagall's main assassins decided to leave Washington.
Six days after the bill passed the Senate, on May 12, 1999, Robert Rubin abruptly announced his resignation.
As Clinton wrote, "I believed he had been the best and most important treasury secretary since Alexander
Hamilton... He had played a decisive role in our efforts to restore economic growth and spread its
benefits to more Americans."
Clinton named Larry Summers to succeed Rubin. Two weeks later, BusinessWeek reported
signs of trouble in merger paradise -- in the form of a growing rift between John Reed, the former
Chairman of Citibank, and Sandy Weill at the new Citigroup. As Reed said, "Co-CEOs are hard." Perhaps
to patch their rift, or simply to take advantage of a political opportunity, the two men enlisted
a third person to join their relationship -- none other than Robert Rubin.
Rubin's resignation from Treasury became effective on July 2nd. At that time, he announced, "This
almost six and a half years has been all-consuming, and I think it is time for me to go home to New
York and to do whatever I'm going to do next." Rubin became chairman of Citigroup's executive committee
and a member of the newly created "office of the chairman." His initial annual compensation package
was worth around $40 million. It was more than worth the "hit" he took when he left Goldman for the
Treasury post.
Three days after the conference committee endorsed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley bill, Rubin assumed
his Citigroup position, joining the institution destined to dominate the financial industry. That
very same day, Reed and Weill issued a joint statement praising Washington for "liberating our financial
companies from an antiquated regulatory structure," stating that "this legislation will unleash the
creativity of our industry and ensure our global competitiveness."
On November 4th, the Senate approved the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act by a vote of 90 to 8. (The House
voted 362–57 in favor.) Critics famously referred to it as the Citigroup Authorization Act.
Mirth abounded in Clinton's White House. "Today Congress voted to update the rules that have governed
financial services since the Great Depression and replace them with a system for the twenty-first
century," Summers said. "This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete
in the new economy."
But the happiness was misguided. Deregulating the banking industry might have helped the titans
of Wall Street but not people on Main Street. The Clinton era epitomized the vast difference between
appearance and reality, spin and actuality. As the decade drew to a close, Clinton basked in the
glow of a lofty stock market, a budget surplus, and the passage of this key banking "modernization."
It would be revealed in the 2000s that many corporate profits of the 1990s were based on inflated
evaluations, manipulation, and fraud. When Clinton left office, the gap between rich and poor was
greater than it had been in 1992, and yet the Democrats heralded him as some sort of prosperity hero.
When he resigned in 1997, Robert Reich, Clinton's labor secretary, said, "America is prospering,
but the prosperity is not being widely shared, certainly not as widely shared as it once was... We
have made progress in growing the economy. But growing together again must be our central goal in
the future." Instead, the growth of wealth inequality in the United States accelerated, as the men
yielding the most financial power wielded it with increasingly less culpability or restriction. By
2015, that wealth or prosperity gap would stand near historic highs.
The power of the bankers increased dramatically in the wake of the repeal of Glass-Steagall. The
Clinton administration had rendered twenty-first-century banking practices similar to those of the
pre-1929 crash. But worse. "Modernizing" meant utilizing government-backed depositors' funds as collateral
for the creation and distribution of all types of complex securities and derivatives whose proliferation
would be increasingly quick and dangerous.
Eviscerating Glass-Steagall allowed big banks to compete against Europe and also enabled them
to go on a rampage: more acquisitions, greater speculation, and more risky products. The big banks
used their bloated balance sheets to engage in more complex activity, while counting on customer
deposits and loans as capital chips on the global betting table. Bankers used hefty trading profits
and wealth to increase lobbying funds and campaign donations, creating an endless circle of influence
and mutual reinforcement of boundary-less speculation, endorsed by the White House.
Deposits could be used to garner larger windfalls, just as cheap labor and commodities in developing
countries were used to formulate more expensive goods for profit in the upper echelons of the global
financial hierarchy. Energy and telecoms proved especially fertile ground for the investment banking
fee business (and later for fraud, extensive lawsuits, and bankruptcies). Deregulation greased the
wheels of complex financial instruments such as collateralized debt obligations, junk bonds, toxic
assets, and unregulated derivatives.
The Glass-Steagall repeal led to unfettered derivatives growth and unstable balance sheets at
commercial banks that merged with investment banks and at investment banks that preferred to remain
solo but engaged in dodgier practices to remain "competitive." In conjunction with the tight political-financial
alignment and associated collaboration that began with Bush and increased under Clinton, bankers
channeled the 1920s, only with more power over an immense and growing pile of global financial assets
and increasingly "open" markets. In the process, accountability would evaporate.
