" ....The oligarchs have been destroyed in the early 00s: Gusinsky (the media oligarch),
Berezovsky (the political broker oligarch), Khodorkovsky (the oil oligarch). These people
were real oligarchs, i.e. they were using their wealth to control political processes
through black media propaganda, having their own MPs/Ministers/Governors, etc..." @85
I'm inclined to agree. And this is why there is so much anger against Putin, in
particular, in the 'west': the Russian oligarchs wield enormous power through the media
which is at the service of anyone with money. Bill Browder being a prime example.
The oligarchs were the tools that the City of London and Wall St employed to plunder
Russia's socialised wealth and resources.
The hate campaign against Putin, who is in many ways a very conservative economist pursuing
the sort of neo-liberal policies that capitalist financiers approve of, is inexplicable
unless we understand that the end game is a return to the looting that took place under the
Empire's anointed, Boris Yeltsin.
I don't understand the people here who write that VVPutin is in thrall to the Zionists,
the Oligarchs, or that he's lining his own pocket etc etc. IMHO his strategy has always been
clear and direct, since the beginning. He values first of all stability - time for Russia to
rebuild herself. Secondly, he performs a clever balancing act between the competing centres
of power in Russia.
His mistake, however, when he became president, was to believe quite sincerely that the
West - and particularly Washington (the important one) - shared a desire for peaceful
partnership with Russia. Doubts emerged in 2011 - he realised that he was being played - and
the doubts became certainties in 2014, since when some fairly radical reorganisations has
been taking place. Russia is - again, IMHO - now ready to take its real place in the
international order.
I take great pleasure in reading and listening to his - and Sergei Lavrov's - words, at
the same time regretting the low standard of our own representatives.
Many thanks to b and all of you who continue always to inform me and sometimes enchant
me.
"... 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.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.~Thomas Jefferson~
When a government is dependent upon bankers for money, they and not the leaders of the government control the situation, since
the hand that gives is above the hand that takes Money has no motherland; financiers are without patriotism and without decency;
their sole object is gain." Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor of France, 1815
"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."
Is corruption a social thing? When we discuss the ontology of various aspects of the
social world, we are often thinking of such things as institutions, organizations, social
networks, value systems, and the like. These examples pick out features of the world that are
relatively stable and functional. Where does an imperfection or dysfunction of social life like
corruption fit into our social ontology?
We might say that "corruption" is a descriptive category that is aimed at capturing a
particular range of behavior, like stealing, gossiping, or asceticism. This makes corruption a
kind of individual behavior, or even a characteristic of some individuals. "Mayor X is
corrupt."
This initial effort does not seem satisfactory, however. The idea of corruption is tied to
institutions, roles, and rules in a very direct way, and therefore we cannot really present the
concept accurately without articulating these institutional features of the concept of
corruption. Corruption might be paraphrased in these terms:
Individual X plays a role Y in institution Z; role Y prescribes honest and impersonal
performance of duties; individual X accepts private benefits to take actions that are
contrary to the prescriptions of Y. In virtue of these facts X behaves corruptly.
Corruption, then, involves actions taken by officials that deviate from the rules
governing their role, in order to receive private benefits from the subjects of those actions.
Absent the rules and role, corruption cannot exist. So corruption is a feature that presupposes
certain social facts about institutions. (Perhaps there is a link to Searle's social ontology
here;
link .)
We might consider that corruption is analogous to friction in physical systems. Friction is
a factor that affects the performance of virtually all mechanical systems, but that is a
second-order factor within classical mechanics. And it is possible to give mechanical
explanations of the ubiquity of friction, in terms of the geometry of adjoining physical
surfaces, the strength of inter-molecular attractions, and the like. Analogously, we can offer
theories of the frequency with which corruption occurs in organizations, public and private, in
terms of the interests and decision-making frameworks of variously situated actors (e.g. real
estate developers, land value assessors, tax assessors, zoning authorities ). Developers have a
business interest in favorable rulings from assessors and zoning authorities; some officials
have an interest in accepting gifts and favors to increase personal income and wealth; each
makes an estimate of the likelihood of detection and punishment; and a certain rate of corrupt
exchanges is the result.
This line of thought once again makes corruption a feature of the actors and their
calculations. But it is important to note that organizations themselves have features that make
corrupt exchanges either more likely or less likely (
link , link
). Some organizations are corruption-resistant in ways in which others are corruption-neutral
or corruption-enhancing. These features include internal accounting and auditing procedures;
whistle-blowing practices; executive and supervisor vigilance; and other organizational
features. Further, governments and systems of law can make arrangements that discourage
corruption; the incidence of corruption is influenced by public policy. For example, legal
requirements on transparency in financial practices by firms, investment in investigatory
resources in oversight agencies, and weighty penalties to companies found guilty of corrupt
practices can affect the incidence of corruption. (Robert Klitgaard's treatment of corruption
is relevant here; he provides careful analysis of some of the institutional and governmental
measures that can be taken that discourage corrupt practices;
link ,
link . And there are cross-country indices of corruption (e.g.
Transparency International ) that demonstrate the causal effectiveness of anti-corruption
measures at the state level. Finland, Norway, and Switzerland rank well on the Transparency
International index.)
So -- is corruption a thing? Does corruption need to be included in a social ontology? Does
a realist ontology of government and business organization have a place for corruption? Yes,
yes, and yes. Corruption is a real property of individual actors' behavior, observable in
social life. It is a consequence of strategic rationality by various actors. Corruption is a
social practice with its own supporting or inhibiting culture. Some organizations effectively
espouse a core set of values of honesty and correct performance that make corruption less
frequent. And corruption is a feature of the design of an organization or bureau, analogous to
"mean-time-between-failure" as a feature of a mechanical design. Organizations can adopt
institutional protections and cultural commitments that minimize corrupt behavior, while other
organizations fail to do so and thereby encourage corrupt behavior. So
"corruption-vulnerability" is a real feature of organizations and corruption has a social
reality.
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.
"... For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years, I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth. ..."
"... For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years, I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth. ..."
Somehow I doubt that this Christmas will win the Bing Crosby star of approval. Rather, we
see the financial markets breaking under the strain of sustained institutionalized fraud, and
the social fabric tearing from persistent systemic political dishonesty. It adds up to a nation
that can't navigate through reality, a nation too dependent on sure things, safe spaces, and
happy outcomes. Every few decades a message comes from the Universe that faking it is not good
enough.
The main message from the financials is that the global debt barge has run aground, and with
it, the global economy. That mighty engine has been chugging along on promises-to-pay and now
the faith that sustained those promises is dissolving. China, Euroland, and the USA can't
possibly meet their tangled obligations, and are running out of tricks for rigging, gaming, and
jacking the bond markets, where all those promises are vested. It boils down to a whole lot of
people not getting paid, one way or the other -- and it's really bad for business.
Our President has taken full credit for the bubblicious markets, of course, and will be
Hooverized as they gurgle around the drain. Given his chimerical personality, he may try to put
on an FDR mask -- perhaps even sit in a wheelchair -- and try a few grand-scale policy tricks
to escape the vortex. But the net effect will surely be to make matters worse -- for instance,
if he can hector the Federal Reserve to buy every bond that isn't nailed to some deadly
derivative booby-trap. But then he'll only succeed in crashing the dollar. Remember, there are
two main ways you can go broke: You can run out of money; or you can have plenty of worthless
money.
On the social and political scene, I sense that some things have run their course. Is a
critical mass of supposedly educated people not fatigued and nauseated by the regime of "social
justice" good-think, and the massive mendacity it stands for , starting with the idea that
"diversity and inclusion" require the shut-down of free speech. The obvious hypocrisies and
violations of reason emanating from the campuses -- a lot, but not all of it, in response to
the Golden Golem of Greatness -- have made enough smart people stupid to endanger the country's
political future. A lot of these formerly-non-stupid people work in the news media. It's not
too late for some institutions like The New York Times and CNN to change out their editors and
producers, and go back to reporting the reality-du-jour instead of functioning as agit-prop
mills for every unsound idea ginned through the Yale humanities departments.
Shoehorned into the festivity of the season is the lame-duck session in congress, and one of
the main events it portends is the end of Robert Mueller's Russia investigation. The
Sphinx-like Mueller has maintained supernatural silence about his tendings and intentions. But
if he'd uncovered anything substantial in the way of "collusion" between Mr. Trump and Russia,
the public would know by now, since it would represent a signal threat to national security. So
it's hard not to conclude that he has nothing except a few Mickey Mouse "process" convictions
for lying to the FBI. On the other hand, it's quite impossible to imagine him ignoring the
well-documented evidence trail of Hillary Clinton colluding with Russians to influence the 2016
contest against Mr. Trump -- and to defame him after he won. There's also the Hieronymus Bosch
panorama of criminal mischief around the racketeering scheme known as the Clinton Foundation to
consider. Do these venal characters get a pass on all that?
Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) has announced plans to call Federal Attorney John Huber (Utah
District) to testify about his assignment to look into these Clinton matters. It's a little
hard to see how that might produce any enlightenment, since prosecutors are bound by law to not
blab about currently open cases. The committee has also subpoenaed former Attorney General
Loretta Lynch, former FBI Director James Comey, and others who have some serious 'splainin' to
do. But if both Huber and Mueller come up empty-handed on the Clintons it will be one of the
epic marvels of official bad faith in US history.
There is a core truth to the 2016 Russia collusion story, and the Clintons are at the heart
of it. Failure to even look will have very dark consequences for the public interest.
It ought to be obvious to just about everyone who is paying attention and not a
Corporate-Whore Democrat that the "The Russians Did It" delusion and the accompanying Mueller
"investigation" is only a distraction to draw attention away from the obvious and numerous
crimeS of H. Clinton, including running an electronic drop-box for U.S. state secrets using a
server in her basement, charity fraud, pay-to-play bribe-taking, the uranium to Russia case,
etc. And, that's not counting the inexcusable Unprovoked War of Aggression WAR CRIME against
Libya. (Of course, she had an excuse: "Destroy a country in order to save a few
"protesters".
Mueller is the Deep State (Corporations [especially Military Industrial Complex
Death-Merchants, who direct the politicians and foreign policy actions (continual
War-For-Humongous-Profits that has taken and takes multiple trillions of dollars away from
potential domestic programs & Wall Street bankster-fraudsters who bankrupted the country
with the lead-up to and aftermath of the 2008-2009 financial fiasco and who sent U.S.
industrial production jobs to other countries] and Oligarchs who reap the profits of such
crimes and their results) operative who apparently was brought in the head the FBI to fail to
prevent and to coverup the real actors and actions that occurred in association with the
downing of buildings at the New York City World Trade center on 9/11.
Sorry, nobodies going to jail and all will be swept under the rug. We will have war to
cover their tracks along with all the other frauds. The political buddy buddy system at the
upper levels is set up to protect the guilty, and nobody has to pay the price lest the whole
thing crumble. It's built that way.
Our only way out is a crash and a reset, with no guarantee what happens on the other
side.
I used to be optimistic, but the level of lies, double speak and university factories
pumping out marxist leftists portends a bleak future. How anyone thinks we can reason our way
out of this situation is fooling themselves about human nature.
Nice to see Kunstler focusing on some serious issues like the Uranium One scandal for a
change. He seems to be on the concluding end of a cold-turkey or other rehab from some
long-term unholy influence. As a result, he has been producing increasingly readable articles
for the past several months. Congratulations are due him but with the warning that recovery
is always one day at a time.
" Remember, there are two main ways you can go broke: You can run out of money; or you can
have plenty of worthless money". Both pretty much sums up America's predicament. Americans
are deep in debt, and their money is worthless.
Mueller isn't going to touch the Clintons - they have way too much criminal dirt on him.
And Huber is an unknown lightweight with no Malicious Seditious Media support.
Sooooo . . . there is only one thing to do once the new Congress takes its oath: Trump
gets DOJ Acting AG to appoint the long-awaited Special Prosecutor.
There are more than enough recognized felonies to go after - unlike the Mueller fishing
expedition. That will put the Democrat investigation on ice - mainly because lots of Demo
chairs and members will be part of the investigation.
Any serious investigation of the Clinton Foundation would reveal that "Russian Collusion"
has everything to do with distraction from the crimes of the Clinton family. The fact that
Bill and Hillary have escaped accountability for their heinous crimes is one of the greatest
miscarriages of justice in US history. It is truly quite frightening.
There is a reason why the DOJ, Congress (both parties), MSM, the MIC, the Deep State don't
want ANYONE to look into corruption ... because they are ALL ******* guilty as sin and buried
neck deep in ****. Its long past time for the whole ******* thing to come down. We're all
fucked.
Weiner laptop For The Win. Give us that hard drive, Mr. President! We'll have it all
analyzed in one weekend.
Meanwhile, Seth Rich awaits Mueller's OH SO DILIGENT investigation.
Can you believe that the 'core' of Mueller's 'case' ends up being about WIKILEAKS?
What the serious ****.
If he's done zero serious looks at Seth Rich all Mueller's work will just be thrown out
of court anyway.
Ham sandwich my fat turkey-enriched ***.
For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of
Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years,
I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth.
This guy is dreaming if he thinks anything is going to happen to the clintons, the MSM/DOJ
is protected those 2 scumbags with the line that if they are investigated trump is going
after his political opponents, just like a banana republic. But truthfully nothing reaks more
of banana repubicism more then letting the high and mighty of on crimes.
If they weren't all on the same side, that of the international bankster cabal, Trump
would order his justice department to prosecute those people you mentioned.
The purpose of the Russia investigation is to fool you into thinking there are two sides,
and to demonized Russia to create public opinion in favor of attacking Russia because it is
not on board with the jwo totalitarian world government. WTFU.
For decades, it has been rumored that the Clintons have FBI files on most members of
Congress and use these files for blackmail purposes. Given the events of the past few years,
I actually believe this rumor to be grounded in truth.
Mueller long ago gave up the fruitless hunt for Russian collusion involving President
Trump and is now desperately seeking overdue library books or unpaid parking tickets on
anyone remotely connected to President Trump to justify his mooching taxpayer dollars.
House Republicans will hear testimony on December 5 from the prosecutor appointed by
Attorney General Jeff Sessions to investigate allegations of wrongdoing by the Clinton
Foundation, according to Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC).
Meadows - chairman of the House Oversight Subcommittee on Government Operations, told The
Hill that it's time to "circle back" to former Utah Attorney General John Huber's probe with
the Justice Department into whether the Clinton Foundation engaged in improper activities,
reports
The Hill .
"Mr. [John] Huber with the Department of Justice and the FBI has been having an
investigation – at least part of his task was to look at the Clinton Foundation and what
may or may not have happened as it relates to improper activity with that charitable foundation
, so we've set a hearing date for December the 5th.," Meadows told Hill.TV on Wednesday.
Meadows says the questions will include whether any tax-exempt proceeds were used for
personal gain and whether the Foundation adhered to IRS laws.
Sessions appointed Huber last year to work in tandem with the Justice Department to look
into conservative claims of misconduct at the FBI and review several issues surrounding the
Clintons. This includes Hillary Clinton 's ties to a Russian nuclear
agency and concerns about the Clinton Foundation.
Huber's
work has remained shrouded in mystery . The White House has released little information
about Huber's assignment other than Session's address to Congress saying his appointed should
address concerns raised by Republicans. -
The Hill
According to a report by the
Dallas Observer last November, the Clinton Foundation has been under investigation by the
IRS since July, 2016.
Meadows says that it's time for Huber to update Congress concerning his findings, and
"expects him to be one of the witnesses at the hearing," per The Hill . Additionally Meadows
said that his committee is trying to secure testimonies from whistleblowers who can provide
more information about potential wrongdoing surrounding the Clinton Foundation .
" We're just now starting to work with a couple of whistleblowers that would indicate that
there is a great probability, of significant improper activity that's happening in and around
the Clinton Foundation ," he added.
The Clinton Foundation - also under
FBI investigation out of the Arkansas field office, has denied any wrongdoing.
Launched in January, the Arkansas FBI probe, is focused on pay-for-play schemes and tax code
violations , according to The Hill at the time, citing law enforcement officials and a witness
who wishes to remain anonymous.
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. -
The Hill
The witness who was interviewed by Little Rock FBI agents said that questions focused on
"government decisions and discussions of donations to Clinton entities during the time Hillary
Clinton led President Obama's State Department," and that the agents were "extremely
professional and unquestionably thorough."
The content of the email is irrelevant to me. It's the appearance of the same disregard
for rules that the rest of the swamp displays . Of course she wasn't sending special
access info, setting up her own server or trying to bypass FOIA.
It's unprofessional and unnecessary. Nothing good can come from it.
RE: Is Ivanka really that stupid? (Posted: Yesterday, 02:59 PM) (This post was last
modified: Yesterday, 03:02 PM by Dr Evil .)
(Yesterday, 01:47 PM)Яudis Wrote: I got this feeling She Is BAITING
the Dems!
And I bet the Content of these Emails is Exceeding Low Security!
I Mean its NOT like She Bought a BlackBerry CellPhone/Email Server and 26 Blackberry
Phones!
For her self and all her aids, So Send Top Security Government SECRETS!
To AVOID Using Gov Devices and Servers! Then Used BleachBit to SCRUB THe DRIVES!
Then Started SMASHING Laptops and Phones With Sledge Hammers!
I don't SEE Ivanka Murdering over 30 People to Cover a Career In CRIME and
Corruption!
She is definitely baiting them. This is the statement from her spokesman:
Quote: Later today Ivanka's spokesman, Peter Mirijanian, released a
blistering statement to the liberal anti-Trump press.
"Like most people, before entering into government service, Ms. Trump used a private
email. When she entered the government, she was given a government email account for
official use. While transitioning into government, until the White House provided her
the same guidance they had to others who started before she did, Ms. Trump sometimes
used her private account, almost always for logistics and scheduling concerning her
family.
To address misinformation being peddled about Ms. Trump's personal email, she did
not create a private server in her house or office, there was never classified
information transmitted, the account was never transferred or housed at Trump
Organization, no emails were ever deleted, and the emails have been retained in the
official account in conformity with records preservation laws and rules.
When concerns were raised in the press 14 months ago, Ms. Trump reviewed and
verified her email use with White House Counsel and explained the issue to
congressional leaders. "
Note how that statement carefully mentions all the major crimes Killary committed in
relation to her server. That's not an accident.
They're going to let the idiot media go on and on and on about this. Then sometime
within the recent memory of the sheeple one of the Senate committees will release all the
material on Killary's server and the sheeple will believe it since it comes from govt
sources and they will wait expectantly for their beloved MSM to cover it as extensively
as they covered Ivanka and they will witness nothing of the sort and millions of them
will finally realise they've been being played like idiots by the media and because
people hate that they will become very angry and that anger will drive them to review in
their minds everything the media's been telling them since Trump was elected and when
it's all over the Great Awakening will have a few million more converts. You need about
10% of the people to get on board with something before it becomes an avalanche because
that's approximately the threshold where enough people in the office know the same things
you do that you feel safe voicing your opinions at the water cooler without fear of
ridicule.
That seems to be the plan and it'd be very interesting to know who leaked this to whom
in the media because clearly this was a leak because otherwise why haven't the media
previously covered it? Nothing is more vigorously defended than a vested interest
disguised as an intellectual conviction.
"... "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.
Hell is empty and all the devils are here. ~William Shakespeare
Notable quotes:
"... Scum versus scum. That sums up this election season. Is it any wonder that 100 million Americans don't bother to vote? When all you are offered is Bob One or Bob Two, why bother? ..."
"... One-fourth of Democratic challengers in competitive House districts in this week's elections have backgrounds in the CIA, the military, the National Security Council or the State Department. Nearly all candidates on the ballots in House races are corporate-sponsored, with a few lonely exceptions such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, members of the Democratic Socialists of America who are running as Democrats. ..."
"... "In interviews with two dozen Wall Street executives, fund-raisers, donors and those who raise money from them, Democrats described an extraordinary level of investment and excitement from the finance sector ," The New York Times reported about current campaign contributions to the Democrats from the corporate oligarchs. ..."
There is perhaps no better illustration of the deep decay of the American political system than the Senate race in New Jersey.
Sen. Bob Menendez, running for re-election, was censured by the Senate Ethics Committee for accepting bribes from the Florida businessman
Salomon Melgen, who was convicted in 2017 of defrauding Medicare of $73 million. The senator had flown to the Dominican Republic
with Melgen on the physician's private jet and stayed in his private villa, where the men cavorted with young Dominican women who
allegedly were prostitutes. Menendez performed numerous political favors for Melgen, including helping some of the Dominican women
acquire visas to the United States. Menendez was indicted in a federal corruption trial but escaped sentencing because of a hung
jury.
Menendez has a voting record as sordid as most Democrats'. He supported the $716 billion military spending bill, along with 85
percent of his fellow Senate Democrats. He signed
a letter , along with other Democratic leaders, calling for steps to extradite
Julian Assange to
stand trial in the United States. The senator, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, is owned by the lobby for Israel
-- a country that routinely and massively interferes in our elections -- and supported moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. He helped
cause the 2008 global financial crisis by voting to revoke
Glass-Steagall
, the Depression-era law enacted to create a firewall between commercial and investment banks.
His Republican rival in the Senate race that will be decided Tuesday is
Bob Hugin , whose reported net worth is at least $84 million. With Hugin as its CEO, the pharmaceutical firm Celgene made $200
million by conspiring to keep generic cancer drugs off the market, according to its critics. Celgene, a model of everything that
is wrong with our for-profit health care system, paid $280 million to settle a lawsuit filed by a whistleblower who accused the firm
of improperly marketing two drugs to treat several forms of cancer without getting Federal Drug Administration approval, thereby
defrauding Medicare. Celgene, over seven years, also doubled the price of
the cancer drug Revlimid to some $20,000
for a supply of 28 pills.
The Senate campaign in New Jersey has seen no discussion of substantive issues. It is dominated by both candidates' nonstop personal
attacks and negative ads, part of the typical burlesque of American politics.
Scum versus scum. That sums up this election season. Is it any wonder that 100 million Americans don't bother to vote? When all
you are offered is Bob One or Bob Two, why bother?
One-fourth of Democratic challengers in competitive
House districts in this week's elections have backgrounds in the CIA, the military, the National Security Council or the State Department.
Nearly all candidates on the ballots in House races are corporate-sponsored, with a few lonely exceptions such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
and Rashida Tlaib, members of the Democratic Socialists of America who are running as Democrats.
The securities and finance industry
has backed Democratic congressional candidates 63 percent to 37 percent over Republicans, according to data collected by the
Center for Responsive Politics . Democratic candidates and political action committees have received $56.8 million, compared
with Republicans' $33.4 million, the center reported. The broader sector of finance, insurance and real estate, it found, has given
$174 million to Democratic candidates, against $157 million to Republicans. And
Michael Bloomberg
, weighing his own presidential run, has pledged $100 million to elect a Democratic Congress.
"In interviews with two dozen Wall Street executives, fund-raisers, donors and those who raise money from them, Democrats described
an extraordinary level of investment and excitement from the finance sector ," The New York Times reported about current campaign
contributions to the Democrats from the corporate oligarchs.
Our system of legalized bribery is an equal-opportunity employer.
Of course, we are all supposed to vote Democratic to halt the tide of Trump fascism. But should the Democrats take control of
the House of Representatives, hate speech and violence as a tool for intimidation and control will increase, with much of it directed,
as we saw with the pipe bombs intended to decapitate the Democratic Party leadership, toward prominent Democratic politicians and
critics of Donald Trump. Should the white man's party of the president retain control of the House and the Senate, violence will
still be the favored instrument of political control as the last of democratic protections are stripped from us. Either way we are
in for it.
Trump is a clownish and embarrassing tool of the kleptocrats. His faux populism is a sham. Only the rich like his tax cuts, his
refusal to raise the minimum wage and his effort to destroy Obamacare. All he has left is hate. And he will use it. Which is not
to say that, if only to throw up some obstacle to Trump, you shouldn't vote for the Democratic scum, tools of the war industry and
the pharmaceutical and insurance industry, Wall Street and the fossil fuel industry, as opposed to the Republican scum. But Democratic
control of the House will do very little to halt our descent into corporate tyranny, especially with another economic crisis brewing
on Wall Street. The rot inside the American political system is deep and terminal.
The Democrats, who refuse to address the social inequality they helped orchestrate and that has given rise to Trump, are the party
of racial and ethnic inclusivity, identity politics, Wall Street and the military. Their core battle cry is: We are not Trump!
This is ultimately a losing formula. It was adopted by Hillary Clinton, who is apparently weighing another run for the presidency
after we thought we had thrust a stake through her political heart. It is the agenda of the well-heeled East Coast and West Coast
elites who want to instill corporate fascism with a friendly face.
"... 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.
We say Browder, but we mean MI6. He was a part of larger plan concocted by US intelligence agencies to decimate Russia after the dissolution of the USSR.
Of which Harvard mafia played even more important role. The fact that he gave up his U.S. citizenship in
1997 points to his association with MI6.
The level of distortions the US neoliberal MSM operated with in case of Magnitsky (starting with the widely repeated and
factually incorrect claim that he was a lawyers, in create a sympathy; their effort to portrait shady accountant involved in tax
fraud for Browder, as a fighter for justice should be described in a separate chapter on any modem book on the power of propaganda;
this is simply classic ) is compatible with lies and distortions of Skripal affair and point of strong interest ion
intelligence services in both.
Browder and Magnistsky affair really demonstrate that as for foreign events we already live "Matrix environment" of
artificial reality created by MSM and controlled by intelligence agencies and foreign policy establishment; and that ordinary people are forced into artificial
reality with little or no chance to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... Prevezon's American legal team alleged that Browder's story was full of holes -- and that the U.S. and other governments had relied on Browder's version without checking it. ..."
"... The chief American investigator, Todd Hyman of the Department of Homeland Security, testified in a deposition that much of the evidence in the government's complaint came from Browder and his associates. He also said the government had been unable to independently investigate some of Browder's claims. ..."
"... In court documents, Prevezon's lawyers alleged that Magnitsky was jailed not because he was a truth-seeker -- but because he was helping Browder's companies in tax evasion. ..."
"... The Prevezon attorneys charged that Browder "lied," and "manipulated" evidence to cover up his own tax fraud. ..."
"... The story was "contrived and skillfully sold by William F. Browder to politicians here and abroad to thwart his arrest for a tax fraud conviction in Russia," says a 2015 federal court filing by one of Prevezon's lawyers, Mark Cymrot of BakerHostetler. ..."
"... A Russian-born filmmaker named Andrei Nekrasov made a similar set of arguments in a docudrama released last year. Neither Prevezon nor the Russian government had a role in funding or making the film, both parties say, though Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin helped promote it. ..."
As Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya tells it, she met with Donald Trump Jr. and other Trump aides in New York
last summer to press her case against a widely accepted account of Russian malfeasance, one that underpins a set of sanctions against
Russians.
Trump Jr., who agreed to the June 2016 meeting
at the request of a Russian business associate with a promise of dirt on Hillary Clinton , has said he didn't find much to interest
him in the presentation. And little wonder: The subject is a dense and tangled web, hinging on a complex case that led Congress to
pass what is known as the Magnitsky Act. The law imposed sanctions on individual Russians accused of human rights violations. It
has nothing to do with Clinton.
But the substance of what the pair of Russian advocates say they came to discuss has a fascinating backstory.
It's an epic international dispute -- one that has pitted the grandson of a former American Communist who made a fortune as a
capitalist in Russia against a Russian leader who pines for the glory days of his country's Communist past.
That dossier,
published by Buzzfeed , made other, more salacious allegations about Trump, and FBI Director James Comey briefed the Republican
about it before he took office. The dossier is not favorable to Putin and the Russian government.
Simpson's role on both sides of the Putin divide is set to be explored in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Wednesday examining
the Justice Department's requirements for foreign lobbying disclosures.
Due to testify at the hearing is Simpson's longtime opponent in the Magnitsky dispute, William Browder, an American-born hedge-fund
investor who made millions investing in post-Soviet Russia and gave up his U.S. citizenship in 1997.
Simpson's lawyer said he would defy a subpoena to appear Wednesday because he was on vacation, and that he would decline to answer
questions anyway, citing his right against self-incrimination.
Browder, whose grandfather Earl led the American Communist Party, accuses Simpson of peddling falsehoods as an agent of the Russian
government. The law firm Simpson worked with on the case accused Browder in court papers of perpetrating a web of lies. Both men
dispute the allegations.
The Death of Sergei Magnitsky
The story begins with the November 2009 death of Sergei Magnitsky, a Russian tax accountant who was working for Browder, and
who later died in prison .
Browder's account of Magnitsky's death triggered international outrage. According to Browder, Magnitsky was a lawyer who had been investigating a theft of $230 million in tax rebates paid to Browder's
companies in Russia. Browder says his companies had been taken over illegally and without his knowledge by corrupt Russian officials.
Browder says Magnitsky was arrested as a reprisal by those same corrupt officials, and then was tortured and beaten to death.
Browder presented documents suggesting that some officials who benefited from the alleged fraud purchased property abroad.
That account led Congress to pass the so-called Magnitsky Act in 2012, imposing sanctions on the Russian officials who were alleged
to have violated Magnitsky's human rights.
The Russian government soon imposed a ban on American adoptions of Russian children, ostensibly for other reasons but done in
response, many experts say, to the Magnitsky sanctions.
Forty-four Russians are currently on the Magnitsky sanctions list maintained by the U.S. Treasury Department, meaning their U.S.
assets are frozen and they are not allowed to travel to the U.S.
Once a Putin supporter, Browder became one of the Russian leader's most ardent foes, spearheading a campaign to draw international
attention to the Magnitsky case. He and his employees at Hermitage Capital Management presented information to governments, international
bodies and major news organizations.
Browder's advocacy marks a shift from 2004, when, as one of Russia's leading foreign investors, he praised Putin so vigorously
that he was labeled Putin's
"chief cheerleader" by an analyst in a Washington Post article. Browder has said that Magnitsky's death spurred him to reexamine
his view of Putin.
The State Department, lawmakers of both parties and the Western news media have described the Magnitsky case in a way that tracks
closely with Browder's account. Browder's assertions are consistent with the West's understanding of the Putin government -- an authoritarian
regime that has been widely and credibly accused of murdering journalists and political opponents.
In 2013, the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office sued a Russian company, accusing it of laundering some of the proceeds of the fraud
Magnitsky allegedly uncovered. The complaint incorporated Browder's account about what happened to Magnitsky.
That lawsuit set in motion a process through which that version of events would come under challenge.
The defendant, a company called Prevezon, is owned by Denis Katsyv, who became wealthy while his father was vice governor and
transport minister for the Moscow region, according to published reports. The father, Pyotr Katsyv, is now vice president of the
state-run Russian Railways. Veselnitskaya has long represented the family.
Prevezon hired a law firm, BakerHostetler, and a team that included a longtime New York prosecutor, John Moscow. Also working
on Prevezon's behalf were Simpson, Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin.
Simpson, a former investigative reporter for the Wall Street Journal, declined to comment.
Simpson also worked with former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele in the creation of the dossier that asserts Trump
collusion with Russian election interference. A source close to him said his work on the dossier was kept confidential from his other
clients.
The federal civil lawsuit by the Manhattan U.S. attorney against Prevezon was the first opportunity for the U.S. government to
publicly present whatever evidence it had to support its legal assertions regarding Magnitsky. It was also an opportunity for the
defendants to conduct their own investigation.
Prevezon's American legal team alleged that Browder's story was full of holes -- and that the U.S. and other governments had
relied on Browder's version without checking it. Browder and the U.S. government disagreed.
The chief American investigator, Todd Hyman of the Department of Homeland Security, testified in a deposition that much of
the evidence in the government's complaint came from Browder and his associates. He also said the government had been unable to independently
investigate some of Browder's claims.
In court documents, Prevezon's lawyers alleged that Magnitsky was jailed not because he was a truth-seeker -- but because
he was helping Browder's companies in tax evasion.
The Prevezon attorneys charged that Browder "lied," and "manipulated" evidence to cover up his own tax fraud.
The story was "contrived and skillfully sold by William F. Browder to politicians here and abroad to thwart his arrest for
a tax fraud conviction in Russia," says a 2015 federal court filing by one of Prevezon's lawyers, Mark Cymrot of BakerHostetler.
A Russian-born filmmaker named Andrei Nekrasov made a similar set of arguments in a docudrama released last year. Neither
Prevezon nor the Russian government had a role in funding or making the film, both parties say, though Veselnitskaya and Akhmetshin
helped promote it.
If one had to identify the main reason behind the utter failure of the U.S. political
establishment and military leadership, both civilian and in uniform, to identify and prioritize
weapons programs and procurement that was truly in line with the national defense needs of the
country, it would be the institutional corruption of the U.S. military industrial complex. This
is not a fault of one party, but is the inevitable outcome of a thoroughly corrupted system
that both generates and wastes great wealth at the expense of the many for the benefit of the
few.
Massive defense budgets do not lead to powerful military forces nor sound national defense
strategy. The United States is the most glaring example of how a nation's treasure can be
wasted, its citizens robbed for generations, and its political processes undermined by an
industry bent on maximizing profitability by encouraging and exacerbating conflict. At this
point it is questionable that the United States' could remain economically viable without war,
so much of its GDP is connected in some way to the pursuit of conflict.
There is no doubt that the War Department was renamed the Department of Defense in an
Orwellian sleight of hand in 1947, just a few years after end of World War II. The military
industrial complex grew into a monolith during the war, and the only way to justify the
expansion of the complex, was by finding a new enemy to justify the new reality of a massive
standing military, something that the U.S. Constitution expressly forbids. This unlawful state
of affairs has persisted and expanded into a rotten, bloated edifice of waste. Wasted effort,
wasted wealth and the wasted lives of millions of people spanning every corner of the planet.
Tens of thousands of brave men and women in uniform, and millions of civilians of so many
nations, have been tossed into the blades of this immoral meat grinder for generations.
President Donald Trump was very proud to announce the largest U.S. military budget in the
nation's history last year. The United States spent (or more accurately, borrowed from
generations yet to come) no less than $874.4 billion USD. The declared base budget for 2017 was
$523.2 billion USD, yet there are also the Overseas Contingency Operations and Support budgets
that have to be considered in determining the total cost. The total DOD annual costs have
doubled from 2003 to the present. Yet, what has the DOD really accomplished with so much money
and effort? Very little of benefit to the U.S. tax payer for sure, and paradoxically the
exorbitant waste of the past fifteen years have left every branch of the U.S. military
weaker.
The U.S. Congress has the duty and responsibility of reigning in the military adventurism of
the executive branch. They have the sole authority to declare war, but more importantly, the
sole authority to approve the budget requests of the military. It is laughable to think that
the U.S. Congress will do anything to reign in military spending. The Congress and the Senate
are as equally guilty as the Executive in promoting and benefitting from the military
industrial complex. Envisioned as a bulwark against executive power, the U.S. Congress has
become an integral component of that complex. No Senator or Representative would dare to go
against the industry that employs so many constituents within their state, or pass up on the
benefits afforded them through the legalized insider-trading exclusive to them, or the
lucrative jobs that await them in the defense industry and the many think tanks that promote
continued prosecution of war.
"... 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.
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?
"... Friday morning, in response to Murphy offering praise to Menendez, Hugin released a statement saying, "If Bob Menendez were a Republican, and had been indicted for bribery and found to have violated federal law by the bipartisan Senate Ethics Committee, would Governor Murphy be singing the same tune? Of course not." ..."
"... Adele Malpass is a national political reporter for RealClearPolitics. She was formerly chairwoman of the Manhattan Republican Party and money politics reporter for CNBC. ..."
The New Jersey Senate race was supposed to be a done deal with incumbent Bob Menendez easily cruising to
re-election. It's rated solid or likely to remain Democratic by most election watchers, and the Democrats were
certainly putting it in their win column as they mapped out plans to retake the Senate.
But someone forgot to tell New Jersey voters that this race was uncompetitive.
The polls
show it to be tight -- Menendez simply has not shaken Republican challenger Bob Hugin in a state Hillary Clinton
carried by 14 points over Donald Trump two years ago.
Part of the reason seems to be that despite his acquittal in court on federal corruption charges, Menendez has not
escaped the taint that came with his 2015 trial. Another is that Hugin, the wealthy former CEO of a biopharmaceutical
company, had already spent nearly $16 million in the race. Throw into this mix a state with the worst affordability
index in the country and an expected increase in the gasoline tax on Oct. 1 -- on top of significant increases in
state taxes enacted this spring. It seems a combustible mix in which an attractive and well-funded outsider with a
sterling resume can give the political establishment heartburn.
Meanwhile, Menendez has a lot of baggage to defend. In 2015, he was indicted on federal corruption charges pursued
by his fellow Democrats -- the first U.S. senator to be indicted by the administration of his own party in 30 years.
He was accused of doing favors for Florida eye doctor Salomon Melgen, who is now serving 17 years in prison for
Medicare fraud. Prosecutors presented evidence of 19 free private plane trips and campaign donations, which they
asserted came in exchange for political favors. According to prosecutors, one such trip to the Dominican Republic
supposedly involved underage prostitutes. Menendez strongly denied those allegations, but in the #MeToo era, any
lingering suspicion is unhelpful for a politician. And though he was not found guilty by the jury, Menendez was
rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee.
While he may have survived his legal battles, New Jersey voters have apparently not forgotten. In a June primary,
an unknown Democratic opponent who raised less than $5,000 got 38 percent of the vote against Menendez. That
challenger, Lisa McCormick, didn't have enough money to run ads reminding the electorate of Menendez's legal
troubles. But Bob Hugin did. Hugin's campaign began running hard-hitting television spots against the incumbent in
February. Menendez was pounded by ads titled "Guilty," "Screwed" and "Dead Last." By July, Menendez was leading Hugin
by two percentage points, and in an August poll he was up by only six.
The damage had been done. In an August Quinnipiac poll, only 29 percent of the voters had a favorable opinion of
Menendez and 49 percent of the voters believed he was involved with serious wrongdoing, compared to 16 percent who
did not. While Menendez only spent $800,000 through June, he's now playing catch-up and recently started both
positive and negative television ads.
The economic climate in New Jersey is not necessarily conducive to incumbents. Since 2015, the Tax Foundation has
rated New Jersey as having the worst tax climate for business and the highest property taxes in the country. For some
homeowners in the state, it's possible to pay 15 percent of their income toward property taxes. This spring,
Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy raised corporate and personal income taxes amid the already high tax environment. "The
affordability crisis in our state continues to get worse," said Hugin. "We're losing millennials at the highest rate
in the nation and Trenton politicians just made things worse by raising taxes another $1.6 billion."
Friday morning, in response to Murphy offering praise to Menendez, Hugin released a statement saying, "If Bob
Menendez were a Republican, and had been indicted for bribery and found to have violated federal law by the
bipartisan Senate Ethics Committee, would Governor Murphy be singing the same tune? Of course not."
Though Hugin allowed that the governor is "by all accounts a good man," he added that "[h]is loyalty to his
party over his principles when it comes to Senator Menendez is embarrassing. Sadly, it's a testament to how toxic and
divided our politics are today."
As the polls have started to look positive for the challenger, he's been able to capitalize on this environment by
getting endorsements from four local Democratic officials. In 2015, the New Jersey Star-Ledger, the largest paper in
the state, called for Menendez to resign amid the corruption charges, even though the paper had endorsed him in the
past. "Menendez is hurting other down-ballot candidates, especially in competitive congressional races," said Hugin's
spokesman, Nick Iacovella.
With Donald Trump's approval rating in the mid-30s in New Jersey, Menendez has made criticizing the president his
top priority and accuses Hugin of being a Trump Republican. In a state where Democrats out-register Republicans,
Menendez is hoping that an anti-Trump sentiment and a large Democratic turnout will still lead him to victory. Hugin,
however, is hardly a Trump clone. A Princeton grad who earned a master's degree in business at the University of
Virginia, he has supported the president's tax cuts and most economic policies. But he's also described himself as
pro-choice on abortion, favors a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants, and has opposed the administration's
policy of separating families at the border.
In a session with the media in late spring, Hugin complained that the administration's plans to cut Hurricane
Sandy relief were "ridiculous."
"I think my philosophy is very clear: New Jersey first,"
he said that day
. "I support President Trump in every way when he does something that's good for New Jersey. And
I'll fight anybody who's not doing good things for New Jersey."
Adele Malpass is a national political reporter for RealClearPolitics. She was formerly chairwoman of the
Manhattan Republican Party and money politics reporter for CNBC.
Well, as long as you support the #METOO-ish school of legal doctrine, i.e. whereupon a
simple charging is sufficient to establish culpability, you will surely enjoy the following
article, on The Nation, The Harvard Boys Do Russia, May, 1998, which you can search for and
fact-check with your own tools of choice.
Perhaps consider the idea that within Russia in the 1990s that was systematically sold off
to US interests, facilitated by Russian government officials, the Russian social immune
system kicked in and gave rise to Vladimir Putin to protect his homeland's interests.
Consider further that Trump is dealing with a horde of malignant backstabbing little bitches
that are doing their best to rape their own homeland. Maybe the US social immune system is
working better than you think, despite attempts to deflect blame towards Trump and Putin, and
actual, indictable charges against Clintonian operatives cannot be suppressed much
longer.
During a hearing last
week, Judge William Walls seemed to signal that argument was dead on arrival by citing a recent Supreme Court ruling
that has vexed public-corruption investigators across the country. "I frankly don't think
McDonnell
will allow
that," Walls told prosecutors, referring to the decision in
McDonnell v. United States
that fundamentally
changed the standard for bribery.
Walls eventually decided to let the case proceed, declining to throw out most of Menendez's charges. But the close
call underscores the continuing fallout from
McDonnell
last year. That ruling, like a series of others from the
Court in recent years, recast actions once eschewed in politics as reasonable behavior for elected officials. The
justices have portrayed these rulings as necessary on First Amendment grounds. But the long-term effects could imperil
the public's faith in democratic institutions.
"There's a way in which
a lot of the Supreme Court decisions have been ever narrowing what corruption means," Tara Malloy, a staff lawyer at the
Campaign Legal Center, told me. "And
McDonnell
is one further example of it."