Every bank accelerated its hunt for acquisitions and deposits to amass global influence while
creating, trading, and distributing increasingly convoluted securities and derivatives. These practices
would foster the kind of shaky, interconnected, and opaque financial environment that provided the
backdrop and conditions leading up to the financial meltdown of 2008.
The Realities of 2016
Hillary Clinton is, of course, not her husband. But her access to his past banker alliances, amplified
by the ones that she has formed herself, makes her more of a friend than an adversary to the banking
industry. In her brief 2008 candidacy, all four of the New York-based Big Six banks ranked among
her
top 10 corporate donors. They have also contributed to the
Clinton Foundation. She needs them to win, just as both Barack Obama and Bill Clinton did.
No matter what spin is used for campaigning purposes, the idea that a critical distance
can be maintained between the White House and Wall Street is naïve given the multiple channels of
money and favors that flow between the two. It is even more improbable, given the history
of connections that Hillary Clinton has established through her associations with key bank leaders
in the early 1990s, during her time as a senator from New York, and given their contributions to
the Clinton foundation while she was secretary of state. At some level, the situation couldn't
be less complicated: her path aligns with that of the country's most powerful bankers. If she becomes
president, that will remain the case.
In an interview with the sympathetic Fox News (owned by Rupert Murdoch, who also owns Harper,
the publisher of Clinton Cash) it was put to Schweizer that he hadn't "nailed" his thesis. "It's
hard for any author to nail it – one of the strategies of the Clinton camp is to set a bar for me
as an author that is impossible to meet," he replied.
... ... ...
Certainly, pundits were warning about the problem of the large sums of money flowing into the
Clinton Foundation's coffers even before Hillary Clinton took up her position as Obama's global emissary-in-chief.
A month before she became secretary of state,
the Washington Post warned in an editorial that her husband's fundraising activities were problematic.
"Even if Ms Clinton is not influenced by gifts to her husband's charity, the appearance of conflict
is unavoidable."
Since the foundation was formed in 2001, some $2bn has been donated, mainly in big lump sums.
Fully a third of the donors giving more than $1m, and more than a half of those handing over more
than $5m, have been foreign governments, corporations or tycoons. (The foundation stresses that such
largesse has been put to very good use – fighting obesity around the globe, combating climate change,
helping millions of people with HIV/Aids obtain antiretroviral drugs at affordable prices.)
Schweizer may have made mistakes about aspects of Bill Clinton's fees on the speaker circuit,
but one of his main contentions – that the former president's rates skyrocketed after his wife became
secretary of state – is correct.
Politifact confirmed that since leaving the White House in 2001 and 2013, Bill Clinton made
13 speeches for which he commanded more than $500,000; all but two of those mega-money earners occurred
in the period when Hillary was at the State Department.
Though Schweizer has failed to prove actual corruption in the arrangement – at no point in the
book does he produce evidence showing that Bill's exorbitant speaker fees were directly tied
to policy concessions from Hillary – he does point to several glaring conflicts of interest.
Bill Clinton did accept large speaker fees accumulating to more than $1m from TD Bank, a major shareholder
in the Keystone XL pipeline, at precisely the time that the Obama administration, and Hillary Clinton
within it, was wrestling with the vexed issue of whether to approve it.
It is also true that large donations to the foundation from the chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer,
at around the time of the Russian purchase of the company and while Hillary Clinton was secretary
of state, were never disclosed to the public. The multimillion sums were channeled through a subsidiary
of the Clinton Foundation, CGSCI, which did not reveal its individual donors.
Such awkward collisions between Bill's fundraising activities and Hillary's public service have
raised concerns not just among those who might be dismissed as part of a vast rightwing conspiracy.
Take Zephyr Teachout, a law professor at Fordham university who has written extensively on political
corruption in the US.
Teachout, who last year stood against Andrew Cuomo for the Democratic party nomination for New
York governor, points out that you don't have to be able to prove quid pro quo for alarm bells
to ring. "Our whole system of rules is built upon the concept that you must prevent conflicts
of interests if you are to resist corruption in its many forms. Conflicts like that can infect us
in ways we don't even see."
Teachout said that the Clintons presented the US political world with a totally new challenge.