The case narrowed what could be defined as an "official act" under federal corruption statutes -- the quo of a quid pro
quo, so to speak. Since
McDonnell
, it only applies to direct exercises of a government official's power, like
voting for legislation or signing an order. More seemingly mundane activities, like urging other officials to intervene
in someone's favor or setting up meetings for donors, do not qualify.
Before the decision, federal prosecutors brought cases against Democrats and Republicans alike by arguing that
"official act" applied to all sorts of actions taken by public officials. Former Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell, a
Republican, was convicted in 2015 after taking more than $175,000 in luxury gifts, personal loans, and more from Johnnie
Williams, a Virginia businessman who received favors from the governor. On appeal, McDonnell argued his actions were
part of being an elected official and fell beyond what federal bribery laws could prohibit.
The Supreme Court agreed. Chief Justice John Roberts, who wrote the Court's opinion, appeared to anticipate a public
backlash. "There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that," he wrote. "But our concern is
not with tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the
government's boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute." All eight justices sided with McDonnell, with the
ninth seat vacant after Antonin Scalia's death in February.
"The concern of the Court was that the prosecution not define 'official act' -- which is what the statute there
required -- too broadly," Malloy said. "They thought that 'official act,' according to the prosecution, was basically
anything a public official did by reason of their position or through the resources of their position. And the Court
said, 'No, no, no.'"
At the same time, Roberts also took an exceedingly generous view of McDonnell's activities. Where the Justice
Department saw an elected official providing special perks for a lucrative donor, the chief justice saw the risk that
"conscientious public officials" could be hauled in by prosecutorial zealots. "Officials might wonder whether they could
respond to even the most commonplace requests for assistance, and citizens with legitimate concerns might shrink from
participating in democratic discourse," he mused, as if to suggest judges and juries would not be able to tell the
difference.
Randall Eliason, a George Washington University law professor and former federal prosecutor, described
McDonnell
to me as "a lawyerly opinion in the worst sense of the word." By focusing on just one aspect of the statutory definition
of "official act," he said, the Court missed the broader issues with the relationship between McDonnell and an
influential donor who showered him, and his wife, with lavish gifts. He offered a jarring hypothetical that illustrates
how officials could leverage their power in a post-
McDonnell
world:
Currently, I could set up a system where I'm a governor and I tell everybody who might want to meet with someone
in my cabinet to make a pitch, or try to get a contract, or advocate for some program. I could say, "Okay, I'll set
up a meeting for you. The cost is $10,000." And that just goes in my pocket. That's not a campaign contribution; it's
not going to be reported to the public anywhere. That's just going to be a gift for me, and I'll set up the meeting.
I'm not going to tell anybody what to do, I'm not going to tell them what to decide, I'll just get you in the room.
And if you don't pay me, no meeting.
Eliason and other legal observers had thought McDonnell could prevail in his appeal, but the scale of the ruling came
as a surprise. "I mean, access is valuable, right?" Eliason told me. "And you can just pay for access as long as the
official doesn't actually agree to decide something for you, but can get you in the room with the other movers and
shakers who are going to do it. Now that's not considered corruption."
Three months after the ruling, the Justice Department abandoned its efforts to prosecute McDonnell and his wife.
"After carefully considering the Supreme Court's recent decision and the principles of federal prosecution, we have made
the decision not to pursue the case further," it said in a terse press release. McDonnell celebrated the outcome,
telling reporters his "wrongful" conviction was "based on a false narrative and incorrect law."
If it hasn't already,
McDonnell
could affect how prosecutors build corruption cases and limit the range of
behaviors for which they'll pursue charges. Those watching the Menendez case in New Jersey could be even more motivated
to do so. But Malloy also warned that
McDonnell
fits into a broader pattern of how the Roberts Court approaches
corruption in politics, and what it could do in future cases.
"We're not simply talking about these criminal prosecutions. We're talking about the full range of laws that attempt
to protect the integrity of government," she said, citing statutes on ethics, political transparency, and campaign
finance the justices have taken a narrower view of. Malloy attributed the shift to the departure of Sandra Day O'Connor
in 2005.
"Once upon a time, for instance, a campaign-finance law could be justified if there was a concern that money could
provide influence or access to officials," she explained. "The Supreme Court in recent years has said, 'No, no, no, we
don't really care if your campaign contribution gets you access or ingratiation or a whole bunch of favors. We think
corruption is much more like quid pro quo and maybe even just cash for votes.'"
In the 2003 case
McConnell v. FEC
, for example, O'Connor voted with the majority to uphold most of the
McCain-Feingold campaign-finance-reform law. Seven years later, a five-justice majority -- including Samuel Alito,
O'Connor's replacement -- overturned
McConnell
in
Citizens United v. FEC
to allow unlimited independent
expenditures in political campaigns. And in 2014, the Court struck down aggregate limits on campaign donations in
McCutcheon v. FEC
.
Following the justices' decision last year,
McDonnell
's impact quickly reverberated through other
public-corruption cases, including two high-profile prosecutions in New York. In July, a three-judge panel in the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals tossed out the conviction of Sheldon Silver, once the powerful state-assembly speaker. The
judges ruled that the jury instructions had conformed to the pre-
McDonnell
standard of "official acts"
and couldn't be reconciled with the Supreme Court's ruling. Three months later, in September, the Second Circuit
also overturned the conviction of Dean Skelos, the state senate's former majority leader, on similar grounds.
Silver had been convicted of extortion, fraud, and money laundering in 2015. Prosecutors said he
helped funnel
state funds to a Columbia University cancer researcher in exchange for millions of dollars; they also
connected him to favorable-treatment deals for two real-estate development firms. Skelos was found guilty of eight
corruption-related charges the same year for allegedly
using his influence
to secure jobs and payments for his son. Federal prosecutors plan to seek retrials for both
Silver and Skelos, who were known as power brokers in the state.
McDonnell
also
came down as federal prosecutors were preparing to go to trial against Menendez, a senator since 2006. At the crux of
the case is his friendship with Salomon Melgen, a wealthy Florida ophthalmologist and frequent campaign donor.
Prosecutors have depicted Menendez as a
personal legislator of sorts
to Melgen. He allegedly used his political influence to help obtain visas for Melgen's
girlfriends, secure contracts for him in the Dominican Republic, and intervene in a
Medicare billing dispute
with the Department of Health and Human Services.
Menendez has denied any wrongdoing, and his lawyers argue the favors don't rise to the newly heightened standard of
official acts. Federal prosecutors, for their part, argue that the stream of benefits that flowed from Melgen to
Menendez meet the threshold under federal law without linking specific quids to specific quos. Even though Walls
declined to dismiss the charges against the lawmaker, he could still dismiss some of them later in the trial if the
prosecution fails to present enough evidence. And like McDonnell himself, Menendez could also challenge any convictions
under the stream-of-benefits theory on appeal.
Behind these legal doctrines and prosecutorial theories are questions about the popular legitimacy of the republican
system -- about voters being able to trust that the officials they elect aren't the puppets of the country's richest
patrons. What
McDonnell
and other recent public-corruption rulings risk are institutions where cash and favors
flow freely, where consequences are exceptional, and where public vice is made indistinguishable from civic virtue. No
Americans expect a government of saints, but they expect their government to be able to root out the sinners in its
midst.
"... There is less shame in being undone by a "master of deceit." When J. Edgar Hoover coined that description, he had Communists in mind. Back then, though, "Ruskies" and "Commies" – it was all the same. Americans were conditioned to live in fear that the Russians were coming. ..."
"... That nonsense should have ended when Communism more or less officially expired in 1989, followed two years later by the demise of the Soviet Union itself. For a long time, it seemed that it had. At first, the reaction in Western, especially American, political and media circles was triumphalist. The war was over and our side won. Beneath the surface, however, there was mourning in America. ..."
"... With the Cold War, the death merchants, the masters of war, the neocons, and a host of others had had a good thing going. Having been born into it, the political class was comfortable with the status quo too; and generations of Americans had grown up imbibing Russophobia in their mother's milk (or infant formula). ..."
"... Before long, it became clear that our economic and political masters had nothing to worry about, that Cold War anti-Communism was more robust than Communism itself. ..."
"... That suited Bill Clinton and his First Lady, the former Goldwater Girl. Boris Yeltsin, Russia's leader, was their man. He was a godsend, a Trump-like cartoon character and a drunkard to boot – with an economy in tatters, and no rightwing base egging him on. ..."
"... The time was therefore right for a return of the repressed -- for full-blooded, fifties-style, anti-Communist (= anti-Russian) hysteria, or, since that still seemed far-fetched, for anti-Communist (= anti-Chinese) hysteria. ..."
"... Exactly what "Putin," the shorthand name for all that is Russian and nefarious, did, or is still doing, remains unclear. But this does not seem to bother purveyors of the conventional wisdom. Neither is ostensibly informed public opinion fazed by the fact that the evidence supporting the consensus view comes mainly from American intelligence services and from their counterparts in the UK and other allied nations. ..."
"... How ironic therefore that nowadays it is mainly bamboozled Trump supporters in the Fox News demographic -- people who could care less about peace or, for that matter, about truth -- who are wary of the CIA and skeptical of the FBI's claims! ..."
"... They do not even seem to notice that what they allege, vague as it is, is trifling compared to the massive and very open meddling of American plutocrats, Republican vote suppressers and gerrymanderers, and the governments of supposedly friendly nations – like Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies, and Israel ..."
"... Cold War revivalists can therefore rest easy, confident that their propagandists will have at least a few facts with which they can work to restore the perils of their vanished youth. ..."
"... Even so, the level of their hypocrisy is appalling. Russia, along with former Soviet republics and former members of the Warsaw Pact, has been bearing the brunt of far worse American meddling for far longer than anything sanctimonious defenders of so-called American "democracy" can plausibly allege. ..."
"... Hypocrisy reigns here too. It was the Obama administration – run through with neocons, liberal imperialists, and other holdovers from Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State – that did all it could to exacerbate longstanding tensions between that country's Ukrainian and Russian speaking populations, the better to complete NATO's encirclement of the Russian federation. And it was American meddling that led to the empowerment of virulently anti-Russian, fascisant Ukrainian politicians, much to the detriment of Russian speaking Ukrainians in the east. ..."
"... The Cold War that began after World War II involved a clash of rival political economic systems. The Cold War that reignited a few years ago involves a clash of rival imperialist centers. Its world more nearly resembles the one that existed before World War I than the one that emerged after World War II. ..."
"... However, the difference may be more superficial than it seems. The ease with which Cold War revivalists have been able to get the Cold War up and running again, even without Communism, suggests what a few observers have long maintained -- that the Cold War, on Russia's part, had little, if anything, to do with spreading Communism around the world, and everything to do with maintaining a cordon sanitaire around Russia's borders in order to protect against a demonstrably aggressive "free world." ..."
"... That part of Brzezinski's plan was at least a partial success. But inasmuch as Bush's "they" are still there, still spreading murder and mayhem throughout the Greater Middle East, America and the world has been paying a high price for the benefits, such as they were, that ensued. ..."
"... The never-ending wars set in motion by the "pivot" towards radical Islamism decades ago never quite succeeded in producing an enemy as serviceable as the USSR. But now that Putin's Russia has been pressed into service, that problem is potentially "solved." ..."
"... Efforts to recycle Bush's "they hate our freedom" nonsense ought to be non-starters. But this is the best Cold War revivalists have come up with so far. The Russians, they say, simply cannot deal with the fact that we Americans are so damned free. ..."
"... From a geopolitical point of view, Russia does have an interest in doing all it can to ward off Western aggression. It also has an interest in undermining strategic alliances aimed at blocking anything and everything that challenges American supremacy. And, until sanity prevails in Washington and other Western capitals, it arguably also has an interest in aiding and abetting rightwing nationalists in order to exacerbate tensions within Western societies. ..."
"... Clinton is bad, but Trump is worse -- not just by most measures but by all. Her fondness for war and preparations for war was alarming; she was bellicosity personified. But it was plain even before the election that Trump, a mentally unhinged narcissist, would be even more likely than she to bring on massive devastation. A vote for Trump was and still is a vote for catastrophe. ..."
"... For now, though, the hard and very relevant fact is that Trump has done nothing to help, and quite a few things to harm, Russia. ..."
"... It isn't just ordinary Russians who have been made worse off. Trump has been at least as hard on oligarchs close to Putin as Clinton would have been. ..."
"... If those damned Russians were half as smart as they are made out to be, they would have realized long ago that, for getting anything done that bucks the tide, Trump is too inept to be of any use at all; and that anything he sets out to do is likely to turn out badly not just for America and its allies but for Russia too. ..."
There is less shame in being undone by a "master of deceit." When J. Edgar Hoover coined that description, he had Communists in mind. Back then, though,
"Ruskies" and "Commies" – it was all the same. Americans were conditioned to live in fear
that the Russians were coming.
That nonsense should have ended when Communism more or less officially expired in 1989,
followed two years later by the demise of the Soviet Union itself. For a long time, it seemed
that it had. At first, the reaction in Western, especially American, political and media circles was
triumphalist. The war was over and our side won. Beneath the surface, however, there was mourning in America.
With the Cold War, the death merchants, the masters of war, the neocons, and a host of
others had had a good thing going. Having been born into it, the political class was
comfortable with the status quo too; and generations of Americans had grown up imbibing
Russophobia in their mother's milk (or infant formula).
It turned out, though, that American triumphalism was only a phase. Before long, it became
clear that our economic and political masters had nothing to worry about, that Cold War
anti-Communism was more robust than Communism itself.
However, in the final days of Bush 41 and then at the dawn of the Clinton era, nobody knew
that. Nobody gave America's propaganda system the credit it deserved.
Also, nobody quite realized how devastating Russia's regression to capitalism would be, and
nobody quite grasped the savagery of the kleptocrats who had taken charge of what remained of
the Russian state.
For more than a decade, the situation in that late great superpower was too dire to sustain
the old fears and animosities. Capitalism had made Russia wretched again.
That suited Bill Clinton and his First Lady, the former Goldwater Girl. Boris Yeltsin,
Russia's leader, was their man. He was a godsend, a Trump-like cartoon character and a drunkard
to boot – with an economy in tatters, and no rightwing base egging him on.
But anti-Communism (without Communism) and its close cousin, Russophobia, could not remain
in remission forever. The need for them was too great.
In the Age of Obama, the Global War on Terror, with or without that ludicrous Bush 43-era
name, wasn't cutting it anymore. It was, and still is, good for keeping America's perpetual war
regime going and for undoing civil liberties, but there had never been much glory in it, only
endless misery for all. Also it was getting old and increasingly easy to see through.
The time was therefore right for a return of the repressed -- for full-blooded,
fifties-style, anti-Communist (= anti-Russian) hysteria, or, since that still seemed
far-fetched, for anti-Communist (= anti-Chinese) hysteria.
This was not the only factor behind the Obama administration's "pivot towards Asia," its
largely failed attempt to take China down a notch or two, but it was an important part of the
story.
However, by the time Obama and his team decided to pivot, China had become too important to
the United States economically to make a good Cold War enemy. Worse still, it had for too long
been an object of pity and contempt, not fear.
When the Soviet Union was an enemy, China was an enemy too, most glaringly during the Korean
War. It remained an enemy even after the Sino-Soviet split became too obvious to deny. However,
unlike post-1917 Russia, it had never quite become an historical foe.
Moreover, as Russia began to recover from the Yeltsin era, the Russian political class, and
many of the oligarchs behind them, sensing the popular mood, decided that the time was ripe "to
make Russia great again." Putin is not so much a cause as he is a symptom – and symbol
– of this aspiration.
And so, there it was: the longed for new Cold War would be much like the one that seemed
over a quarter century ago.
***
As everyone who has seen, heard or read anything about the 2016 election "knows," Russian
intelligence services (= Putin) meddled. Everyone also "knows" that, with midterm elections
looming, they are at it again.
This, according to the mainstream consensus view, is a bona fide casus belli , a
justification for war. To be sure, what they want is a war that remains cold; ending life on
earth, as we know it, is not on their agenda.
But inasmuch as cold wars can easily turn hot, this hardly mitigates the recklessness of
their machinations. Humankind was extraordinarily lucky last time; there is no guarantee that
all that luck will hold.
Exactly what "Putin," the shorthand name for all that is Russian and nefarious, did, or is
still doing, remains unclear. But this does not seem to bother purveyors of the conventional
wisdom. Neither is ostensibly informed public opinion fazed by the fact that the evidence supporting
the consensus view comes mainly from American intelligence services and from their counterparts
in the UK and other allied nations.
Time was when anyone with any sense understood that these intelligence services, the
American ones especially, are second to none in meddling in the affairs of other nations, and
that the American national security state – essentially our political police -- is
comprised, by design, of liars and deceivers.
How ironic therefore that nowadays it is mainly bamboozled Trump supporters in the Fox News
demographic -- people who could care less about peace or, for that matter, about truth -- who
are wary of the CIA and skeptical of the FBI's claims!
Try as they might, the manufacturers and guardians of conventional wisdom have so far been
unable to concoct a plausible story in which Russian meddling affected the outcome of the 2016
election in any serious way. The idea that the Russians defeated Hillary, not Hillary herself,
is, to borrow a phrase from Jeremy Bentham, "nonsense on stilts." Leading Democrats and their
media flacks don't seem to mind that either.
They do not even seem to notice that what they allege, vague as it is, is trifling compared
to the massive and very open meddling of American plutocrats, Republican vote suppressers and
gerrymanderers, and the governments of supposedly friendly nations – like Saudi Arabia,
the Gulf monarchies, and Israel.
Nevertheless, it probably is true that the Russians meddled. Cold War revivalists can
therefore rest easy, confident that their propagandists will have at least a few facts with
which they can work to restore the perils of their vanished youth.
Even so, the level of their hypocrisy is appalling. Russia, along with former Soviet
republics and former members of the Warsaw Pact, has been bearing the brunt of far worse
American meddling for far longer than anything sanctimonious defenders of so-called American
"democracy" can plausibly allege.
Moreover, it should go without saying that the democracy they purport to care so much about
has almost nothing to do with "the rule of the demos." It doesn't even have much to do with
free and fair competitive elections – unless "free and fair" means that anything goes, so
long as the principals and perpetrators are homegrown or citizens of favored nations.
Self-righteous posturing aside, Putin's real sin in the eyes of the American power elite is
that, in his own small way, he has been defying America's "right" to run the world as it sees
fit.
When Clinton was president, Serbia did that, and lived to regret it. Cuba has been suffering
for nearly six decades for the same reason, and now Venezuela is paying its dues. The empire is
merciless towards nations that rebel.
With Soviet support and then with sheer determination and grit, Cuba has been able to
withstand the onslaught to some extent from Day One. Venezuela may not be so lucky –
especially now that Republicans and Democrats feel threatened by the growing number of
"democratic socialists" in their midst. Already, the propaganda system is targeting Venezuelan
"socialism," blaming it for that country's woes, and warning that if our newly minted,
homegrown socialists prevail, a similar fate will be in store for us.
This is ludicrous, of course – American hostility and the vagaries of the global oil
market deserve the lion's share of the blame. But the on-going propaganda blitz could
nevertheless pave the way for horrors ahead, should Trump decide to start a war America could
actually win.
Inconsequential Russian meddling is a big deal on the "liberal" cable networks, on NPR, and
in the "quality" press. Democrats and a few Republicans love to bleat on about it. But it is
Ukraine that made Russia our "adversary" and its president Public Enemy Number One.
Hypocrisy reigns here too. It was the Obama administration – run through with neocons,
liberal imperialists, and other holdovers from Hillary Clinton's tenure as Secretary of State
– that did all it could to exacerbate longstanding tensions between that country's
Ukrainian and Russian speaking populations, the better to complete NATO's encirclement of the
Russian federation. And it was American meddling that led to the empowerment of virulently
anti-Russian, fascisant Ukrainian politicians, much to the detriment of Russian
speaking Ukrainians in the east.
But never mind: Putin – that is, the Russia government – violated international
law by sending troops briefly into beleaguered Russian-speaking parts of the country. That they
were generally welcomed by the people living there is of no importance.
Worst of all, Russia annexed Crimea – a territory integral to the Russian empire since
the eighteenth century. Since long before the Russian Revolution, Crimea has been home to a
huge naval base vital to Russia's strategic defense.
The story line back in the day was that anything that could be described as Russian
aggression outside the Soviet Union's agreed upon sphere of influence had to do with spreading
Communism. In fact, the Soviets did everything they could to keep Communist and other
insurgencies from upending the status quo. The mainstream narrative was wrong.
Now Communism is gone and nothing has taken its place. Even so, the idea that Russia has
designs on its neighbors for ideological reasons is hard to shake – in part because it is
actively promoted by propagandists who have suddenly and uncharacteristically become defenders
of international law.
Meanwhile, of course, the hypocrisies keep piling on. It is practically a tenet of the
American civil religion that international law applies to others, not to the United States.
This is why, when it suits some perceived purpose, America flaunts its violations
shamelessly.
Thus nothing the Russians did or are ever likely to do comes close to the shenanigans Bill
Clinton displayed – successfully, for the most part – in his efforts to tear Kosovo
away from Serbia. Clinton even went so far as to bomb Belgrade; Putin never bombed Kiev.
The Cold War that began after World War II involved a clash of rival political economic
systems. The Cold War that reignited a few years ago involves a clash of rival imperialist
centers. Its world more nearly resembles the one that existed before World War I than the one
that emerged after World War II.
However, the difference may be more superficial than it seems. The ease with which Cold War
revivalists have been able to get the Cold War up and running again, even without Communism,
suggests what a few observers have long maintained -- that the Cold War, on Russia's part, had
little, if anything, to do with spreading Communism around the world, and everything to do with
maintaining a cordon sanitaire around Russia's borders in order to protect against a
demonstrably aggressive "free world."
George W. Bush claimed that 9/11 happened because "they hate our freedom." "They" would be
radical Islamists of the kind stirred into action in Afghanistan by Zbigniew Brzezinski and his
co-thinkers in the Carter administration. Their objective was to undermine the Soviet Union by
getting it bogged down in a quagmire like the one that did so much harm to the United States in
Vietnam.
That part of Brzezinski's plan was at least a partial success. But inasmuch as Bush's "they"
are still there, still spreading murder and mayhem throughout the Greater Middle East, America
and the world has been paying a high price for the benefits, such as they were, that
ensued.
The never-ending wars set in motion by the "pivot" towards radical Islamism decades ago
never quite succeeded in producing an enemy as serviceable as the USSR. But now that Putin's
Russia has been pressed into service, that problem is potentially "solved."
However, the American public is not as naïve as it used to be, and it is impossible to
say, at this point, how well this new story line will work.
Efforts to recycle Bush's "they hate our freedom" nonsense ought to be non-starters. But
this is the best Cold War revivalists have come up with so far. The Russians, they say, simply
cannot deal with the fact that we Americans are so damned free.
It is hard to believe, but there are people who are actually buying this but, with a lot of
corporate media assistance, there are. No matter how clear it is that they are not worth being
taken seriously, Cold War mythologies just won't die.
However, it is worth pondering why today's Russia would do what it is alleged to have done;
and why, as is also alleged, it is still doing it.
From a geopolitical point of view, Russia does have an interest in doing all it can to ward
off Western aggression. It also has an interest in undermining strategic alliances aimed at
blocking anything and everything that challenges American supremacy. And, until sanity prevails
in Washington and other Western capitals, it arguably also has an interest in aiding and
abetting rightwing nationalists in order to exacerbate tensions within Western societies.
However, in view of prevailing power relations, these are interests it cannot do much to
advance. Acting as if this were not the case only puts Russia in a bad light -- not for
meddling, but for meddling stupidly.
No doubt, for reasons both fair and foul, Putin wanted Hillary to lose the election two
years ago. So, but for one little problem, would anyone whose head is screwed on right. That
problem's name is Donald Trump.
Clinton is bad, but Trump is worse -- not just by most measures but by all. Her fondness for war and preparations for war was alarming; she was bellicosity personified.
But it was plain even before the election that Trump, a mentally unhinged narcissist, would be
even more likely than she to bring on massive devastation. A vote for Trump was and still is a
vote for catastrophe.
Putin's enemy was Trump's enemy, and it is axiomatic that "the enemy of my enemy is my
friend" -- except sometimes it isn't. Sometimes, my enemy's enemy is an enemy far worse.
For reasons that remain obscure, Putin and Trump seem to have a "thing" going on between
them. Some day perhaps we will know what that is all about. For now, though, the hard and very
relevant fact is that Trump has done nothing to help, and quite a few things to harm,
Russia.
It isn't just ordinary Russians who have been made worse off. Trump has been at least as
hard on oligarchs close to Putin as Clinton would have been.
If those damned Russians were half as smart as they are made out to be, they would have
realized long ago that, for getting anything done that bucks the tide, Trump is too inept to be
of any use at all; and that anything he sets out to do is likely to turn out badly not just for
America and its allies but for Russia too.
Therefore, if there really was Russian meddling, as there probably was, Putin should be
ashamed – not so much for the DNC reasons laid out 24/7 on MSNBC and CNN, but for
overestimating Trump's abilities and for underestimating the extent to which what started out
as a maneuver of Hillary Clinton's, concocted to excuse her incompetence, would take a
perilously "viral" turn, becoming a major threat to peace in a political culture that never
quite got beyond the lunacy of the First Cold War.
"... Robinson talks like he has given up on impeachment by what he calls a powerless and spineless Congress. Maybe he's thinking of something quicker and cleaner than a coup, something that could be carried out by a small group of conspirators within an agency trained in removing uncooperative heads of state? ..."
"... Since deep state conspirators routinely smear all those who demand evidence as "Russian agents," maybe non-conspirators should use the same tactic on them, e.g.: Is Robinson on the CIA payroll? Because anyone who agrees with anything the CIA says is obviously working for the CIA, right? ..."
From the WaPo op-ed "God Bless the Deep State," by Eugene Robinson:
Democrats in Congress are powerless; the Republican leadership, spineless. Experienced
government officials know that their job is to serve the president. But what if the president
does not serve the best interests of the nation?
In this emergency [emphasis mine], the loyal and honorable deep state has a higher
duty. It's called patriotism.
Is Robinson really suggesting a military coup? That would take a lot of planning and
organization and would be almost impossible to keep secret. Some honest military officer might
find out and put the kibosh on it, like Kirk Douglas did in Frankenheimers's classic political
thriller, Seven Days in May .
Robinson talks like he has given up on impeachment by what he calls a powerless and
spineless Congress. Maybe he's thinking of something quicker and cleaner than a coup, something
that could be carried out by a small group of conspirators within an agency trained in
removing uncooperative heads of state?
Since deep state conspirators routinely smear all those who demand evidence as "Russian
agents," maybe non-conspirators should use the same tactic on them, e.g.: Is Robinson on
the CIA payroll? Because anyone who agrees with anything the CIA says is obviously working for
the CIA, right?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
I'm still looking for an English copy of Journalists for Hire by Udo
Ufkotte.
There is only one article that is translated into English: "The world upside down"
2006, http://www.ulfkotte.de/18.html
Journalists for Hire is available in German only. (I was able to buy a copy last year.)
"... OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD - Operation Mockingbird was (IS) a secret campaign by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to influence media. Begun in the 1950s, it was initially organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles, and was later led by Frank Wisner after Dulles became the head of the CIA. The organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help present the CIA's views, and funded some student and cultural organizations, and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns, in addition to activities by other operating units of the CIA. In addition to earlier exposιs of CIA activities in foreign affairs, in 1966 Ramparts magazine published an article revealing that the National Student Association was funded by the CIA. The United States Congress investigated, and published its report in 1976. Other accounts were also published. The media operation was first called Mockingbird in Deborah Davis's 1979 book, Katharine the Great: Katharine Graham and her Washington Post Empire. ..."
"... the secret societies, the banks, the oil families and other super rich powerful groups of people all call the shots in secret, doesn't matter who the "elected" president is, they are going to do what they want to do, unless, people know the truth... ..."
"... It wouldn't surprise me if this also applied on Swedish media. For decades our journalism was very neutral showing two sides of the story, but nowdays, last 7-8 years, things have changed. Swedish media has to a high degree become incredible one-sided in the writing of world politics... I started to notice the change some 7-8 years ago. Of course I find expectations like the municipal Television station SVT that still seems two-sided, but most written press in Sweden have become rotten, very rotten. ..."
"... The US's MIC has to find other ways to make money. This MIC could spend money on developing outer space programs, go the depths of the oceans, and study the fauna and flora on the earth. This nonsense of creating and making enemies on earth has to stop. The world is too small for this NONSENSE. ..."
"... Who has built the first concentration camp? It was the British Empire during the war against the Boers. The British put women, children and old people in these camps to make the Boers surrender. ..."
German journalist and editor Udo Ulfkotte says he was forced to publish the works of intelligence agents under his own name, adding
that noncompliance ran the risk of being fired. Ulfkotte made the revelations during interviews with RT and Russia Insider.
OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD - Operation Mockingbird was (IS) a secret campaign by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
to influence media. Begun in the 1950s, it was initially organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles, and was later led by Frank
Wisner after Dulles became the head of the CIA. The organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help
present the CIA's views, and funded some student and cultural organizations, and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also
worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns, in addition to activities by other operating units of the CIA. In addition
to earlier exposιs of CIA activities in foreign affairs, in 1966 Ramparts magazine published an article revealing that the National
Student Association was funded by the CIA. The United States Congress investigated, and published its report in 1976. Other accounts
were also published. The media operation was first called Mockingbird in Deborah Davis's 1979 book, Katharine the Great: Katharine
Graham and her Washington Post Empire.
the secret societies, the banks, the oil families and other super rich powerful groups of people all call the shots in secret,
doesn't matter who the "elected" president is, they are going to do what they want to do, unless, people know the truth...
Being of German decent my sympathies are with the people of Germany. Not to say that the Russian people haven't had a bad deal, of
course they have under the Bolshevik Jews who nearly destroyed Russia for the sake of Zionist ideology.
The people of Germany
deserve better than this. They need to overthrow American control of their government and their media and replace it with pro
German people who will serve the interests of Germany, not that of the vicious prostitute Washington and their pimps. Not that
of the corrupt child molesting swine in Belgium who control the E.U.
They need to do something about it now and decisively take
back control of their own country. Germany must stop being a puppet controlled by the worst criminal element in the world....
the CIA. Freedom for Germany!
The EU pawns are ruled by the US lords! and The EU has Imposed the sanctions on Russia and thanks to that destroys the European
economies because it is good for the US economy!
The US has weaken the EU companies so the Americans have weak competitors in
Europe and on the agreement between the European Union and the United States the American companies and economy will gain but
European companies and farms will lost and many Europeans will lost their jobs for the sake of US welfare!
The US manufacturers
will earning and developing but the Europeans will go bankrupt and lost their jobs!
It wouldn't surprise me if this also applied on Swedish media. For decades our journalism was very neutral showing two sides
of the story, but nowdays, last 7-8 years, things have changed. Swedish media has to a high degree become incredible one-sided
in the writing of world politics... I started to notice the change some 7-8 years ago. Of course I find expectations like the
municipal
Television station SVT that still seems two-sided, but most written press in Sweden have become rotten, very rotten.
Good for you, coming clean about Germany's role in all this. Germany pretending to be innocent since WW2 but they're just as
involved as any of the other usual suspects. And when I say Germany, I don't mean ordinary citizens but the intelligence media
and political establishment.
I wouldn't mind if America was controlling the world if they had any moral integrity. The country was born through the genocide
of the natives and the re population of the country with slaves. Covertly funding and supporting dictators tyrants and terrorists
since the end of the second world war as part of their foreign policy. Training illiterate Afghan farmers in terrorist tactics
to fight the Russians in a proxy war encouraging Jihad to get more Muslims to fight the Russians creating what we call today modern
radical extremism. Funny how it became immoral when American blood was shed. Funny how all of Saddam's transgressions were ignored
while he was at war with Iran and how stopping the war with Iran suddenly made these actions unacceptable to America(how did Saddam
gain power again?).
The really astounding thing to me is how the American public seem to have this idea of being the bastion of freedom and democracy.
But then Again everyone in my country seems to be similarly ignorant about our own foreign policy and atrocities committed in
the name of Empire.
We killed more than Hitler did and were a lot worse. Just most of our victims were brown or black so don't seem to matter.
You are only really evil if you commit Genocide against white European Jews. Non whites don't seem to matter.
Brave man. Corporate news is what we get in the western world. I did not know Europe did not have a free press also. Russia
has government news, which is more free than our military industrial complex and corporate news. The big military industries want
wars and endless wars. Our government is a puppet on their strings. I would rather have a government in control rather than a
government under the control of military industries which creates endless wars to feed this military corporate monster.
This is
a small planet. We are all inter connected. This nonsense of creating and making enemies on this little planet has to stop. We
have to learn to get all along.
The US's MIC has to find other ways to make money. This MIC could spend money on developing outer
space programs, go the depths of the oceans, and study the fauna and flora on the earth. This nonsense of creating and making
enemies on earth has to stop. The world is too small for this NONSENSE.
Herr Ulfkotte is a man of courage, but when he says that the BND was formed by the CIA, he doesn't mention that the CIA has
roots in the Gehlen Spy network of the 3rd Reich after WW2.
Who has built the first concentration camp? It was the British Empire during the war against the Boers. The British put women,
children and old people in these camps to make the Boers surrender.
The same is true for the Americans in WW2 in regard to German
and Japanese civilians. (Just two examples of many!) These f*** Anglo-Saxons killed millions of people just for the heck of it
-- in Dresden, Hiroshima, many smaller places all around the world... -- and they keep doing it in several Arabian countries these
days. Of course, other empires, like the Russian, or the German, did evil deeds in their history but they took the responsibility.
I hope that the Anglo-Saxons once will have their own 'Nuremberg'.
"... My guess is that this book is just too dangerous to allow it to become part of the debate on "fake news" and "Russiagate." Of course now the CIA doesn't even have to exclusively "own"- journalists as fronts when ex-CIA heads are being hired outright by MSM as pundits. I just wish someone with access would post an English language PDF version online. It would be a real contribution to free thought and free speech to do so. ..."
"... Western elites realize what they could have, what they could do and what they could get away with, but only if they reinvent the political system Hitler created. If they defeat every enemy abroad who might stop them, next they'll do to their own people what the Nazis did to those they didn't want alive ..."
"... Journos have long been pliant enablers for Intel agencies. It's strange how Dr. Ulfkotte's revelations have been taken as some signifier of further Western moral decay/decadence. ..."
"... The real story here, which the media pretends not to notice, is that if Intelligence services and corporations did not finance newspapers they would cease to exist. The old business model whereby newspapers covered their costs by selling advertising and paid circulation is finished. Under that model there were, to an extent, incentives for the publisher to preserve a modicum of credibility in order to keep readership, as well as reasons to publish sensational stories to beat competition. ..."
"... The days that Ulfkotte recalled were times when it took lots of money and careful preparation to put spooks into the newsroom, nowadays the papers are only too happy to publish the CIA's PR and very grateful if the government pays their journalists' salaries. ..."
"... To understand how journalism is bought, go analyze the output of the Uk's Daily Telegraph. They literally sell space to lobbyists and for several years outraged BTL comment would tear the articles to shreds. The whole UK Press prostitutes itself whenever there is a US war on i.e. all the time. It really is about time the CIA were unmasked they do not serve our interests, they serve only their own . ..."
The rather obvious suppression of the English version of what was a "best seller" in Germany suggests that the Western system
of thought manipulation and consent manufacture sees itself as weaker and more vulnerable than one might at first imagine.
We can see from a year+ of "Russiagate" that Western media is a clown-show, much of so called "alternative media" included.
My guess is that this book is just too dangerous to allow it to become part of the debate on "fake news" and "Russiagate."
Of course now the CIA doesn't even have to exclusively "own"- journalists as fronts when ex-CIA heads are being hired outright
by MSM as pundits. I just wish someone with access would post an English language PDF version online. It would be a real contribution
to free thought and free speech to do so.
Just like "200 years together" by Solzhenitsyn which was never officially published in English despite Andrei having authored
many works which were big sellers. Just an example of other private business and corporations are often fully responsible
for pro-establishment censorship.
The treatment of the book aroused suspicion because of its content ie supine news outlets forever dancing to the tune of western
military imperatives.
Ongoing support for illegal wars tell us that the MSM has hardly been at the forefront of informing readers why war criminals
like Hilary and Obama keep getting away with it. In fact Obama, just like Kissinger was awarded a peace prize so obviously something
has gone very wrong somewhere.
It may be, although it seems unlikely that the mis-handling of an important theme like this is simply due to oversight by the
publisher (as Matt claims) but neither is it beyond the realms of possibility that somebody has had a word with someone in the
publishing world, perhaps because they are not overly keen on the fact Udo Ulfkotte has deviated from the media's mono-narrative
about why it is necessary for the US to destabilise countries and kill so many of their citizens.
Lets face it it would be harder for the pattern to be maintained if the MSM was not so afraid of telling the truth, or at
least be more willing to hold to account politicians as the consequences of their disastrous policies unfold for all to see.
Maybe you want to have a go at answering the obvious question begged by such self evident truths why are the MSM usually
lying?
Somebody said banning books is the modern form of book burning, and like Heinrich Heine said two centuries ago, "Where they burn
books, in the end, they start burning people."
Western elites realize what they could have, what they could do and what they could get away with, but only if they reinvent
the political system Hitler created. If they defeat every enemy abroad who might stop them, next they'll do to their own people
what the Nazis did to those they didn't want alive. If enough water sources are lost to fracking, and enough food sources
lost through poisoned seas and forest fires, many people will go to their camps as refuge but few will survive them. This ecological
destruction is for future population reduction.
In the US they use newspeak to say what the Nazis described with more honesty. Their master race became the indispensable nation,
their world domination became full spectrum dominance, and Totalerkrieg became the global war on terror. There will be others.
Farzad Basoft anyone ? Journos have long been pliant enablers for Intel agencies. It's strange how Dr. Ulfkotte's revelations
have been taken as some signifier of further Western moral decay/decadence.
Maybe I am taking what you wrote out of context but I don't find it strange at all .It is just that someone, Udo, on the inside
has become a whistle blower , and confirmed what most suspected .The establishment can't have that.
As the economy growth has this so-called invisible hand, journalism also has an 'invisible pen'. One of the questions that
need an answer: how come feminists are so anti-Putin and anti-Russia? Easy to connect to dots?
The real story here, which the media pretends not to notice, is that if Intelligence services and corporations did not finance
newspapers they would cease to exist. The old business model whereby newspapers covered their costs by selling advertising and
paid circulation is finished. Under that model there were, to an extent, incentives for the publisher to preserve a modicum of
credibility in order to keep readership, as well as reasons to publish sensational stories to beat competition.
Those days
are gone: none of the newspapers make financial profits, they now exist because they have patrons. They always did, of course,
but now they have nothing else- the advertisers have left and circulation is diminishing rapidly.
The days that Ulfkotte recalled were times when it took lots of money and careful preparation to put spooks into the newsroom,
nowadays the papers are only too happy to publish the CIA's PR and very grateful if the government pays their journalists' salaries.
As to competition that is restricted to publishers competing to demonstrate their loyalty to the government and their ingenuity
in candy coating its propaganda.
Anyone doubt that Luke Harding will be in the running for a Pulitzer? Or perhaps even the Nobel Prize for Literature?
For what it's worth, I skimmed through this very long link by Matt, and could find no mention of poison gas -- certainly no denunciation
-- just horrific conventional arms : Der Spiegel 1984:
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-13508659.html
Also for what it's worth, the German publisher's blurb which I got Google to translate above, says there is much more to the
book than old Soddem: the author names names and points to organizations.
Now, without any evidence, based only on my faulty memory and highly biased interpretation of events strung together on a timeline,
here is my conspiracy story about a very nice country called Iraq and a very nasty Iraqi called Saddam who came to a very nasty
end at the hands of his much more nasty friends, who first gave him a boost and then put in the boot.
1914 Great Britain invades Iraq and BP takes over the Iraqi oilfields.
1968 Iraqi govt member under Yaya wants to nationalize the oil. CIA coup replaces Yaya with Saddam as a safe pair of hands.
1970 Saddam the dirty dog does the dirty on the friends who put him in power; he nationalizes Iraqi oil. And nationalizes Iraqi
banks. From now on Saddam is a dead man walking. Like Mossadeq in Iran whom the US-UK replaced with the Shah
1978 But in Iran the Shah is replaced by the Islamic Socialist Republic -- who again nationalize Iranian oil. Saddam's
friends now face a dilemma: kill him first, or kill the Ayatollah's first? They decide to first go for the Ayatollahs -- with
Saddam's help.
1980 Saddam invades Iran with help from US and Germany -- including, strangely enough, generous supplies of poison gas.
1984-1989 Saddam's invasion of Iran flops. Reports about use of poison gas by Saddam begin to emerge, first in German newspapers
then even debated US govt.
1990 Saddam thinks he has restored credit with the US & Germany by using their weapons against Iran, and now has the green
light to invade another country. Finds out his mistake in the Gulf War. He is once again, a dead man walking. So is his country.
2001 Saddam is accused of harbouring Islamic terrorists who knocked down 3 skyscrapers by flying 2 passenger planes into
them. The idea of Secular Baathist Saddam in league with religious fanatics is ridiculous, but what the heck it's a story.
2003 Saddam hanged for, inter alia, use of chemical weapons; likewise his minister whom the MSM have a field day comically
calling "Chemical" Ali.
2017 Who's next? The Ayatollahs, of course. And anyone else who dares to nationalize "our" oil. Or "our" banks.
That is more than plausible. Unfortunately. Hard not to sympathize with the Iraqis and feel shame for what has been done in the
name of the US and UK. Rotten to the core, and sanctimonious to boot.
To understand how journalism is bought, go analyze the output of the Uk's Daily Telegraph. They literally sell space to lobbyists
and for several years outraged BTL comment would tear the articles to shreds. The whole UK Press prostitutes itself whenever
there is a US war on i.e. all the time. It really is about time the CIA were unmasked they do not serve our interests, they
serve only their own .
The Guardian sells space to lobbyists too. Not ad space article space. It's literally hiring itself out to whomever wants to
buy the right to publish an article under its name.
Well one things stands out in bold and that is the fear that such a revelation is associated with. 'Broad spectrum dominance'
of a central intelligent agency is a reversal of the wholeness of being expressing through all its parts.