"We have never had somebody running for president whose spouse – himself a former president – is
running around the world raising money in these vast sums."
... ... ...
Though
Bill Clinton insisted this week that his charity has done nothing "knowingly inappropriate",
that is unlikely to satisfy the skeptics from left or right. They say that a family
in which one member is vying for the most powerful office on Earth must avoid straying
into even the unintentionally inappropriate.
In the wake of Clinton Cash, the foundation has admitted that it
made mistakes in disclosing some of its contributions. It has also implemented
new rules that will see its financial reporting increase from once annually to four times a year,
while large donations from foreign governments will be limited in future to six countries including
the UK and Germany.
But with Bill refusing doggedly to give up his speaker engagements – "I gotta pay our bills" –
and foreign corporations and super-rich individuals still able to donate to the family charity, it
looks like this controversy may run and run. Politically, too, Hillary Clinton is confronted
with a potential credibility gap between her appeal to ordinary Americans on the presidential campaign
trail and the millions that continue to flow to the foundation.
"Is she going to be in touch with the needs and dreams of poor America when her spouse and daughter
are working with the world's global elite?" said Dave Levinthal of the anti-corruption investigative
organization, the Center for Public Integrity. "That's a question she will have to answer, every
step of the way."
mkenney63 5 May 2015 20:39
It would be nice to know how much Saudi and Chinese money her "Foundation" has taken-in. I can
tell you how much Bernie has taken - $0. Bernie, the only truly progressive in the race, raised
$1.5 million in one day from ordinary working people like you and me who have the smarts to know
who's really in their corner. When I look at Hillary I ask myself, do we really want parasitic
people like this running our country? Is there anything she has ever touched that isn't tainted
by a lust for money?
foggy2 gixxerman006 5 May 2015 20:38
I am in the process of reading the actual book. He does have actual sources for many things
but what is missing is the information controlled by that now cleaned off server and the details
of just who contributed to them, their foundation, and who hired them for those gold plated speeches.
Those names never were made public and now the related tax forms are being "redone." Wonder how
long that will take.
The author was able to get pertinent data from the Canadian tax base information and that is
important because some of the heavier hitters are Canadians who needed help in the US and other
places to make piles of money on their investments. And many statements made by people are documented
as are some cables sent TO the state department.
AlfredHerring raffine 5 May 2015 20:33
It's funny that free-market Tea Party Republicans criticize the Clintons
There's a broad populist streak in the Tea Party. They may be social conservatives and opposed
to government telling them they MUST buy health insurance from a private company (that's where
it started) but on many issues they're part of the Teddy Roosevelt trust busting and Franklin
Roosevelt New Deal traditions.
Clinton was betrayer of his class on a very large, but poorly understood level. He really was a
neoliberal president.
January 11, 2014
"In the same way, those who possess wealth and power in poor nations must accept their own responsibilities.
They must lead the fight for those basic reforms which alone can preserve the fabric of their
societies. Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
Of the many low points of the Clinton presidency, one was its questionable money dealings. Remember
how Hillary managed to turn $1000 into $100,000 via successful commodities trading? 70% of
retail commodities traders lose money. Boy, for a newbie trader, the First Lady was clearly a
natural!
A former contact of mine, low profile but with a serious reputation among professional traders,
was asked to review Hillary's trading records by some Congressmen (they apparently asked two other
market professionals). Of course, it was clearly bogus, impossible even for an expert. Among other
telltale signs: her trades were almost always executed at the best price of the day.
And there was the cheapening of the Presidency. Remember the monetization of the Lincoln bedroom?
The rush to give big ticket speeches and
ink book deals? (note Hillary's was signed while Clinton was still President). While some recent
Presidents have also used their former role as "leader of the free world" to ring the cash register
(Saint Ronnie reportedly gave a speech in Japan for a cool $2.5 million), they tried to keep it below
the radar. The Clintons, by contrast, have been remarkably brazen about their efforts to cash in.
So it should be no surprise given that the Clinton Global Institute has a roster of big name corporate
patrons that Slick Willy is perfectly happy to carry their water. Of course, he offers some gestures
to the left, as if that will camouflage what he is up to. Today's sightings include:
Delaying the implementation of Dodd Frank. From
The Hill:
Former President Clinton suggested Thursday that the implementation of the Dodd-Frank financial
reform be slowed.
As the one-year anniversary of the financial overhaul draws near, Clinton was generally positive
on the law as a whole, but suggested regulators should parcel out the new rules bit by bit for
the benefit of
businesses.