Fake intelligence
is basically made up to serve a believed goal. The terrorism of fear generates the goal of a self-protection that sells true relationship
to 'save itself'.
This goes deep into what we take to be our mind. The mind that thinks it is in control by controlling what it thinks.
If I can observe this in myself at will, is it any surprise I can see it in our world?
What is the fear that most deeply motivates or drives the human agenda?
I do not ask this of our superficial thinking, but of a core self-honesty that cannot be 'killed' but only covered over with a
thinking-complex.
And is it insane or unreal to be moved by love?
We are creatures of choice and beneath all masking, we are also the creator of choice.
But the true creative is not framed into a choosing between, but feeling one call as the movement of it.
When the 'intelligence' of a masking narrative no longer serves, be the willingness for what you no longer claim to have, and
open to being moved from within.
I am so tired of the simmering fury that lives inside me. This bubbling cauldron brim full of egregious truths, images and accounts
accumulated over nearly 40 years of looking behind the headlines. I disagree that the usurpation of journalists and media organisations
is in any way a recent phenomena. It certainly predates my emergent mind. And even the most lauded of anti-establishment hacks
and film makers self-censored to some degree. True, the blatant in your face propaganda and thought control agenda has accelerated,
but it was always there. I do not believe Chomsky, Oliver Stone, Pilger and their like could have done much more than they have,
that is to guide us in a direction counter to the official narrative. And to insinuate they are gatekeepers, when our heads never
stretch above the parapet, is really just a reflection of our own frustration that despite their work the only change remains
for the worse.
Yet I fear worse is to come. Our safe bitching in glorious anonymity has been all that we have had as solace to the angst that
pervades us, the other 1%. But the the thumbscrew is tightening. We may be as little as months away from any dissent being entirely
removed from the internet by AI algorithms. I have already been receiving warnings on several sites anyone here would call legitimate
that have had their security certificates removed and the statement that the site may contain malicious code etc. How prepared
are we for blackout?
A foundation should be set up in remembrance of Udo and sponsored by all true journalists and truth seekers. Maybe some day there
will be a Udo Ulfkotte award to the bravest journalist of the year .Wouldn't that be something .Udo's work would not have been
in vain . That would throw a monkey wrench into orgs like the Guardian and their ilk .Just dreaming out loud maybe , but with
good intentions.
Thank you Alun for the link to the German edition, which I have managed to download (naughty me!) I think the suggestion of retranslating
important sections and dressing these in some commentary for (presumably legitimate) publication on e.g. Off-G would be a good
idea. I'm quite fluent in German and would be glad to help.
Mods: do you see any legal pitfalls?
That depends on who holds the rights to the English language version and the original and whether they would want to take issue.
If it's Ulfkotte's family they may be happy to see his work get some sort of airing in English. If it's his publishers we can
imagine they will see things differently as indeed would whoever it is that seems to want the book buried.
I heard it is blocked in many western countries, as the site is well known for its disregard for copyright. Fortunately not the
case where I am (NZ). If you're technically inclined, a VPN or anonymising application may help, although a VPN that 'exits' in
a western area won't get you any further ahead.
One hopes. I also hold out hope for F. William Engdahl's "Geheimakte NGOs." Here's a Dissident Voice article in which Engdahl
discusses the role of NGOs in aiding and abetting the US regime change program:
Yes, it has also been interesting to note that in 2015 the Guardian published a review of Richard Sakwa's book 'Frontline Ukraine'
in which the author was critical of both NATO and the EU, in fomenting this crisis. The 2014 'coup' which was carried out in February
2014 was, according to the independent geopolitical publication, Strator, 'the most blatant in history.' The appraisal which was
carried out by Guardian journalist Jonathon Steele was generally favourably disposed to Sakwa's record of events; however, Mr
Steele now rarely publishes anything in the Guardian. Read into this what you like.
As to Sakwa's latest book,'' Russia Against the Rest'', nothing, not a peep, it doesn't exist, it never existed, it never
will exist. It would appear to be the case that the Guardian is now fully integrated into the military/surveillance/media-propaganda
apparatus. The liberal gatekeeper as to what is and what isn't acceptable. Its function is pure to serve the interests of the
powerful, in much the same way as the church did in the middle ages. The media doesn't just serve the interests power it is also
part of the same structure of dominance, albeit the liberal wing of the ruling coalition.
During the British war against the Boers in South Africa, at the turn of the 19/20 century, the then Manchester Guardian took
a brave and critical stand against the UK government. This lead to its offices in Manchester being attacked by jingoistic mobs,
as was the home of the then editor C.P.Scott, whose family needed police protection. In those days 'Facts were Sacred', unlike
the present where opposing views are increasingly ignored or suppressed.
Having just watched the documentary film tribute to I.F. Stone, "All Governments Lie", I was struck by the fact that no-one mentioned
Michael Hastings, the Rolling Stone journalist (who outed General McChrystal, but whose Mercedes went mysteriously out of control,
hit a tree and exploded, throwing the engine 200 yards clear of the wreck ). Here was a film about control and self-censorship,
yet no-one even breathed the acronyms C.I.A. or FBI. Matt Taibbi referred to a silent coup, but none dared to mention the assassinations
of JFK, MLK and RFK. These doyens of Truth included the thoroughly dodgy Noam Chomsky. Finally, the Spartacus website suggests
that the saintly I.F. Stone was in the pay of the CIA. Other terms unspoken were CIA Operation Mockingbird or Operation Northwoods.
There was a clip of 9/11, but zero attempt to join up all the dots.
RIP Udo Ulfkotte. CIA long ago developed a dart to induce all the signs of a heart attack, so one is naturally somewhat suspicious.
Lies and assassinations are two sides of the same coin.
The only thing harder to find than Udo Ulfkotte's book is a Guardian review of it.
I daresay any mention of this book, BTL, would immediately be moderated (i.e censored) followed by a yellow or red card for
the cheeky commentator.
The level of pretence on this forum has now reached epic proportions, and seems to cuts both ways, ie. commentators pretending
that there are not several subjects which are virtually impossible to discuss in any depth (such as media censorship), and moderators
pretending that 'community standards' is not simply a crude device to control conversational discourse, especially when a commentators
point of view stray beyond narrow, Guardian approved borders.
Books, such as 'Bought Journalists' (which expose the corruption at the heart of western media) are especially inconvenient
for the risible 'fake news' agenda currently being rammed down the readerships throat some of these people at the Guardian have
either absolutely no insight, or no shame.
Ulfkotte and Ganser in their ways are both telling a similar story NATO, i.e an arm of the US military industrial complex
are mass murderers and sufficiently intimidating to have most western journalists singing from the same hymn sheet.
Since the Guardian follows the party line it is only possible to send coded or cryptic messages (BTL) should commentators wish
to deviate from the approved narrative.
For example, I was 'pre-moderated' for having doubts about the veracity of the so called 'Parsons Green tube bomb', especially
the nature of the injuries inflicted on a young model who looked like she was suffering from toothache.
https://www.thenational.ae/image/policy:1.628812:1505494262/wo16-web-parsons-green.JPG?f=16Χ9&w=1024&$p$f$w=e135eda
Been there, done that. What ordinarily happens if the submission is proper and cannot be censored on the basis of impropriety
or foulmouthedness or any other good reason, but exposes a Guardian sacred cow in an embarrassing light, is that it is said to
be off topic. Now this is really unaccountable, and truly subjective.
The community in community standards is "them" and has close ties to the 1%, if I hazard a guess.
"... Anyone who claims there are no conspiracies, that there are no behind-the-scenes efforts by powerful people to suppress information that would expose their efforts at global domination, is full of crap. ..."
"... How many CIA-paid journalists do you have on staff at the Washington Post? ..."
"... The author who was a deputy editor of the Frankfurter Allgemeine and worked there for 17 years turns whistleblower and spills the beans on the corruption of German media by US lobby agencies which have CIA backing. ..."
"... The news is always given a pro American slant and journalists can look forward to rewards for their efforts. Should they not collude then their career is over. Corrupted German journalists are named and shamed. The EU is also revealed to be equally corrupt . ..."
"... German journalists assigned to EU reporting have to sign a document stating that they will never write anything negative about the EU. The level of manipulation by the EU is also frightening. ..."
"... This situation reeks of Stasi or Asian plutocratic realms. We want our freedom back! What are you people (including colluding Amazon) trying to cover up? Shame on you! ..."
"... The collussion of corporate media and Western intelligence is a taboo subject one must surmise. It suggests that our power structure realizes it has a rather fragile hold on the popular mind when the CIA morphs into the former KGB to simply suppress and disappear unacceptable reporting. ..."
"... I would suggest that the absolute silence by MSM about this book and its censorship validates the authors contentions that much of MSM reporting is right out of the Western intelligence agencies and has nothing whatsoever to do with reality on the ground. ..."
No, I haven't read the book, because it is priced completely out of my reach. I am giving
it five stars anyway because of what I've read *about* it, as I've followed its author's saga
-- the blackout by German media of the original German edition Gekaufte Journalisten (Bought
Journalists) for a couple of years now, raids by German police on the author's house, his
noting how he feared for his life, and his finally being found dead on January 13 of this
year "from a heart attack" (he was only 56, and because it is possible to kill someone in
ways that look like a heart attack, some people believe he was murdered).
The fate of a whistleblower against one of the world's most powerful organizations in a
controlled society being passed off as a democracy?
Two things are abundantly clear:
(1) The English translation of this book has been
"privished." There are a couple of good recent discussions of what it means to "privish" a
book, but Amazon will not allow me to link to them. So let's just say: the purpose of
"privishing" is make a book with an unwanted message disappear without a trace by limiting
information about it, destroying its marketability by printing too few copies, and refusing
reprint rights, so that the copies available are too expensive for readers of ordinary means
(which is nearly all of us).
(2) Anyone who claims there are no conspiracies, that there are
no behind-the-scenes efforts by powerful people to suppress information that would expose
their efforts at global domination, is full of crap.
XXX, September 30, 2017 Format: Paperback
Sell this book so we can buy it!
Amazon, you are a tool of the State. This book is available in English at a market
competitive price. Why do you refuse to make it available to your customers?
How many
CIA-paid journalists do you have on staff at the Washington Post? To the reviewer who asked
how much money the author will see from the exhorbotant price of the book, he won't see any
because he is dead.
He died of hearth issues shortly after the publication of the book. He
did have a history of heart ailments so I am not implying a sinister act. You can find an
good interview with him on YouTube if they haven't removed it.
XXX, November 11, 2017 Format: Paperback
Dynamite
Have read this book in German but as far as I know it is no longer available in bookshops
in Germany either. The author who was a deputy editor of the Frankfurter Allgemeine and
worked there for 17 years turns whistleblower and spills the beans on the corruption of
German media by US lobby agencies which have CIA backing.
The news is always given a pro
American slant and journalists can look forward to rewards for their efforts. Should they not
collude then their career is over. Corrupted German journalists are named and shamed. The EU
is also revealed to be equally corrupt .
German journalists assigned to EU reporting have to
sign a document stating that they will never write anything negative about the EU. The level
of manipulation by the EU is also frightening. The author himself was part of the set up and
even received a prestigious reward for his pro America efforts but eventually became
disgusted by the system and his collusion in it.
I pre ordered the book last year in English
on Amazon as my son wanted to read it but I kept receiving emails from Amazon changing
publication dates and eventually they informed me that they were unable to access the book.
There is no doubt that the book is dynamite and has been suppressed because of this.
XXX, July 31, 2017 Format: Hardcover
Tyranny in America Writ Large In A Super-Large Price
Somebody has set the price of this book -- available in English though it is -- so high as
to make it unavailable. I wonder, if some rich or extremely extravagant person were to bye
this book at the $1300 price it's offered at, would the author ever see a dime of that?
This
situation reeks of Stasi or Asian plutocratic realms. We want our freedom back! What are you
people (including colluding Amazon) trying to cover up? Shame on you!
XXX, August 16, 2017 Format: Paperback
Second book I've wanted that's been banned
Second book I've wanted that's been banned by Amazon. Shame on you, Mr. Bezos.
Unfortunately for you, more people are waking up to this. The cracks are starting to
show.
The suppression of the English language version of this book is censorship of the most
Orwellian kind.
I have been awaiting the English version of this book for several years now, watching with
interest while the publishing date was delayed multiple times. As a best seller in Germany
one had to wonder why it would take years to translate the book to English unless there were
forces working against publication. Well, low and behold it is finally set to publish in May
2017 when it again doesn't and finally disappears from sight. The obvious suppression of this
book is censorship of the press and of course speaks volumes about Western "freedom of the
press" as a fantasy.
The collussion of corporate media and Western intelligence is a taboo
subject one must surmise. It suggests that our power structure realizes it has a rather
fragile hold on the popular mind when the CIA morphs into the former KGB to simply suppress
and disappear unacceptable reporting.
I would suggest that the absolute silence by MSM about
this book and its censorship validates the authors contentions that much of MSM reporting is
right out of the Western intelligence agencies and has nothing whatsoever to do with reality
on the ground.
Somewhere in the great beyond Orwell is smiling and thinking "I told you
so."
"... "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).
In the post-Soviet period, in addition to the color revolutions supported by the West
outside Russia, the West has been involved inside Russia as well. Washington was also involved
in helping Boris Yeltsin resist the August 1991 and October 1993 coups. Washington was
indirectly involved in Boris Yeltsin's 1996 re-election campaign. As I have mentioned several
times, a VERY reliable source confided to me that the xerox copying paper box filled with half
a million dollars being transported for later use by Yeltsin's pro-democracy camp but
intercepted by Yeltsin's hardline operatives consisted of U.S. funds. For a less revealng
inkling of the kind of involvement see Time magazine's July 1996 article "Saving
Boris"( http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html
or https://offgraun.files.wordpress.com/2018/02/201612201405.pdf
). McFaul noted that the three American consultants to Russian President Boris Yeltsin's 1996
re-election campaign -- George Gorton, Joe Shumate, and Richard Dresner -- contracted by Oleg
Soskovets, a former first deputy prime minister whom Yeltsin named head of his campaign, were
"breaking Russia's law against foreigners' working directly in campaigns" ( www.weeklystandard.com/yanks-brag-press-bites/article/8538
). In addition, the IMF released a several billion dollar tranche of economic assistance on the
election's eve to buttress Yeltsin further. Yeltsin's government was infested with US advisors,
some of whom engaged in corrupt practices of insider trading on the Russian stock market as
part of their 'democracy-promotion' efforts.
The U.S. government's Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty , among other government
organs, carried out propaganda defending post-Soviet Russia's jihadi separatists for years (see
https://gordonhahn.com/2015/02/18/caucasus-jihadism-through-western-eyes-the-failure-of-american-rusology-to-understand-the-north-caucasus-mujahedin/
and https://gordonhahn.com/2017/11/04/whos-been-interfering-in-whose-politics/
). One 'small' example among very many was noted in a paper I published seven years ago: "Less
than three weeks after CE (Caucasus Emirate or 'Imarat Kavkaz') amir Umarov sent a suicide
bomber to attack Moscow's Domodedovo Airport killing 37 and wounding more than 200,
RFERL 's 'chief Caucasus correspondent' Liz Fuller praised him as a 'father' who
restrains the mujahideen: "If these young men [the CE's younger mujahideen] have not become the
callous brutes Khasbulatov anticipated, much of the credit must surely lie with the older
commanders who were fathers before they became ghters, and have since assumed the role of
father gures to the younger generation of insurgents: the natural-born pedagogue Abdullayev;
Tarhan; Mansur; and even Umarov, seen receiving a lial embrace from Hadji-Murat at the very end
of this clip" [Liz Fuller, "Chechnya's Youngest Insurgents," RFERL , February 14,
2011, www.rferl.org/content/blog/2308952.html ,
last accessed on 28 February 2018 and cited in Gordon M. Hahn, Getting the Caucasus Emirate
Right (Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, August 2011), p. 14, fn
14]. Again, the 'Umarov' RFERL 's Liz Fuller, whose salary was paid from your taxes,
was the amir of the Caucasus Emirate while it carried out nearly 60 suicide bombings and
several thousand other terrorist attacks in Russia from 2007-2013, after which the bulk of its
'Chechen national resistance' fighters (most not frm Chechnya but from Dagestan,
Kabardino-Balkaria and elsewehere in Russia as well as from abroad) ensconced to Syria and Iraq
to 'fight for Chechen independence' while those back home officially joined the Islamic State
(ISIS). For a similar Fuller article hailing the 'work' of the small Islamo-ultranationalist
Chechen, non-CE terrorist cell, see "Remembering Mansur," RFERL , March 17, 2011,
http://www.rferl.org/content/caucasus_re-
port_remembering_mansur/2341725.html.
The main reason for Russia's restrictions on NGO activity inside the country is that the
very same Western government-tied organizations that funded color revolutionary activity in
Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine and elsewhere -- USAID, NED, DNI, RNI, and so on -- were funding
indirectly Russian political opposition-oriented organizations. The reason media are now
included under these restrictive regime lies in the West's massive propaganda, disinformation,
and strategic communications infrastructure – typified in its output by articles such as
the one supporting jihadi and Islamo-nationalist terrorists in Russia – in comparison
with which Russia's is a weak imitation (
https://gordonhahn.com/2018/01/22/russian-propaganda-machine-much-ado-about-little-as-compared-with-western-stratcomm-update/
).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About the Author – Gordon M. Hahn, Ph.D., Expert Analyst at Corr
Analytics, http://www.canalyt.com and a
Senior Researcher at the Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies (CETIS), Akribis Group,
San Jose, California, www.cetisresearch.org .
Dr. Hahn is the author of Ukraine Over the Edge: Russia, the West, and the 'New Cold
War (McFarland Publishers, 2017) and three previously and well-received books:
Russia's Revolution From Above: Reform, Transition and Revolution in the Fall of the Soviet
Communist Regime, 1985-2000 (Transaction Publishers, 2002); Russia's Islamic
Threat (Yale University Press, 2007); and The Caucasus Emirate Mujahedin: Global
Jihadism in Russia's North Caucasus and Beyond (McFarland Publishers, 2014).He has
published numerous think tank reports, academic articles, analyses, and commentaries in both
English and Russian language media and has served as a consultant and provided expert testimony
to the U.S. government.
Dr. Hahn also has taught at Boston, American, Stanford, San Jose State, and San Francisco
State Universities and as a Fulbright Scholar at Saint Petersburg State University, Russia. He
has been a senior associate and visiting fellow at the Center for Strategic and International
Studies and the Kennan Institute in Washington DC as well as the Hoover Institution at Stanford
University.
This professor looks like a typical neoliberal professor of economics, as usually such people are in the US Universities. His level
of understanding the history of Russia and Baltic countries suggests that he is a mixture of n ignorant jerk with a propagandist. Russia
was royally raped by the West in 1991-2000. The damage was probably comparable with the damage from communism. Trillions were looted.
"Americans cannot fathom what it is like to have entire cities destroyed or badly-damaged by bombs and artillery and have ruthless
armies fight each other over their territories" how about Dresden, Nagasaki, North Korea, Fallujah, Aleppo to name a few. Noam Chomsky
has observed: "If the Nuremberg laws were applied, then every post-war American president would have been hanged."
Notable quotes:
"... Americans cannot fathom what it is like to have entire cities destroyed or badly-damaged by bombs and artillery and have ruthless armies fight each other over their territories. Nor can we imagine having governments carry out massive executions of people whose only "crime" was not being what the government leadership wanted them to be. We cannot imagine the starvation, the disease, and watching family and friends be shipped off to places like Siberia where they surely would die terrible deaths. ..."
"... Bill Anderson travels, but sometimes he sees what he wants to see. ..."
"... Seeing the splinter in other men eyes. Not the tree in own. After the USSR birth, a U.S, with friends, invaded Russia. From that moment to now history is full of conflicted horrors. Standing out WW 2, and many more like Korea and Vietnam. Scars can be seeing all over the planet except the U.S. The writer of article must be a exceptional person. ..."
"... Their best weapon is "weaponized credit" which sheep see but don't understand ..."
"... The [neoliberal] deep state is about impoverishing the masses so that they keep their mouths shut, they don't give a rats ass if your liberal or conservative, black or white, yellow or orange, just keep your mouth shut about them. ..."
So, we drove onto St. Petersburg mostly on a two-lane road cut through the boreal forest of the northern latitudes. It was here
that I witnessed something that amazed all of us how vehicle drivers cooperated to turn two lanes into de facto four lanes of traffic.
As faster drivers moved to pass slower vehicles, the slower vehicles would move onto the asphalt shoulder and even as our bus
moved over the center line, the oncoming traffic would shift to the right, too. It all was spontaneously coordinated and everyone
on the road was in on the scheme.
Entering St. Petersburg was an experience in itself. With five million people spread over a number of islands, we saw new high-rises
standing alongside the old Soviet-era apartment buildings. No one, however, comes to St. Petersburg to see the relics of the U.S.S.R.
Instead, they come to see the czarist palaces and the stunning 18thand 19th century architecture that dominates the city. It may
be the birthplace of the Bolshevik Revolution, but people come to pay homage to the way of life the Bolsheviks wanted to destroy
and to Czar Nicholas II and his family,
infamously and brutally murdered on Lenin's
orders in 1918.