"One way to clear that up may be to stagger [the regulations] in over a more pronounced time
table," he said on CNBC. "I think there's only so much change that institutions can handle at
one time."
If you haven't been following what happened during the fights over financial reform, one of the
ways Dodd Frank was already hampered is a great number of its supposed changes were not hammered
out, but instead were delayed by requiring studies or being fobbed off on more detailed rulemaking
(beyond the degree that is typical). That gave the industry the opportunity to water it down further.
And at this juncture, delay could be a monstrous boon for the banks, since if Obama loses in 2012,
even more bank friendly regulators will be put in place.
It's not as if Dodd Frank related rules are being put in place at such a quick pace that the banks
can legitimately claim it is causing them headaches (as in it's that they don't want to be asked
to do anything different at all, there is no evidence that the pace of change is compounding their
work. Bitching and moaning is not tantamount to evidence). But this feeds the spurious notion that
the convenience of management should take precedent over the public good.
Supporting a tax repatriation holiday. Trust me, no one who is knowledgeable and not in
the pocket of banks favors this idea; see Jared Bernstein (hat tip Marcy Wheeler) for details as
to why (for starters, it will cost $80 billion in tax revenues and since big multinationals don't
invest in America, will be used for really productive activities like stock buyback or dividends).
But you'd never know that if you listened to Clinton via
Bloomberg:
Former U.S. President Bill Clinton endorsed a tax holiday on repatriating offshore profits
with conditions, taking a position contrary to the Obama administration.
"I favor it under certain circumstances," Clinton said in an interview with Bloomberg Television's
Al Hunt yesterday in Chicago. He suggested an approach that would give companies a 20 percent
tax rate on repatriated profits, which could be reduced to 10 percent if they "reinvest it in
increasing employment in America."
Oh, please. How exactly will we determine that they "increased employment" over what they would
have done regardless? And how pray tell would a program like this be monitored? Plus, as Bernstein
notes, all you do is incentivize companies to play this game all over again, since they can expect
another holiday in the future. And giving them a break for hard-to-be-sure-anything-happened initiatives
is a less good idea that higher tax receipts and programs that provide employment more directly (like
investments in areas that are national priorities).
But this is just another example of the fish rotting from the head, or in this case a former head.
And the really sad thing is that this sort of thing has become so routine that hardly anyone sits
up and takes notice.
Bill Clinton conveniently forgets the
hundreds of millions of campaign contributions that he and Hillary so famously raised from Wall Street
for the Democrats. They taught their party, always a bit chaotic but left dispirited after the Kennedy
assassinations, that 'greed is good.,' and it certainly pays well. You can put up $1000 and obtain
a return of $100,000 in a futures market of which you know nothing, and do nothing, if you know the
right people.
The price of their perfidy was the overturning of Glass-Steagall and the planting of the seeds
of the bubbles and financial crises that the US is still experiencing today.
There is no doubt that George W. Bush hatched the egg, and nurtured it into a ferocious buzzard
of fraud and greed. But Bill Clinton laid the egg. And Obama continues to feed the beast, and maintains
the very same advisors that Clinton blames in the Rubin proteges Larry Summers and Tim Geithner.
Americans embrace the "CEO defense." Hey, everyone makes mistakes. All you have to do is say,
"Oops, I made a mistake" and all is forgiven, from Greenspan to Clinton.
When you make a big enough mistake, or a series of mistakes, and profit by it, and your actions
have the stench of corruption, you should be sacked, disgraced, and shunned for a decent period of
time.
The elite media is in a panic. I had the opportunity to watch "The Chris Matthews Show" and the
comparisons of Tim McVeigh, Ruby Ridge, and Waco to the Tea Party Movement went way over the top,
suggesting the possibility of imminent crisis. I can almost see the over-reaction and paranoia coming
over the horizon.
There is a tremendous temptation for the old media, and even the bloggers, to go along to get
along, to deal only with the 'safe subjects' and reforms, and to play the party line for the
status quo. It provides the admittance to the powers, and the venues where they pose for the
press. It brings connections and praise from those in power. All you have to do is say thing, or
deal with this legitimate problem but in the way we suggest. And ignore these other things.
It does happen. It is not always obvious, but it is there. And if you say 'no' you are attacked
or shunned. And being your own person, not taking 'sides' in distorting the facts in one direction
or the other, puts one is in the 'grays' always caught between black and white. It sounds noble,
but it is a lonely watch.
I am absolutely no follower or even admirer of Sarah Palin. I think she is a shameless opportunist
playing to the crowd, saying whatever will deliver money and power. She is the Bill Clinton of the
right, or even worse, a Huey Long. And the Tea Party crowd is badly in need of adult supervision.
And Fox News is too often blatant propaganda, and pandering to and inflaming extremism for commercial
gain. I often suspect that they are part of the Hegelian dialectic, the means of defusing legitimate
reform into ineffective noise.
Bear in mind I was a conservative before 'conservatism' was cool, going back to the Goldwater
movement and the traditional and principal conservatism embodied by Edmund Burke and James Burnham.
These Fox conservatives for the most part are the worst of breed. But such is the quality of discourse
and action in the States as it declines.
But having said all that, the grievances are legitimate, the Congress is corrupted by the current
campaign contribution laws, the US financial system is rife with fraud, the economy is dysfunctional
as a price discovery and capital allocation system, and the inequality of power and wealth is a significant
obstacle to progress and domestic tranquility.
Obama is leaving a leadership vacuum by his indolent style of leading by indirection, trying to
build a consensus to do the right thing, teaching the Congress to fish. I have great sympathy for
the challenge he faces. The problem is that the Congress cannot even find the stream for hitting
one another with their poles. There are serious and fundamental flaws in the political and economic
structure in the US that become more acute and systemically threatening with each false recovery.
How all this resolves is difficult to see. A new financial crisis will almost certainly bring
things to a head, but it remains to be seen how America will react to the realization that they have
been badly used, and are expected to suffer, in some cases greatly, for it. But before America the
jackals appear to be descending on Europe. And Europe, and especially the UK, may provide us with
some insight into the future of the world's greatest but declining superpower.
Bloomberg
Clinton Says He Had Bad Advice on Derivatives By Joshua Zumbrun
April 18 (Bloomberg) -- Former President Bill Clinton said he should have pushed for regulation
of financial derivatives when he was president, rejecting the advice of top economic advisers Robert
Rubin and Larry Summers.
The argument was that derivatives didn't need transparency because they were "expensive and
sophisticated and only a handful of people would buy them," Clinton said on ABC's "This Week"
program. "The flaw in this argument was that first of all, sometimes people with a lot of money make
stupid decisions and make it without transparency."
"Even if less than 1 percent of the total investment community is involved in derivative exchanges,
so much money was involved that if they went bad, they could affect 100 percent of the investments,"
Clinton said. The show was taped yesterday for broadcast today.
Tighter regulation of derivatives trading is part of a package of financial reforms being pushed
by the Obama administration against Republican opposition. The Senate is debating a bill introduced
by Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd that would also give the federal government the authority
to unravel institutions whose failure threatens the financial system.
Bush Blamed
Clinton also said the Bush administration contributed to the financial crisis with lax regulation.
"I think what happened was the SEC and the whole regulatory apparatus after I left office
was just let go," Clinton said. If Clinton's head of the Securities and Exchange Commission, Arthur
Levitt, had remained in that job, "an enormous percentage of what we've been through in the last
eight years would not have happened," Clinton said.
Levitt is a director of Bloomberg LP, parent of Bloomberg News.
Clinton also said that Republicans who controlled Congress would have stopped him from trying
to regulate derivatives. "I wish I had been caught trying," Clinton said. "I mean, that was a mistake
I made."
"Do you think he is so unskillful in his craft, as to ask you openly and plainly to join him in
his warfare against the Truth?
No; he offers you baits to tempt you. He promises you civil liberty;
he promises you equality; he promises you trade and wealth; he promises you a remission of taxes;
he promises you reform. He promises you illumination, he offers you knowledge, science, philosophy,
enlargement of mind.
He scoffs at times gone by; he scoffs at every institution which reveres them. He prompts you
what to say, and then listens to you, and praises you, and encourages you. He bids you mount aloft.
He shows you how to become as gods.
Then he laughs and jokes with you, and gets intimate with you; he takes your hand, and gets
his fingers between yours, and grasps them, and then you are his."
A trio of regulatory changes and missteps on the former president's watch let the banks run wild
and encouraged the housing bubble. But he had help, of course. By
David Weidner, MarketWatch
On Wall Street and Main Street they call
William Jefferson Clinton the "Comeback Kid," but it's not because of some Election Day surprise.