A century later, the bones of the last royal family of Russia lie safely in St. Peter and Paul Cathedral. Despite more than 70
years of communist rule, and despite all of the blood spilled to keep the likes of Lenin, Stalin, and the others in power, and despite
the massive propaganda that ordinary people in the U.S.S.R. had to endure, St. Petersburg is the city of the czars, not the Bolsheviks.
Parts of St. Petersburg are run down as nearly the entire city was during the days of communism but other parts of it absolutely
are amazing to see. Likewise, I enjoyed interacting with the locals and especially the young people that made up most of the workforce
of our hotel, from running the desks to cleaning our rooms. The legendary dour Soviet worker was replaced by a competent employee
who patiently answered our questions and took care of whatever we needed. For all of the talk in the USA that Russia is a dictatorship
under the iron thumb of Vladimir Putin, Russia did not seem like a dictatorship. Our Russian tour guide often would take a swipe
at Putin (including likening his face to a painting of dogs at the Hermitage) and life itself there seemed to have the kind of normalcy
that could not have been possible when people were compelled to inform on one another.
The St. Petersburg we visited was not the Leningrad that Logan Robinson described in his humorous 1982 book
An American in Leningrad , which
described life as a post-graduate student living among Russian students and developing friendships with local writers, artists, and
musicians, people who often harassed, persecuted, and arrested by local authorities. That city was an armed camp full of soldiers
and had been relegated to being a backwater by Joseph Stalin and his successors who made Moscow the Soviet "showplace," leaving the
city founded by Peter the Great to succumb to the northerly elements.
... ... ...
Americans cannot fathom what it is like to have entire cities destroyed or badly-damaged by bombs and artillery and have ruthless
armies fight each other over their territories. Nor can we imagine having governments carry out massive executions of people whose
only "crime" was not being what the government leadership wanted them to be. We cannot imagine the starvation, the disease, and watching
family and friends be shipped off to places like Siberia where they surely would die terrible deaths.
spooz ,
This article is red-baiting propaganda, aren't we getting enough of that from the Democratic party Everybody with a brain realizes
that there are differences between communism and the democratic socialism that is becoming popular in the US, but some the Mises
misers like to dupe the ignorant into conflating the two.
Democratic Socialism:
In very simplistic terms, paraphrasing from A. J. Elwood, Democratic Socialism:
Work together to ensure social equality and to improve one another's lives.
Reject the exploitation of all peoples and uphold the principles of equality.
Value the environment and use our natural resources in a sustainable manner.
Ensure free and open elections, where each citizen has a voice and a vested interest in his or her government.
Provide free education to all to ensure equal opportunity and the free flow of ideas, opinions, and information.
Protect and assist the disadvantaged using surplus from both public and privately owned enterprise.
Deliver quality health care to all citizens, regardless of their needs or socio-economic status
The US has let the excesses of Capitalism control our country, with wealthy owning our legislature and receiving bail outs
and tax cuts to preserve their wealth, while a growing percentage of the formerly middle class is thrown under the bus, with no
savings and no way to make a living wage. Those millennials don't see any way of achieving what used to be the American Dream
and are looking for some help with their struggle.
Most modern countries have a mix of socialism and capitalism.
"The United Nations World Happiness Report
2013 shows that the happiest nations are concentrated in Northern Europe, where the
Nordic model of social democracy is employed, with Denmark
topping the list." (wikipedia)
moon_unit ,
Bill Anderson travels, but sometimes he sees what he wants to see.
Let's take some points:
-He saw a "*small* railroad boxcar". Very romantic but - Soviet boxcars were fricken' huge, the rail gauge is massive. Pics
with a person next to it, or it didn't happen. IF it was very small, it was more likely a technical wagon for railway engineers,
not for "cargo" of any kind. Plus, anyone alive bitching about it clearly had parents , most likely that never left
to go anywhere , you know what I'm saying here?
-He went to Jurmala sea resort and misunderstood it, thought it was "all Soviet", all built for "nomenklatura". This is not
unusual to think so, but he was wrong - it was largely built as a Spa town in the 1850s during the Russian Empire times by the
majority wealthy *German* ethnic group in Riga. In fact German was the main language in the city up to 1891. Most of those large
spa town wooden houses were built for German traders - who traded with the locals outside Riga, Brits and Russians. The city had
a British Mayor George Armitstead from 1901 - 1912 during the Russian Empire - a civil engineer and the city's most popular mayor
ever, who built the first tram lines, hospitals, covered markets and so on.
The Balts kicked those German traders out starting from around 1880 or so. If you check out cemeteries you will see a sudden
transition from elegant old German noble script to badly-spelled early variant local language with German styles and lettering.
Of course that improved as they created formalised spellings for words in the local languages.
The author fails to mention all the other occupants that he doesn't want you to know about - briefly-
-German Crusaders (Knights of the Livonian Order / Teutonic Knights)- Holy Roman Empire - 12thC
-Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth 16thC
-Swedes 1621-1710
-Russian Tsarist Empire 1710 - 1918 -trading with German Riga / Brits and Russian language only imposed officially in 1891
-Local people perpetrators - no kidding, Herberts Cukurs, Viktors Arajs?
Photos of people in mass graves - sure you didn't "make a mistake"? - if you mean at Skede beach, Rumbuli and Bikernieki forests,
and Salapspils, those were killed by everyones "special Germans* (and of course the local militia commanders Cukurs and Arajs)
in everyone's "special German 3-year era" from 1942-44. Oddly, no-one seems interested in the hundreds of years of genuine
Geman noble culture and trading in what was essentially a German Empire freeport ...
Certainly there was a book about some Soviet killing mass graves elsewhere but it turns out the book about that was funded
and printed by a certain Josef Goebbels? No doubt it was true, but aren't people a little embarrassed at carrying that book, perhaps
a different author at least, maybe a historian would be less shameful to carry around?
-Freer wealthier - oh sure, if you put aside mass emigration, houses without heat or water or sewerage, destitute pensioners
walking in the streets in winter with supermarket bags on their legs to try to avoid frostbite - not always successfully
, by the way.
-"The citizens of the Baltic countries were not the only ones suffering under communism. No other city in the U.S.S.R. underwent
the horror of a 900-day siege by German armies during World War II" - that's hardly their fault, now is it?
-"as I sat in the Old Town section of Riga eating and drinking and listening to live music, I strained to imagine the place
as a battle zone with death and destruction all around where now I sat" - yeah, like when the Russians and Brits were trying
to keep out Napoleon's armies? Hmmm?
-"I imagined the stores that now are full of goods and restaurants with food and drink being empty or stocked with subpar merchandise
in the aftermath of the war as the Soviets imposed their primitive communist system and oppressed the people in the name
of "liberating" them for many decades until they finally left in the early 1990s"- you have a great imagination. You should write
film scripts for Hollywood. Some of those people are still walking around, try telling them they are primitives.
-"No, I cannot see people in our cities having experienced anything like what the people of the Baltics and St. Petersburg had
to tolerate for decades." - tolerate things like electronics factories, car and van production, science institutes, shipbuilding
and repair, ladies who aren't afraid of math or computers, that kind of thing? But sure, they couldn't get debt, mass prostitution,
Hasselhoff and blue jeans, consumer junk or type II diabetes, that is a total provocation, right you are .
LA_Goldbug ,
I also smell a lot of BS in this article. I visited Eastern Europe before and know exactly what is being mentioned. Elites
IN ALL COUNTRIES have their favorite hideaways. That is a norm in the West, East and anywhere else.
Boxcars at train stations are nothing new. Latvia is poor and probably has lots of them from way way back because THAT WAS
THE STANDARD design for a multi-purpose wagon in Eastern Europe. Why throw away something that does the job ?? But to say it was
"the one" used to transport people to camps is a huge stretch. Hell I could point to Boeings and say "That is the one sending
people to Guantanamo".
demoses ,
As an eastern European I can tell you that I do not get triggered by old monuments / words / city names. I guess that is a
"no real problems" American problem... where you lack other problems and have a hard time looking around what could trigger you...
"oh no! A company called MANpower!!! MAN???" and maybe "country called MonteNEGRO? How dare they?" ;)
Nexus789 ,
These Mises wankers write as if they have found utopia and the US is some kind of 'market' paradise They are foot soldiers
for the one percent.
LA_Goldbug ,
Here is how Utopia looks lest the Eu readers think otherwise.
Seeing the splinter in other men eyes. Not the tree in own. After the USSR birth, a U.S, with friends, invaded Russia.
From that moment to now history is full of conflicted horrors. Standing out WW 2, and many more like Korea and Vietnam. Scars
can be seeing all over the planet except the U.S. The writer of article must be a exceptional person.
LA_Goldbug ,
Their best weapon is "weaponized credit" which sheep see but don't understand.
CaptainObvious ,
"Americans cannot fathom what it is like to have entire cities destroyed or badly-damaged by bombs and artillery and
have ruthless armies fight each other over their territories."
Sure we can. Look at Detroit. Look at Baltimore. Look at Chicago. Those look pretty warn-torn to me. But I guess the "War on
Poverty" and the "War on Drugs" don't count, eh? And I guess drive-by shootings and purposefully-fomented riots and civil asset
forfeiture and excessive taxation aren't weapons of mass destruction either.
"Nor can we imagine having governments carry out massive executions of people whose only "crime" was not being what the government
leadership wanted them to be."
Yeah, we tax mules are pretty familiar with the bowel-crippling fear that any envelope marked "IRS" causes. Men have certainly
been introduced to the economic execution of being stripped of all their assets because they knocked some slut up. People of all
ages and colors have been locked away in jail for 50 years for having a baggy of green stuff in their pocket. And, the horror!,
it's now a crime punishable by jail time to call someone by the wrong gender pronouns in the People's Republic of Kalifornia.
But yeah, economic execution and unjustified imprisonment don't happen here in the Land of the Free , so it's all good.
"We cannot imagine the starvation, the disease, and watching family and friends be shipped off to places like Siberia where
they surely would die terrible deaths."
Oh, sure we can. We see starving people every day on the streets, made homeless by a drug addiction that was introduced to
them by a licensed physician. We watch family and friends shipped off to Bankruptcy court because some fucktarded jury awarded
a scam artist seven figures for manufacturing a slip-and-fall in the Mom & Pop Pizza Palace. We watch our loved ones die every
day from medical malpractice and toxic prescriptions.
No equivalency, you say? Well, to that I say balls. Russia was never free. After they abolished serfdom in the nineteenth century,
the system was still in place that the aristocracy held most of the land and the peasants farmed that land for a pittance. In
America, the laws abolished slavery and sweatshops, but the system is still in place that the tycoons own most of the assets and
the peasants sweat their best years away in a cubicle, or behind a cash register, or under someone else's machinery, for a pittance.
Am I advocating for communism? Hell, no! I'm advocating for an end to the corporatocracy and small-business-killing legislation.
Most ordinary Americans who become wealthy do so because they had the gumption to start their own business. But they can't do
that if all laws favor the already-established, and they can't do that if they're required to burn half a lifetime's worth of
cash for an official piece of paper from a gubmint-subsidized center of indoctrination, and they can't do that if they're supposed
to be licensed and bonded to do something simple like trim the hair of another human.
OverTheHedge ,
Hyperbole to make your point is fine, but the reality is that fat, soft seppos have absolutely no idea.
Actually, that last one proves me wrong - there are SOME Americans who know precisely what a destroyed city looks like - they
have been doing the destroying for the last 20 years, and at fully up to speed with what it entails. The question will be: who
will they be destroying for, should it ever come home to roost?
ddiduck ,
The [neoliberal] deep state is about impoverishing the masses so that they keep their mouths shut, they don't give a rats
ass if your liberal or conservative, black or white, yellow or orange, just keep your mouth shut about them.
Best is if you fight amongst yourselves and play make believe. Do you feel prosperous now? They like it when you you really
get violent toward each other, great scam huhhh? It is called misdirection, want to toast some asses start with Soros, Rothschilds
nad Rockefeller, greatest criminals against humanity! By the way, these mother fk'rs are satanic and bleed children out regularly!
Now take pause and consider this when deciding who the real villain in your unfair world is!
louie1,
Like all Zionist globalist neocon revolutions they are bloody, indiscriminate and sociopathic. The same gang are running the
USA now. And the world central banking system.
"... From before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has been cultivating a commercial and political elite abroad that we could "work with." As in most of the developing world during the Cold War, that meant that post-communist Russia was an oligarchy kept in money and power by IMF loans, graft, private militias and death squads. ..."
We helped put the Oligarchs into business, Putin reigned them in so he has to go
From before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. has been cultivating a
commercial and political elite abroad that we could "work with." As in most of the developing
world during the Cold War, that meant that post-communist Russia was an oligarchy kept in
money and power by IMF loans, graft, private militias and death squads.
Such was the case during the Boris Yeltsin's government that presided over the Russian
Federation, a self-contained trading bloc shorn of half of its richest territories. The
result of loss of most military spending and trade resulted in an average 50% loss in real
living standards for the typical Russian in the depths of the Depression during the early
1990s. What grew out of the rubble was the New Russia controlled by the Oligarchs, run by
returning members of Russian ethnic organized crime families once scattered around the world
and remnants of the KGB, party bosses, and former Soviet military who couldn't move enough
their assets out of the country while the door was still open. For Deripaska, that door
closed the other way in 2006, when he lost his US B-1 visa, which meant that he had to make a
deal with the FBI's McCabe and other US intelligence handlers to reenter the U.S. to access
his stash deposited in Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.
Is Oleg really Putin's "closest oligarch", as is again repeated here in the Times?
The arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the owner of Yukos Oil Co., one of the world's major
oil suppliers on October fifth, 2003 was a signal that things would never be the same for the
oligarchs. By the time he took his third term as Russian President in 2012, Putin had put
highly concentrated large industries increasingly under state supervision, curtailing the
effective power and range of operation of many oligarchs, restricting the movement of private
wealth out of the country, including that of Oleg Deripaska, whom he publicly humiliated in
2009, as seen in this video.
Bill Clinton and his merry gang (which included Rubin and Summers) was of course a gang of short-sighted amoral bottom feeders in dealing
with Russia, but he was just a puppet of the neoliberal elite, which has a clear strategy -- decimating Russia
Notable quotes:
"... Surely, this conforms to the Outlaw US Empire's Imperialism via which its goal is the Full Spectrum Domination (FSD) of the planet and its people. ..."
"... Some would consider that as Totalitarianism -- the doctrine of total control. During its drive to attain FSD, certain aspects must be masked from the Empire's public since relatively unfettered freedom is featured as one of its alleged values, which is why the many undemocratic aspects of various "trade" agreements are never discussed and negotiated in secret, for example. ..."
the testimony before
the Outlaw US Empire's Senate Foreign Relations Committee by Wess Mitchell:
"Russia and China are serious competitors that are building up the material and ideological wherewithal to contest U.S. primacy
and leadership in the 21st Century. It continues to be among the foremost national security interests of the United States to
prevent the domination of the Eurasian landmass by hostile powers. The central aim of the administration's foreign policy is to
prepare our nation to confront this challenge by systematically strengthening the military, economic and political fundaments
of American power."
Mitchell mentions a document I wasn't able to locate, the "Russia Integrated Strategy," but I was able to find what appears
to be
its predecessor , "Russia Project Strategy, 2014-2017."
Surely, this conforms to the Outlaw US Empire's Imperialism via which its goal is the Full Spectrum Domination (FSD) of the
planet and its people.
Some would consider that as Totalitarianism -- the doctrine of total control. During its drive to attain FSD, certain
aspects must be masked from the Empire's public since relatively unfettered freedom is featured as one of its alleged values,
which is why the many undemocratic aspects of various "trade" agreements are never discussed and negotiated in secret, for
example. What do we call a government that directly lies to its populous? What sort of ism is in play?
Hopefully barflies and others will read these documents and shudder, although I'm
sure a few will say "So, what's new?" Well, this goes far beyond the millennia long, ongoing Class War, and confirms what I've
been saying for awhile now -- We're already within a Hybrid Third World War being waged by people who want everything or nothing.
What sort of ism's that? In my book, it's the worst form of Authoritarianism anyone might imagine.
1) You pay your taxes
2) You pay your employees
3) There will be no asset stripping
Bill Browder (of Magnitsky fame) broke all these rules while pillaging Russia. From
1995–2006 his company, Hermitage Capital Management, siphoned untold billions of
dollars out of Russia into offshore accounts while paying no taxes and cheating workers of
wages and pensions.
Putin put an end to US and UK backed shysters stealing Russia blind. Is it any wonder the
western oligarchs hate him with such a passion?
"... The evidence is clear, Biden and Obama got the Magnitsky Act passed, and one of those two is not 'white', which is not the issue, anyway -- the issue is money, power and control. ..."
If Russia were trying to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, it wouldn't
be attempting to change the US system but to prevent it from trying to change Russia's,
argues Diana Johnstone.
Sojourner Truth , August 28, 2018 at 6:27 pm
Some perspective on Khordokovsky, et al can be found here:
A rather vague statement, Dick Vain, but it appears you support the 'unipolar hegemony'?
Hard to tell what you intend by use of 'privilege'. Diana Johnstone's article documents the
activities of Khodorkovsky, Browder, Gessen, who continue to agitate against Putin. There are
others. So what's your point, and what's the b.s.?
The evidence is clear, Biden and Obama got
the Magnitsky Act passed, and one of those two is not 'white', which is not the issue, anyway
-- the issue is money, power and control.
Diana Johnstone's immeasurably important, timely, extraordinary exposition of true facts
– truth rarely, if ever, acknowledged in the United States Congress and/or Western
media – represents what can most certainly be described as "historic gamechanger".
How much privilege does it take to write these words:
"Russian interference in American politics is totally welcome so long as it helps turn
public opinion against "multipolar" Putin, glorifies American democracy, serves U.S.
interests, including the military industries, helps break down national borders (except those
of the United States and Israel) and puts money in appropriate pockets in the halls of
Congress."
By estimate it doesn't matter as long as it's white
Trading in one devil for another
People who support this bullshit upside down line of thinking are welcome to jump off a
cliff really.
The Power Elite are facing an abyss, of real war and defeat, or simply defeat as "assets"
are prepared in Syria for a showdown, with dozens of warships and so forth Meantime they
drivel about trivial stuff in "news" from the fascist press, and the Germans prepare to make
nice with Ivan (the satrapies are switching sides, alas!)
" The Western powers are moving inexorably towards Internet censorship, thereby
facilitating the dissemination of propaganda and war indoctrination in their countries. In
this context, an extremely violent tension is tearing apart the international scene. Aware of
the increasing risk of general confrontation, Moscow is attempting to find credible
interlocutors in the UNO and the United States. What is happening at the moment has seen no
equivalent since 1938, and could degenerate in the same way.,,,"
and (darkly) : "From Moscow's point of view, the war of aggression – by the
intervention of jihadist proxies – against Syria must cease, and the unilateral
sanctions by the US, Canada and the European Union against Russia must be lifted. The problem
that we must all now face is not the defence [sic] of democracy, but the danger of war.
Void of any legitimacy, a parallel hierarchy in New York and Washington intends to plunge
the world into a generalised [sic] conflict."
robjira , August 28, 2018 at 11:35 pm
Outstanding article by Meyssan; thanks for linking.
Really good elucidation of the double standard in American politics as it concerns Russian
interference.
modern99angel , August 28, 2018 at 11:46 am
"The greatest tool at the disposal of globalists is the use of false paradigms to
manipulate public perception and thus public action. The masses are led to believe that at
the highest levels of geopolitical and financial power there is such a thing as "sides." This
is utter nonsense when we examine the facts at hand.
We are told the-powers-that-be are divided by "Left" and "Right" politics, yet both sides
actually support the same exact policy actions when it comes to the most important issues of
the day and only seem to differ in terms of rhetoric, which is meaningless and cosmetic
anyway. That is to say, it's nothing but Kabuki theater.
The abuses of one "side" are being used to push us into the arms of the other side, which
is just as abusive.
In terms of geopolitics, we are told that national powers stand "at cross-purposes;" that
they have different interests and different goals, which has led to things like "trade wars"
and sometimes shooting wars. Yet, when we look at the people actually pulling the strings in
most of these countries, we find the same names and institutions. Whether you are in America,
Russia China, the EU, etc., globalist think tanks and international banks are everywhere, and
the leaders in all of these countries call for MORE power for such institutions, not
less.
These wars, no matter what form they take, are a circus for the public. They are
engineered to create controlled chaos and manageable fear. They are a means to influence us
towards a particular end, and that end, in most cases, is more social and economic influence
in the hands of a select few. In each instance, people are being convinced to believe that
the world is being divided when it is actually being centralized."
Angel, you are on point. What you describe about the two sides is the Hegelian Dialectic
in action. This is why the shadow rulers are desperate to maintain two-party duopoly.
Very enlightening article, by the way. Well done.
Walter , August 28, 2018 at 11:37 am
Russia does have an evident Policy to demonstrate and illuminate the "fissures in our
tapestry [of lies]".
This tapestry itself is US Policy, as incoming CIA boss Casey said: ""We'll Know Our
Disinformation Program Is Complete When Everything the American Public Believes Is False."
(look it up). RT and other Russian source keep showing the Americans and the rest of the
world that the "tapestry" is infested. This is a iconoclastic Policy burning the false gods
of myth.