It's because almost everything he did regarding financial-services regulation has come back to
haunt us.
If it wasn't apparent before, the former president's handiwork became clear when President
Barack Obama
announced his plans for sweeping financial-services reforms. Obama's efforts to bring fair dealing
to the mortgage markets, rules to the derivatives marketplace and restraint to big financial
companies underscore the missteps of Clinton's second term.
We had weakly regulated markets when Clinton took office, but by the time he left, they were an
invitation to lawless dealing. For the ease of it,
Willie Sutton
would have traded his gun and mask for a briefcase and necktie.
Clinton created a fertile environment for home-lending charlatans
and hiding places for Wall Street swindlers, and upset a regulatory structure that had served the
financial marketplace so well for more than six decades.
Clinton bashing -- like Bush bashing -- is often a cop-out, but Clinton
made critical mistakes when it came to dealing with the financial industry. Three poor decisions
stand out.
The first, in 1997, was a change to the amount of taxes a homeowner had to pay on the sale of
his or her home, up to $500,000. That change effectively made buying and selling a home for profit
the most compelling investment in America by tax standards. It shifted our housing market from one
of supply and demand to one of rampant speculation.
The second mistake was one of inaction. In 1998, Long-Term Capital Management's use of derivatives
and leverage required a massive $3.6 billion hedge fund bailout organized by the New York Federal
Reserve Bank. After the fiasco rocked the markets, the administration was on the spot. Would it push
for tighter regulation of this new form of investment vehicle? Would it rein in the derivatives markets?
Alan Greenspan
and Arthur Levitt,
then the chairmen of the Federal Reserve and the Securities and Exchange Commission, respectively,
and Clinton's Treasury secretary,
Robert Rubin,
all counseled against it to varying degrees. No action was taken.
Repeal of Glass-Steagall
But perhaps the biggest mistake of the Clinton years regarding Wall Street and the one that rings
loudest today was the 1999 repeal of the
Glass-Steagall
Act of 1933, which effectively had split investment banking and brokerages from commercial banks.
In the years leading up to the repeal, Wall Street had been grumbling that the law had become
an anachronism. Financial technology was sophisticated. We were so much smarter than they were back
in 1929 that there was no way a financial-services conglomerate could pose a threat to the system,
Wall Street experts said. Besides, they argued, it was a good idea for banks to handle customers'
investments and savings as a hedge in the bad times.
The Clinton administration effectively had its hand forced by the merger of Citicorp and Travelers
Group in 1998. The creation of Citigroup (C,
news,
msgs)
required a lot of chutzpah by its CEO,
Sandy Weill, because
it was effectively prohibited under Glass-Steagall.
Enter the
Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act of 1999, which not only allowed Citigroup to exist but also eliminated key barriers between
bankers, who were supposed to limit risks, and investment bankers, who were supposed to take them.
The biggest argument critics have against bringing back Glass-Steagall is that it would be too
chaotic. Whole companies would have to be cleaved. Relationships would have to be unwound.
Well, back in 1933, the law effectively split J.P. Morgan, the bank, from what would become Morgan
Stanley, the brokerage. Both seem to have come through the disruption fairly well.
Aides who abetted
Clinton didn't do it all alone. He had a lot of help from Congress. He was under pressure from a
legislature controlled by laissez-faire Republicans who were hellbent on pushing
Ronald
Reagan's ideology of deregulation and free markets. The repeal of Glass-Steagall passed 90-8
in the Senate and 362-57 in the House.
Greenspan, the virtually universally loved Fed chairman, gave everyone bad advice in regard to
interest rates, home ownership and derivatives. Under Levitt at the SEC, Wall Street accounting reached
its nadir, only to reveal itself with the
WorldCom and
Enron scandals after
he left office.
Then, Clinton's Republican successor closed the deal. President
George
W. Bush took the ball into the end zone, making buying a home easier than spelling "FNMA" or
"FICO" and removing the last vestiges of capital requirements at U.S. brokerage firms.
Ultimately, however, the big bang -- the wall torn down between brokers
and banks -- happened on Clinton's watch. It's largely the problem that's being tackled
in the current administration's 85-page white paper on reform. After all, Citigroup's banking side
probably would not have loaded its balance sheet with toxic loans had it not been under pressure
from the arm making all of the stuff.
Citi also wouldn't be the size it is today, a monster the government deems "too big to fail" that
has required more than $300 billion in cash and guarantees to stabilize.
Citigroup's drag on the nation probably isn't what Clinton envisioned, but that's the problem
with modernizing markets and making our financial system cutting-edge: Too often we get cut.
The Mellowing of William Jefferson Clinton by PETER BAKER
May 31, 2009
When the subject came up during our conversation in Chappaqua, Clinton calmly dissected the case
against him and acknowledged that in at least some particulars his critics have a point. In almost
clinical form, as if back at Oxford as a Rhodes scholar, he broke down the case against him into
three allegations: first, that he used the Community Reinvestment Act to force small banks into making
loans to low-income depositors who were too risky. Second, that he signed the deregulatory Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act in 1999, repealing part of the Depression-era
Glass-Steagall Act that prohibited commercial banks from engaging in the investment business.
And third, that he failed to regulate the complex financial instruments known as derivatives.
The first complaint Clinton rejects as "just a totally off-the-wall crazy argument" made by the
"right wing," noting that community banks have not had major problems. The second he gives some credence
to, although he blames Bush for, in his view, neutering the Securities and Exchange Commission. "Letting
banks take investment positions I don't think had much to do with this meltdown," he said. "And the
more diversified institutions in general were better able to handle what happened. And again, if
I had known that the S.E.C. would have taken a rain check, would I have done it? Probably not. But
I wouldn't have done anything. In other words, I would have tried to reverse everything if I had
known we were going to have eight years where we would not have an S.E.C. for most of the time."
Clinton argued that the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act set up a framework for overseeing the industry.
"So I don't think that's such a good criticism," he said. "I think, actually, if you want to make
a criticism on that, it would be an indirect one - you could say that the signing of that legislation
sped up what was happening anyway and maybe led some of these institutions to be bigger than they
otherwise would have been and the very bigness of some of these groups caused some of this problem
because the bigger something is and the newer it is, the harder it is to manage. And I do think there
were some serious management problems which might not have occurred."
Then there are the derivatives. There, Clinton pleads guilty.
Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve chairman, opposed regulation of derivatives as they came
to the fore in the 1990s, and Clinton agreed. "They argued that nobody's going to buy these derivatives,
we'll do it without transparency, they'll get the information they need," he recalled. "And it turned
out to be just wrong; it just wasn't true." He said others share blame, including credit-rating agencies
that underestimated the risk. But he accepts responsibility as well. "I very much wish now that I
had demanded that we put derivatives under the jurisdiction of the Securities and Exchange Commission
and that transparency rules had been observed and that we had done that. That I think is a legitimate
criticism of what we didn't do." He added: "If you ask me to write the indictment, I'd say: 'I wish
Bill Clinton had said more about derivatives. The Republicans probably would have stopped him from
doing it, but at least he should have sounded the alarm bell.' "
For all that, Clinton insisted he never would have let the housing bubble grow into the problem
it became (never mind the high-technology bubble that burst on his watch) and would have stepped
in if he were president to prevent the free fall. "When anybody asks me that," he told me, "I ask
them, I look at them and ask them: 'Do you think this would have happened if we had been there? Look
me in the face and say yes.' I haven't found any takers yet."
Clinton got sucked into the black hole of the prevailing economic ideology of the time.
Summers, Rubin, Greenspan, Gramm all of them.
Prodded of course by the titans at the time namely Sandy Weill.
Permabear:
As a Democrat and a big Clinton fan over the years, I cannot deny that Clinton made huge blunders
signing the repeal of Glass Steagall and legisltation the following year, both penned by Phil
Gramm by the way, that deregulated the derivatives market. At the time very few people raised
eyebrows about either of these pieces of legislation. In fact I believe the derivatives legislation,
Commodities Futures Modernization Act, was the last piece of legislation Clinton signed as President
and was hidden in some larger legislation, and signed at at time that no one was really paying
any attention to it.
Clinton overall was a pragmatist and he presided over a very prosperous economic period.
Nevertheless he bought into the conservative, free market, deregulation is good, mantra of
the time, which was shared by almost all Republicans, Alan Greenspan and a large portion of Democrats,
including Summers, Rubin and Geithner.
Rather than blame Clinton for going along with the program, I personally blame the philosophy
itself. I consider it to be part of the Reaganomics mindset which basically ruled the country
from 1980 until the Great Recession of 2008. It is Reaganomics much more than Clinton the
man who should be what history puts most of the blame on for the massive mess we see today.