It would not work if American propaganda told the truth but it happens that they must lie
– it's Policy set by the secret state, the "power elite" as C. Wright Mills termed it.
And it is a signal of proximate disaster read MacBeth "Hang those who speak of fear" on the
cusp of Banquo's defeat of poor old Mac .
The Quakers say "Tell the truth and shame the devil" – that's about what the Ruskies
are doing shaming the devil by exposing his lies.
An overlooked meddler is George Soros, who was also a player in the takedown of Russia and
has been kicked out by Putin and the Duma, his NGOs are not allowed to operate in Russia.
Orban has had him banned in Hungary. There are constant neoliberal apologists for Soros, but
his hidden hand working behind the scenes has been well documented. Russia, especially Putin,
is Soros' "white whale", as Alex Christoforou states in "Leaked Memo Exposes George Soros'
plan to overthrow Putin", 7/19/18: . "how the billionaire uses his vast wealth to create
global chaos in a neverending push to deliver his neoliberal euphoria to the peasant
classes". Alex Christoforou, sovereignnations.com, originally published on The Duran.
Larry Gates , August 28, 2018 at 10:45 am
Brilliant, insightful, lucid, full of interesting details. It is articles like this that
keep me coming back to Consortioum News.
"Needless to say, Khodorkovsky's Corbiere Trust lobbied hard to get Congress to pass the
Magnitsky Act. This type of "Russian interference intended to influence policy" goes
unnoticed while U.S. authorities scour cyberspace for evidence of trolls."
America has the gall to accuse Russia of doing something we do openly and to a far greater
extent.
Great article. Not sure about the mechanics of how a select few stole Russia's wealth.
Somewhere I read the thieves did not have to put up their own money, but performed the
conversion through Russian loans. The purchase prices were so low compared to the real value
of the assets that they became overnight billionaires. Don't now if they repaid the
loans.
Someone may have a different understanding of how it was done.
Great article.
Bob Van Noy , August 28, 2018 at 9:12 am
Thanks to all. It is crucial at this point to keep the so called Russiagate story in
context beyond the pages and discussion here at CN. To that extent I will offer an excellent
article from off Guardian by Eric Zuesse including some excellent links especially one
leading to an interview of Anne Williamson about her book on the subject. I will link the off
Guardian piece but I encourage those inclined to carefully follow all the links and video's
so that we can offer a clear counter to what happened in Russia and why
The political theater dubbed "Russiagate" (aren't we getting "gated" to death?) is looking
more and more like cover for the dirty deeds of Clinton, throwing more and more pooh at the
already-fatigued American public, trying to make Trump look like the bad guy so nobody
notices what really went on in Clinton world.
Tobey , August 28, 2018 at 8:28 am
Hermitage Capital Management can you correct that typo ?
mike k , August 28, 2018 at 8:07 am
Trying to predict what the crazy greedy power hungry bastards leading the human world to
it's extinction will do next, is the maddening game we are forced to play by their suicidal
games. No one can guess exactly how they will blunder into destroying us all, but their moves
in this direction are apparent,
backwardsevolution , August 28, 2018 at 6:31 am
This is a really good article entitled "Fixers":
"If there's one thing that is exposed in the sorry not-so-fairy tale of former Trump aides
Paul Manafort and Michael Cohen, it's that Washington is a city run by fixers. Who often make
substantial amounts of money. Many though by no means all, start out as lawyers and figure
out that let's say 'the edges of what's legal' can be quite profitable.
And it helps to know when one steps across that edge, so having attended law school is a
bonus. Not so much to stop when stepping across the edge, but to raise one's fees. There's a
lot of dough waiting at the edge of the law. None of this should surprise any thinking
person. Manafort and Cohen are people who think in millions, with an easy few hundred grand
thrown in here and there. [ ]
Lanny Davis is a lawyer, special counsel even, for the Clintons. Has been for years. Which
makes it kind of curious that Michael Cohen would pick him to become his legal
representation. But that's not all Davis is involved in. Like any true fixer, he has his
hands in more cookie jars than fit in the average kitchen. [ ]
And now Davis, the Clinton fixer, is Michael Cohen's lawyer. The fixer defending a fixer.
So who pays the bill? Well, ostensibly no-one, because Davis started a Go Fund Me campaign
where people can donate so Cohen "can tell people the truth about Trump". The goal is
$500,000. Which goes to .. Lanny Davis. [ ]
In the end, I can draw only one conclusion: there are so many sharks and squids swimming
in the swamp that either it should be expanded or the existing one should be cleaned up and
depopulated. So bring it: investigate the FBI, the Clintons, and fixers like Lanny Davis and
Michael Avenatti, the same way the Trump camp has been.
Because if you don't do that, you can only possibly end up in an even bigger mess. You
can't drain half a swamp."
Lanny Davis proceeds to go on a whole bunch of talk shows, claiming the sky is falling,
and then in the next couple of days walks all of it back.
Another tactic of a psychopath: lie, lie and lie. Get the lie(s) out there any way you
can, create lots of damage. Then when you're called on what you've said, you just say
something like, "Yeah, I guess I had that wrong." The "walking back" is never covered as much
as the original lie.
Michael , August 28, 2018 at 8:20 am
The number of Establishment politicians and their lawyers protecting their turf (Ukraine
and Russia) seems to be multiplying. When Mueller did not arrest the Podesta Group and Greg
Craig, it was clear that his investigation was a partisan "get Trump" witch hunt; Mueller
destroyed his own credibility by not removing all the bad apples, just the Trump-brand
ones.
backwardsevolution , August 28, 2018 at 5:57 am
You can't even keep up with the actors and players in Russiagate's Theatre of the Absurd.
The Hillary Clinton campaign and the DNC hire Perkins Coie, a law firm, in order to hide the
fact that they're doing opposition research with campaign funds. Perkins Coie hires Fusion
GPS, a research firm, and Fusion GPS hires Christopher Steele, a former MI6 British agent to
come up with some dirt on Trump. Then there's all of the DOJ, FBI and CIA actors who were in
on setting up Trump. Add the media into the mix and you've got quite a story of lies and
corruption.
Tomorrow Bruce Ohr (a lawyer and former number four official at the DOJ) gives testimony
before the House Intelligence Committee to explain his 70+ interactions with Christopher
Steele. His wife, Nellie Ohr, worked for Glen Simpson at Fusion GPS, and apparently Bruce Ohr
accidentally failed to mention that his wife was working for Fusion GPS on his DOJ disclosure
form.
Nellie Ohr, Harvard graduate in Russian history/literature and fluent in Russian, suddenly
decides to get her HAM radio licence in May of 2016. Could she have gotten this to get around
being tracked? Who knows.
This article makes the precipitous decline of America's middle class a bit clearer in
retrospect. The lawless free-for-all that was unleashed on America's economy after all the
rules and regulations were stricken from the books during the Clinton years was already being
put into effect in Russia–which theretofore had no need for laws to regulate rampant
capitalism which had completely disappeared from the country 70 years earlier. The elite
insiders in America saw how quickly and effectively a country could be picked clean in the
absence of restraints. By the time our own safeguards were erased during the 90's whilst
Russia was being pillaged, the transnational oligarchs were all set to pick America clean
during the Bush years, which they did using the MIC and the Wall Street financial
institutions against a background of deliberate war, fear and societal confusion.
By the time Candyman Obama took office, Main Street America was on the verge of economic
collapse, just like Russia. People were losing their jobs, their homes, their health, their
families, their self-respect and their hope. Obviously, the job the Obama administration was
chosen to do was to stabilise, but not cure the patient. Money stolen from future generations
of taxpayers through government borrowing was used to prop up the financial institutions on
the verge of collapse just as surely as Yeltsin's Russia stole from the collective to create
its oligarchs. But little to nothing was done to help the middle class so their economic
death spiral continues (any help for them would represent that demonic force called
"socialism!"), as it will until the vampire capitalists have extracted whatever life force
remains, whereupon they shall simply move on to their next targets–one of the
"developing countries" or "emerging economies" they are struggling mightily to control by
whatever means necessary, as if it is totally natural and permissible to preclude trade
between all of Central Asia and its neighbors in China or Russia, to say nothing of
monopolizing all relations with the America's, Europe, Africa, India and probably Mars.
Nothing is to be permitted unless Jeff Bezos says so.
This business of collecting NATO allies across the globe is simply setting them up for
future economic exploitation. And when sometime past mid-century after the resources have all
played out and ruined economies litter the landscape, I suppose the "masters of the universe"
orchestrating all of this will ultimately have to unleash their final solution for
"down-sizing" the population to fit the economic realities, be it a war, a plague, or simply
mass starvation. I don't think psychopaths will be burdened too much by guilt, besides there
won't be too many people left to cast blame on them. With all the computational resources of
the world at their disposal, I'm sure a million scenarios have been run on the supercomputers
in some bunker under a mountain near Davos looking for the tidiest fix. Not that WE would
know, but they may already be implementing some scheme drawn up by HAL9000, who by now
probably walks around in a flawless fembot body. (Ooops. Didn't realise I was plagiarizing
Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" with that last bit.)
Dave P. , August 28, 2018 at 7:48 pm
What an accurate sketch! Along with the future scenario planned for the humanity on the
planet. As always, your comments are closest to reality as one can get. Your comments are
valued very much.
backwardsevolution , August 28, 2018 at 12:03 am
"In 2016, Winer received the highest award granted by the Secretary of State, for
'extraordinary service to the U.S. government' in avoiding the massacre of over 3,000 members
of an Iranian dissident group in Iraq, and for leading U.S. policy in Libya 'from a major
foreign policy embarrassment to a fragile but democratic, internationally recognized
government.'"
OMG, high-fives and booyahs! Just look at what you get for failing!
Eduardo Cohen , August 27, 2018 at 11:54 pm
Excellent article. Very informative. I'm just surprised that in the listing of nations
from which people are welcome to seek
the interference of U.S. power to settle old scores or overthrow their government (Iraq,
Libya, Iran, Russian, Cuba) the very current examples of Venezuela, Nicaragua and Syria are
not mentioned. But still a great article.
Joe Tedesky , August 27, 2018 at 10:44 pm
At the rate the U.S. Hegemony Project is going America will be a leader with no
followers.
CJ wrote:
"Manipulators particularly use projection as a tactic to hide what they're doing to you in
plain sight. A manipulator can have you chasing your tail by simply suggesting that you or
others are doing what you are seeing them doing with your own eyes. DNC caught rigging the
election? Oh no, it was actually Russia who rigged the election by catching the DNC rigging
the election. See what I did there? It's so dumb, but it works."
Here DJ clues us in on another of the same sort of con, or more precisely, another aspect
of the same big con.
David G , August 27, 2018 at 9:46 pm
"One may question the selectivity of Bill Clinton's concern for international law
enforcement, which certainly did not cover violating international law by bombing defenseless
countries."
or catching international fugitives like Marc Rich.
Tom Kath , August 27, 2018 at 8:52 pm
We cannot jump to conclusions regarding Putin's MULTIpolar vision. At this stage BIpolar
would seem a more accurate description. – Still, a step in the right direction from
UNIpolar hegemony.
Tom Kath – and your reason for describing Russia as supporting a "Bipolar" rather
than multi-polar world would be the some 21 Russian military bases versus the U.S. having
almost 900 such bases? Perhaps you're referring to Russia's recent invasions and/or attempted
destabilizations of Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Iran
– oh, wait, that's the U.S. list. Help me out here – what am I missing Tom? Do I
need to tune into to Rachel for a few days to get up to snuff?
Excellent post. The anti-Russian absurdist psycho-carnival taking place for two years now
in U.S. mainstream media should be enough (in a sane society) to topple this house of cards
– along with its fantasy goal of "full spectrum dominance" – yet it soldiers on.
Perhaps only a self-inflicted nuclear winter can stop this mad machine and the assorted array
of absolute dolts at the helm. Oddly they would seem to vastly prefer this option to
accepting a multi-polar world – which of course speaks volumes regarding what passes
for "sanity" in U.S. ruling circles these days.
Jeff Harrison , August 27, 2018 at 8:13 pm
I vote for Vladimir Putin's multipolar vision of the world and against the US's vision of
a new Roman Empire.
"... "I guess we've just got to pull up our socks and back ol' Boris again," Clinton told an aide. "I know the Russian people have to pick a president, and I know that means we've got to stop short of giving a nominating speech for the guy. But we've got to go all the way in helping in every other respect." Later Clinton was even more categorical: "I want this guy to win so bad it hurts." With that, the public and private resources of the United States were thrown behind a Russian presidential candidate. ..."
"... Four months before the election, Clinton arranged for the International Monetary Fund to give Russia a $10.2 billion injection of cash. Yeltsin used some of it to pay for election-year raises and bonuses, but much quickly disappeared into the foreign bank accounts of Russian oligarchs. The message was clear: Yeltsin knows how to shake the Western money tree. In case anyone missed it, Clinton came to Moscow a few weeks later to celebrate with his Russian partner. Oligarchs flocked to Yeltsin's side. American diplomats persuaded one of his rivals to drop out of the presidential race in order to improve his chances. ..."
"... Yeltsin won the election with a reported 54 percent of the vote. The count was suspicious and Yeltsin had wildly violated campaign spending limits, but American groups, some funded in part by Washington, rushed to pronounce the election fair. The New York Times called it "a victory for Russia." In fact, it was the opposite: a victory by a foreign power that wanted to place its candidate in the Russian presidency. ..."
"... American interference in the 1996 Russian election was hardly secret. On the contrary, the press reveled in our ability to shape the politics of a country we once feared. When Clinton maneuvered the IMF into giving Yeltsin and his cronies $10.2 billion, the Washington Post approved: "Now this is the right way to serve Western interests. . . It's to use the politically bland but powerful instrument of the International Monetary Fund." After Yeltsin won, Time put him on the cover -- holding an American flag. Its story was headlined, "Yanks to the Rescue: The Secret Story of How American Advisors Helped Yeltsin Win." The story was later made into a movie called "Spinning Boris." ..."
"... This was the first direct interference in a presidential election in the history of US-Russia relations. It produced bad results. Yeltsin opened his country's assets to looting on a mass scale. ..."
"... It is a delightful irony that shows how unwise it can be to interfere in another country's politics. If the United States had not crashed into a presidential election in Russia 22 years ago, we almost certainly would not be dealing with Putin today. ..."
FOR ONE OF THE world's major powers to interfere systematically in the presidential
politics of another country is an act of brazen aggression. Yet it happened.
Sitting in a distant capital, political leaders set out to assure that their
favored candidate won an election against rivals who scared them. They succeeded.
Voters were maneuvered into electing a president who served the interest of
the intervening power. This was a well-coordinated, government-sponsored project
to subvert the will of voters in another country -- a supremely successful piece
of political vandalism on a global scale.
The year was 1996. Russia was electing a president to succeed Boris Yeltsin,
whose disastrous presidency, marked by the post-Soviet social collapse and a
savage war in Chechnya, had brought his approval rating down to the single digits.
President Bill Clinton decided that American interests would be best served
by finding a way to re-elect Yeltsin despite his deep unpopularity. Yeltsin
was ill, chronically alcoholic, and seen in Washington as easy to control. Clinton
bonded with him. He was our "Manchurian Candidate."
"I guess we've just got to pull up our socks and back ol' Boris again,"
Clinton told an aide. "I know the Russian people have to pick a president, and
I know that means we've got to stop short of giving a nominating speech for
the guy. But we've got to go all the way in helping in every other respect."
Later Clinton was even more categorical: "I want this guy to win so bad it hurts."
With that, the public and private resources of the United States were thrown
behind a Russian presidential candidate.
Part of the American plan was public. Clinton began praising Yeltsin as a
world-class statesman . He defended Yeltsin's scorched-earth tactics in Chechnya,
comparing him to Abraham Lincoln for his dedication to keeping a nation together.
As for Yeltsin's bombardment of the Russian Parliament in 1993, which cost 187
lives, Clinton insisted that his friend had "bent over backwards" to avoid it.
He stopped mentioning his plan to extend NATO toward Russia's borders, and never
uttered a word about the ravaging of Russia's formerly state-owned economy by
kleptocrats connected to Yeltsin. Instead he gave them a spectacular gift.
Four months before the election, Clinton arranged for the International
Monetary Fund to give Russia a $10.2 billion injection of cash. Yeltsin used
some of it to pay for election-year raises and bonuses, but much quickly disappeared
into the foreign bank accounts of Russian oligarchs. The message was clear:
Yeltsin knows how to shake the Western money tree. In case anyone missed it,
Clinton came to Moscow a few weeks later to celebrate with his Russian partner.
Oligarchs flocked to Yeltsin's side. American diplomats persuaded one of his
rivals to drop out of the presidential race in order to improve his chances.
Four American political consultants moved to Moscow to help direct Yeltsin's
campaign. The campaign paid them $250,000 per month for advice on "sophisticated
methods of polling, voter contact and campaign organization." They organized
focus groups and designed advertising messages aimed at stoking voters' fears
of civil unrest. When they saw a CNN report from Moscow saying that voters were
gravitating toward Yeltsin because they feared unrest, one of the consultants
shouted in triumph: "It worked! The whole strategy worked. They're scared to
death!"
Yeltsin won the election with a reported 54 percent of the vote. The
count was suspicious and Yeltsin had wildly violated campaign spending limits,
but American groups, some funded in part by Washington, rushed to pronounce
the election fair. The New York Times called it "a victory for Russia." In fact,
it was the opposite: a victory by a foreign power that wanted to place its candidate
in the Russian presidency.
American interference in the 1996 Russian election was hardly secret.
On the contrary, the press reveled in our ability to shape the politics of a
country we once feared. When Clinton maneuvered the IMF into giving Yeltsin
and his cronies $10.2 billion, the Washington Post approved: "Now this is the
right way to serve Western interests. . . It's to use the politically bland
but powerful instrument of the International Monetary Fund." After Yeltsin won,
Time put him on the cover -- holding an American flag. Its story was headlined,
"Yanks to the Rescue: The Secret Story of How American Advisors Helped Yeltsin
Win." The story was later made into a movie called "Spinning Boris."
This was the first direct interference in a presidential election in
the history of US-Russia relations. It produced bad results. Yeltsin opened
his country's assets to looting on a mass scale. He turned the Chechen
capital, Grozny, into a wasteland. Standards of living in Russia fell dramatically.
Then, at the end of 1999, plagued by health problems, he shocked his country
and the world by resigning. As his final act, he named his successor: a little-known
intelligence officer named Vladimir Putin. It is a delightful irony that
shows how unwise it can be to interfere in another country's politics. If the
United States had not crashed into a presidential election in Russia 22 years
ago, we almost certainly would not be dealing with Putin today.
"... The Magnitsky Act also condemns legal prosecution of Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Browder, on a much smaller scale, also made a fortune ripping off Russians during the Yeltsin years, and later got into trouble with Russian tax collectors. Since Browder had given up his US citizenship in order to avoid paying US taxes, he had reason to fear Russian efforts to extradite him for tax evasion and other financial misdeeds. ..."
"... Russian authorities are still trying to pursue their case against Browder. In his press conference following the Helsinki meeting with Trump, Vladimir Putin suggested allowing US authorities to question the Russians named in the Mueller indictment in exchange for allowing Russian officials to question individuals involved in the Browder case, including Winer and former US ambassador to Moscow Michael McFaul. Putin observed that such an exchange was possible under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty signed between the two countries in 1999, back in the Yeltsin days when America was posing as Russia's best friend. ..."
"... In a July 15, 2016, complaint to the Justice Department, Browder's Heritage Capital Management accused both American and Russian opponents of the Magnitsky Act of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA; adopted in 19938 with Nazis in mind). Among the "lobbyists" cited was the late Ron Dellums (falsely identified in the complaint as a "former Republican congressman"). ..."
"... The basic ideological conflict here is between Unipolar America and Multipolar Russia. Russia's position, as Vladimir Putin made clear in his historic speech at the 2007 Munich security conference, is to allow countries to enjoy national sovereignty and develop in their own way. The current Russian government is against interference in other countries' politics on principle. It would naturally prefer an American government willing to allow this. ..."
"... The United States, in contrast, is in favor of interference in other countries on principle: because it seeks a Unipolar world, with a single "democratic" system, and considers itself the final authority as to which regime a country should have and how it should run its affairs ..."
The Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union was ostensibly a
conflict between two ideologies, two socio-economic systems.
All that seems to be over. The day of a new socialism may dawn unexpectedly,
but today capitalism rules the world. Now the United States and Russia are engaged
in a no-holds-barred fight between capitalists. At first glance, it may seem
to be a classic clash between rival capitalists. And yet, once again an ideological
conflict is emerging, one which divides capitalists themselves, even in Russia
and in the United States itself. It is the conflict between globalists and sovereignists,
between a unipolar and a multipolar world. The conflict will not be confined
to the two main nuclear powers.
The defeat of communism was brutally announced in a certain "capitalist manifesto"
dating from the early 1990s that proclaimed: "Our guiding light is Profit, acquired
in a strictly legal way. Our Lord is His Majesty, Money, for it is only He who
can lead us to wealth as the norm in life."
The
authors of this bold tract were Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who went on to become
the richest man in Russia, before spending ten years in a Russian jail, and
his business partner at the time, Leonid Nevzlin, who has since retired comfortably
to Israel.