For the mess didn't begin with the signing of these foolish pieces of legislation. The debt, derivatives,
and deregulation (3Ds as I call it) all began with Ronald Reagan and ended with the hyperinflationary
depression that we are only beginning to experience today.
http://www.jonasclark.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/usdebt_serendipitythumb.jpg
Well as some say, Clinton was the most successful Republican President since Eisenhower.
Steve Barry:
Permabear is 100% correct…debt started rising in 1980…clearly a new paradigm was in effect. It
was already out of control by 1987, when Reagan made the colossal, unimaginably disastrous blunder
of installing the maestro. Total credit proceeded to go on a drunken orgy, continuing to this
day to heights we cannot recover from in our lifetimes. The pain of it unwinding has yet to be
felt. What we have had so far is just credit growth slowing. The deflationary debt crash should
start soon, with plant closings and massive defaults.
It was the maestro…so blind that he could
not recognize the greatest credit bubble the world may ever know…that could have maybe stopped
it from happening.
I hate to get into "Godwin's Law" territory, but I think when the history of this period is written
by those who are looking back rather than by those of us who lived through it, it will be seen
in much the same way as the rise of the Nazis in Germany, or the Salem Witch Trials, or the John
Law's Mississippi Company scheme in France, or any number of other highly destabilizing events,
in which ultimately no one person can be blamed.
As was the case in every single one of those situations, blame will be apportioned to many
parties acting on behalf of many different interests, but the overall conclusion will be that
at a critical point in history, everybody went crazy all at once. Virtually all major interests
simultaneously decided that it was OK to deny and throw away rules and traditions that had worked
so well, despite the fact that any logical analysis showed this change to be irrational if not
completely insane.
In this case, we have met the enemy and he is us, along with all those who have claimed
to represent us at any point in the past 20-25 years.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
FILE PHOTOS. © Reuters / Kyle Grillot ; Reuters / Carlo Allegri 428 18 Follow RT on
U.S. Attorney General William Barr delivers remarks in Washington, U.S., October 3, 2019.
© REUTERS/Tom Brenner 50 Follow RT on 
FBI documents
detail Clinton and Mueller's own 'Russiagate' – but they're classified
Good point, Pucker. All the pro-Podesta apologists can't explain away the
code language. Especially, disturbing are remarks (I think by owner James
Alefantis) about 4 sick pizzas left over from the last session on sale for
$1000. Be sure and dispose of them properly."
I have pages of Word docs and have listened to too many facts,
Most intellectuals hate Conspiracies for two reasons: one good and one
bad. On the good side, there is just too much lunacy and crackpottery
once conjecture and Freud's "primary process" (fantasy) get going. On
the bad side, they hate not having full information or at least a
partial store of consensus information from which to analyze. But Life
is Conspiracy – and sometimes we have to go with what we have. In this
regards, detectives are superior to intellectuals: they do it all the
time. Ditto scientists. It's the inductive process. Once you get
enough you form a hypothesis. Then you test it. That's all we're
asking for in regards to this case. And I think we both agree: what
they would find would bring down the System.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence
The utilization of "Conspiracy theorist" came about after the
common man on the street started waking up to the fact that he was
being screwed by those in power and lied to consistently. Did you
know that during World War II, President Roosevelt, was onboard the
battleship USS Iowa in route to North Africa when it was
"accidently torpedoed" (the fish detonated in the ship's wake and
did not actually impact the ship) by the US destroyer, the William
D. Porter? Well it's the first I am hearing of it so I guess that
these people are pretty good at keeping things quiet when they go
wrong, especially REALLY wrong
RE: Joint FBI-US Attorney Probe Of Clinton Foundation
This morning I saw an article saying that the DOJ has rebuffed the FBI request to investigate the Clinton Foundation. Quick search turns up a lot of articles – here's one from the Washington Times:
"The Obama administration rejected requests from three FBI field offices that wanted to open public corruption probes of the Clinton Foundation, according to a report that added to headaches for Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.
Alerted by banks to suspicious transactions, the FBI wanted to investigate conflicts of interest involving foreign donors to the foundation while Mrs. Clinton was secretary of state. But the Justice Department put the kibosh on the it, CNN reported."
So now I'm confused – aren't US Attorneys part of the DOJ? Can anyone shed some light on this?
My twitter is saying Bharara could claim jurisdiction and the probe is an end run around DOJ. It is all based on one anonymous source for now, grain of salt and so forth.