Loans For Shares
Those were the good old days in the 1990s when the Clinton administration
was propping up Yeltsin as he let Russia be ripped off by the joint efforts
of such ambitious well-placed Russians and their Western sponsors, notably using
the "loans for shares" trick.
In a 2012 Vanity Fair
article on her hero, Khodorkovsky, the vehemently anti-Putin journalist
Masha Gessen frankly summed up how this worked:
The new oligarchs -- a dozen men who had begun to exercise the power that
money brought -- concocted a scheme. They would lend the government money,
which it badly needed, and in return the government would put up as collateral
blocks of stock amounting to a controlling interest in the major state-owned
companies. When the government defaulted, as both the oligarchs and the
government knew it would, the oligarchs would take them over. By this maneuver
the Yeltsin administration privatized oil, gas, minerals, and other enterprises
without parliamentary approval.
This worked so well that from his position in the Communist youth organization,
Khodorkovsky used his connections to get control of Russia's petroleum company
Yukos and become the richest oligarch in Russia, worth some $15 billion, of
which he still controls a chunk despite his years in jail (2003-2013). His arrest
made him a hero of democracy in the United States, where he had many friends,
especially those business partners who were helping him sell pieces of Yukos
to Chevron and Exxon. Khodorkovsky, a charming and generous young man, easily
convinced his American partners that he was Russia's number one champion of
democracy and the rule of law, especially of those laws which allow domestic
capital to flee to foreign banks and foreign capital to take control of Russian
resources.
Vladimir Putin didn't see it that way. Without restoring socialism, he dispossessed
Khodorkovsky of Yukos and essentially transformed the oil and gas industry from
the "open society" model tolerated by Yeltsin to a national capitalist industry.
Khodorkovsky and his partner Platon Lebedev were accused of having stolen all
the oil that Yukos had produced in the years 1998 to 2003, tried, convicted
and sentenced to 14 years of prison each. This shift ruined US plans, already
underway, to "balkanize" Russia between its many provinces, thereby allowing
Western capital to pursue its capture of the Russian economy.
The dispossession of Khodorkovsky was certainly a major milestone in the
conflict between President Putin and Washington. On November 18, 2005, the Senate
unanimously adopted
resolution 322 introduced by Joe Biden denouncing the treatment of the Khodorkovsky
and Lebedev as politically motivated.
Who Influences Whom?
Now let's take a look at the history of Russian influence in the United States.
It is obvious that a Russian who can get the Senate to adopt a resolution in
his favor has a certain influence. But when the "deep state" growls about Russian
influence, it isn't talking about Khodorkovsky. It's talking about a joking
response Trump made to a reporter's snide question during the presidential campaign.
In a variation of the classic "when did you stop beating your wife?" the reporter
asked if he would call on Russian President Vladimir Putin to "stay out" of
the election.
Since a stupid question does not deserve a serious answer, Trump said he
had "nothing to do with Putin" before adding, "Russia, if you're listening,
I hope you're able to find the 30,000 e-mails that are missing. I think you
will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."
Aha! Went the Trump haters. This proves it! Irony is almost as unwelcome
in American politics as honesty.
When President Trump
revoked his security clearance earlier this month, former CIA chef John
Brennan got his chance to spew out his hatred in the complacent pages of the
New York Times.
Someone supposed to be smart enough to head an intelligence agency actually
took Trump's joking invitation as a genuine request. "By issuing such a statement,"
Brennan wrote, "Mr. Trump was not only encouraging a foreign nation to collect
intelligence against a United States citizen, but also openly authorizing his
followers to work with our primary global adversary against his political opponent."
The Russians, Brennan declared, "troll political, business, and cultural
waters in search of gullible or unprincipled individuals who become pliant in
the hands of their Russian puppet masters."
Which Russians do that? And who are those "individuals"?
'The Fixer in Chief'
To understand the way Washington works, nothing is more instructive than
to examine the career of lawyer Jonathan M. Winer, who proudly repeats that
in early 2017, the head of the Carnegie Endowment Bill Burns introduced him
as "the Fixer in Chief". Winer has long been unknown to the general public,
but this may soon change.
Let's see what the fixer has fixed.
Under the presidency of fellow Yalie Bill Clinton, Winer served as the State
Department's first Deputy Assistant Secretary for International Law Enforcement,
from 1994-1999. One may question the selectivity of Bill Clinton's concern for
international law enforcement, which certainly did not cover violating international
law by bombing defenseless countries. In any case, in 1999, Winer was awarded
for "virtually unprecedented achievements". Later we shall examine one of those
important achievements.
At the end of the Clinton administration, from 2008 to 2013, the Fixer in
Chief worked as high up consultant at one of the world's most powerful PR and
lobbying firms, APCO Worldwide. This is how the Washington revolving door functions:
after a few years in government finding out how things work, one then goes into
highly paid "consultancy" to sell this insider information and influential contacts
to private clients.
APCO got off to a big start some thirty years ago
lobbying
for Philip Morris and the tobacco industry in general.
In 2002, APCO launched something called the "Friends of Science" to promote
skepticism concerning the harmful effects of smoking. In 1993, the campaign
described its goals and objectives "encouraging the public to question from
the grassroots up the validity of scientific studies."
While Winer was at APCO, one of its major activities was hyping the Clinton
Global Initiative, an international networking platform promoting the Clinton
Foundation. APCO president and CEO Margery Kraus explained that the consultancy
was there to "help other CGI members garner interest for the causes they are
addressing, demonstrate their success and highlight the wide-ranging achievements
of CGI as a whole." Considering that only five percent of Clinton Foundation
turnover went to donations, they needed all the PR they could get.
Significantly, donations to the Clinton Global Initiative have dried up since
Hillary lost the presidential election. According to the
Observer : "Foreign governments began pulling out of annual donations, signaling
the organization's clout was predicated on donor access to the Clintons, rather
than its philanthropic work."
This helps explain Hillary Clinton's panic when she lost in 2016. How in
the world can she ever reward her multi-million-dollar donors with the favors
they expected?
As well as the tobacco industry and the Clinton Foundation, APCO also works
for Khodorkovsky. To be precise, according to public listings, the fourth biggest
of APCO's many clients is the Corbiere Trust, owned by Khodorkovsky and registered
in Guernsey. The trust tends and distributes some of the billions that the oligarch
got out of Russia before he was jailed. Corbiere money was spent to lobby both
for Resolution 322 (supporting Khodorkovky after his arrest in Russia) and for
the Magnitsky Act (more later). Margery Kraus, APCO's president and CEO, is
a member of Mikhail Khodorkovsky's son Pavel's Institute of Modern Russia, devoted
to "promoting democratic values" in other words, to building political opposition
to Vladimir Putin.
In 2009 Jonathan Winer went back to the State Department where he was given
a distinguished service award for having somehow rescued thousands of stranded
members of the Muhahedin-e Khalq from their bases in Iraq they were trying to
overthrow the Iranian government. The MeK, once officially recognized as a terrorist
organization by the State Department, has become a pet instrument in US and
Israeli regime change operations directed at Iran.
However, it was Winer's extracurricular activities at State that finally
brought him into the public spotlight early this year or rather, the spotlight
of the House Intelligence Committee, whose chairman Devin Nunes (R-Cal) named
him as one of a network promoting the notorious "Steele Dossier" which accused
Trump of illicit financial dealing and compromising sexual activities in Russia.
By Winer's
own account , he had been friends with former British intelligence agent
Christopher Steele since his days at APCO. Back at State, he regularly channeled
Steele reports, ostensibly drawn from contacts with friendly Russian intelligence
agents, to Victoria Nuland, in charge of Russian affairs, and top Russian experts.
These included the infamous "Steele dossier". In September 2016, Winer's old
friend Sidney Blumenthal a particularly close advisor to Hillary Clinton
gave him notes written by a more mysterious Clinton insider named Cody Shearer,
repeating the salacious attacks.
All this dirt was spread through government agencies and mainstream media
before being revealed publicly just before Trump's inauguration, used to stimulate
the "Russiagate" investigation by Robert Mueller. The dossier has been discredited
but the investigation goes on and on.
So, it is all right to take seriously information allegedly obtained from
"Russian agents" and spread it around, so long as it can damage Trump. As with
so much else in Washington, double standards are the rule.
Jonathan Winer and the Magnitsky Act
Jonathan Winer played a major role in Congressional adoption of the "Sergei
Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012" (the Magnitsky Act), a measure
that effectively ended post-Cold War hopes for normal relations between Washington
and Moscow. This act was based on a highly contentious version of the November
16, 2009 death in prison of accountant Sergei Leonidovich Magnitsky, as told
to Congress by hedge fund manager Bill Browder (grandson of Earl Browder, head
of the Communist Party USA 1934-1945). According to Browder, Magnitsky was a
lawyer beaten to death in prison as a result of his crusade for human rights.
However, as convincingly established by dissident Russian film-maker Andrei
Nekrasov's (banned) investigative documentary, the unfortunate Magnitsky was
neither a human rights crusader, nor a lawyer, nor beaten to death. He was an
accountant jailed for his role in Browder's business dealings, who died of natural
causes as a result of inadequate medical treatment. The case was hyped up as
a major human rights drama by Browder in order to discredit Russian charges
against himself.
In any case, by adopting a law punishing Magnitsky's alleged persecutors,
the US Congress acted as a supreme court judging internal Russian legal issues.
The Magnitsky Act also condemns legal prosecution of Mikhail Khodorkovsky.
Browder, on a much smaller scale, also made a fortune ripping off Russians during
the Yeltsin years, and later got into trouble with Russian tax collectors. Since
Browder had given up his US citizenship in order to avoid paying US taxes, he
had reason to fear Russian efforts to extradite him for tax evasion and other
financial misdeeds.
It was Jonathan Winer who found a solution to Browder's predicament.
When Browder consulted me, [ ] I suggested creating a new law to impose
economic and travel sanctions on human-rights violators involved in grand
corruption. Browder decided this could secure a measure of justice for Magnitsky.
He initiated a campaign that led to the enactment of the Magnitsky Act.
Soon other countries enacted their own Magnitsky Acts, including Canada,
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and most recently, the United Kingdom.
Russian authorities are still trying to pursue their case against Browder. In
his press conference following the Helsinki meeting with Trump, Vladimir Putin
suggested allowing US authorities to question the Russians named in the Mueller
indictment in exchange for allowing Russian officials to question individuals
involved in the Browder case, including Winer and former US ambassador to Moscow
Michael McFaul. Putin observed that such an exchange was possible under the
Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty signed between the two countries in 1999, back
in the Yeltsin days when America was posing as Russia's best friend.
But the naοve Russians did not measure the craftiness of American lawyers.
As Winer wrote:
"Under that treaty, Russia's procurator general can ask the US attorney
general to arrange for Americans to be ordered to testify to assist in a
criminal case. But there is a fundamental exception: The attorney general
can provide no such assistance in a politically motivated case ." (My emphasis.)
"I know this", he wrote, "because I was among those who helped put it there.
Back in 1999, when we were negotiating the agreement with Russia, I was the
senior State Department official managing US-Russia law-enforcement relations."
So, the Fixer in Chief could have said to the worried Browder, "No problem.
All that we need to do is make your case a politically motivated case. Then
they can't touch you."
Winer's clever treaty is a perfect Catch-22. The treaty doesn't apply to
a case if it is politically motivated, and if it is Russian, it must be politically
motivated.
In a July 15, 2016, complaint to the Justice Department, Browder's Heritage
Capital Management accused both American and Russian opponents of the Magnitsky
Act of violating the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA; adopted in 19938
with Nazis in mind). Among the "lobbyists" cited was the late Ron Dellums (falsely
identified in the complaint as a "former Republican congressman").
The Heritage Capital Management brief declared that: "While lawyers representing
foreign principals are exempt from filing under FARA, this is only true if the
attorney does not try to influence policy at the behest of his client." However,
by disseminating anti-Magnitsky material to Congress, any Russian lawyer was
"clearly trying to influence policy" was therefore in violation of FARA filing
requirements."
Catch-22 all over again.
Needless to say, Khodorkovsky's Corbiere Trust lobbied heavily to get Congress
to pass the Magnitsky Act, which also repeated its defense of Khodorkovsky himself.
This type of "Russian interference intended to influence policy" is not even
noticed, while US authorities scour cyberspace for evidence of trolls.
Conclusion
The basic ideological conflict here is between Unipolar America and Multipolar
Russia. Russia's position, as Vladimir Putin made clear in his historic speech
at the 2007 Munich security conference, is to allow countries to enjoy national
sovereignty and develop in their own way. The current Russian government is
against interference in other countries' politics on principle. It would naturally
prefer an American government willing to allow this.
The United States, in contrast, is in favor of interference in other
countries on principle: because it seeks a Unipolar world, with a single "democratic"
system, and considers itself the final authority as to which regime a country
should have and how it should run its affairs .
So, if Russians were trying to interfere in US domestic politics, they would
not be trying to change the US system but to prevent it from trying to change
their own. Russian leaders clearly are sufficiently cultivated to realize that
historic processes do not depend on some childish trick played on somebody's
computer.
US policy-makers practice interference every day. And they are perfectly
willing to allow Russians to interfere in American politics so long as those
Russians are "unipolar" like themselves, like Khodorkovsky, who aspire to precisely
the same unipolar world sought by the State Department and George Soros. Indeed,
the American empire depends on such interference from Iraqis, Libyans, Iranians,
Russians, Cubans all those who come to Washington to try to get US power to
settle old scores or overthrow the government in the country they came from.
All those are perfectly welcome to lobby for a world ruled by America.
Russian interference in American politics is totally welcome so long as it
helps turn public opinion against "multipolar" Putin, glorifies American democracy,
serves US interests including the military-industrial complex, helps break down
national borders (except those of the United States and Israel) and puts money
in appropriate pockets in the halls of Congress.
"... [The difference between] what the average American knows about Russia and reality is frightening.] ..."
"... Bushworld didn't just deregulate mining and resource extraction in Russia, it deregulated everything, the abuse of labor, the destruction of education, the corruption of everything previously socialist and plunged Russia into an organized crime free fire zone. ..."
"... The standard of living fell to pieces and huge fortunes were made by U.S., British, and other western speculators. ..."
"... Putin has apparently moved to the left of that nightmare, and for that we are supposed to fear him, for insisting speculators pay their taxes and pay living wages and support social systems like education and healthcare as well as public infrastructure. ..."
[The difference between] what the average American knows about Russia and reality is
frightening.]
What happened with Putin is that he went to the left of Yeltsin, our boy, our Bushworld
plaything, poster boy of "unfettered" capitalism, the raping of Russia.
Bushworld didn't just deregulate mining and resource extraction in Russia, it
deregulated everything, the abuse of labor, the destruction of education, the corruption of
everything previously socialist and plunged Russia into an organized crime free fire
zone.
The standard of living fell to pieces and huge fortunes were made by U.S., British,
and other western speculators.
Putin has apparently moved to the left of that nightmare, and for that we are supposed
to fear him, for insisting speculators pay their taxes and pay living wages and support
social systems like education and healthcare as well as public infrastructure.
For that we are supposed to go to war and contribute the destruction of huge parts of the
United States in a nuclear war so Assholes like Albright and her followers can live the lives
of potentates.
"... Also while Hillary was Secretary of State, her friend James Comey moved from the US Justice Dept to Lockheed Martin, earning millions himself, with 17 no-bid contracts for Lockheed Martin with Hillary's State Dept. ..."
"... When the Benghazi investigations uncovered the Hillary e-mail offences and placement of Top Secret information on her private servers, the investigation was in the hands of James Comey, who had returned to gov service as FBI Director, where he 'could not find' any crimes regarding Hillary. ..."
"... Lisa Barsoomian is a lawyer who, over time, worked in many cases representing James Comey, Robert Mueller, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the FBI and the CIA. ..."
From the web the other side of the rabbit hole, key items in the utterly
corruption-tainted profile of the Robert Mueller – Hillary Clinton etc team jabbing at
Trump
From 2001 to 2005 the US gov had an ongoing investigation into the Clinton Foundation.
Governments from around the world had donated to the 'Charity', yet many of those donations
were illegally undeclared.
The investigation mysteriously ended after US Justice Dept staffer James Comey took it
over in 2005. He was assisted by Assistant Attorney General of the United States, Rod
Rosenstein, and FBI Director Robert Mueller.
James Comey's brother works for DLA Piper that handles the Clinton Foundation.
When Hillary Clinton was Obama's US Secretary of State, she supported a decision to sell
20% of US Uranium to Russia. Bill Clinton went to Moscow, was paid US $500,000 for a one-hour
speech, and met with Vladimir Putin at his home. Entities connected to the Uranium One deal
then donated US $145 million to the Clinton Foundation
FBI Director Robert Mueller oversaw the Russian 'deal' Rod Rosenstein was placed under gag
order not to speak of it.
Also while Hillary was Secretary of State, her friend James Comey moved from the US
Justice Dept to Lockheed Martin, earning millions himself, with 17 no-bid contracts for
Lockheed Martin with Hillary's State Dept.
When the Benghazi investigations uncovered the Hillary e-mail offences and placement of
Top Secret information on her private servers, the investigation was in the hands of James
Comey, who had returned to gov service as FBI Director, where he 'could not find' any crimes
regarding Hillary.
Lisa Barsoomian is a lawyer who, over time, worked in many cases representing James Comey,
Robert Mueller, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, the FBI and the CIA.
Lisa Barsoomian is the wife of US Assistant Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who appointed
Robert Mueller to his current job.
Great insight: "Browder who helped facilitate the looting before he was kicked out of Russia and the
Magnitsky Act are all part of the efforts to seize or at least contain as much of the loot as
possible and keep it from Russia"
Notable quotes:
"... Russians hold as much as one trillion in USD assets outside Russia that were stolen from Russia in the 90's and number far greater if including all of the FSU. The stimulus to the global and US economy was enormous and created asset bubbles until the great collapse in 2008. The current bubble was due to quantitative easing of central banks as the flows from Russia and FSU dried up. ..."
"... Much of this was held in tax havens and then moved to the US after cleaning via shelf companies. Trumps empire was rebuilt with Russian oligarchs/mafia money as real estate was a favorite investment for money launderers ..."
"... Browder who helped facilitate the looting before he was kicked out of Russia and the Magnitsky Act are all part of the efforts to seize or at least contain as much of the loot as possible and keep it from Russia ..."
Russians hold as much as one trillion in USD assets outside Russia that were stolen from Russia
in the 90's and number far greater if including all of the FSU. The stimulus to the global and
US economy was enormous and created asset bubbles until the great collapse in 2008. The current
bubble was due to quantitative easing of central banks as the flows from Russia and FSU dried
up.
Much of this was held in tax havens and then moved to the US after cleaning via shelf
companies. Trumps empire was rebuilt with Russian oligarchs/mafia money as real estate was a
favorite investment for money launderers
During the Ukrainian conflict Putin began an amnesty program asking oligarchs to repatriate
these assets by waiving penalties and taxes. He restarted it at the end of last year, hence the
need to expand the list of assets to be seized before they fly the coop.
Trump may know where a lot of these assets are parked. Perhaps he had been a good informant
of the FBI/CIA like his partner Felix Sater
Browder who helped facilitate the looting before he was kicked out of Russia and the
Magnitsky Act are all part of the efforts to seize or at least contain as much of the loot as
possible and keep it from Russia
"... The agents actually threatening the health of the state came from the intel community itself: Mr. Brennan, Mr. Clapper, Mr. Comey, Mr. Strzok, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Ohr, Ms. Yates. Ms. Page, et. al. who colluded with pathogens in the DNC, the Hillary campaign, and the British intel service to chew up and spit out Mr. Trump as expeditiously as possible. ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Deep State can't stop running its mouth -- The New York Times , CNN, WashPo , et al -- in an evermore hysterical reaction to the truth of the matter: the Deep State itself colluded with Russia (and perhaps hates itself for it, a sure recipe for mental illness). ..."
"... The second head of this monster is a matrix of sinister interests seeking to incite conflict with Russia in order to support arms manufacturers, black box "security" companies, congressmen-on-the-take, and an army of obscenely-rewarded Washington lobbyists in concert with the military and a rabid neocon intellectual think-tank camp wishing to replay the cold war and perhaps even turn up the temperature with some nuclear fire. ..."
"... This second head functions by way of a displacement-projection dynamic. We hold war games on the Russian border and accuse them of "aggression." ..."
"... The third head of this monster is the one aflame with identity politics. It arises from a crypto-gnostic wish to change human nature to escape the woes and sorrows of the human condition -- for example, the terrible tensions of sexuality. Hence, the multiplication of new sexual categories as a work-around for the fundamental terrors of human reproduction as represented by the differences between men and women. ..."
"... "We engineer and pay for a coup against the elected government of Ukraine, and accuse Russia of aggression. We bust up one nation after another in Middle East and complain indignantly when Russia acts to keep Syria from becoming the latest failed state. We disrupt the Russian economy with sanctions, and the Russian banking system with a cut-off of SWIFT international currency clearing privileges, and accuse them of aggression. This mode of behavior used to be known as "poking the bear," a foolish and hazardous endeavor. " ..."
"... And this shit has been going on since the Soviet Union broke up and the "Harvard Boys" helped turn Russia into a corrupt Oligarchy, something the Left was first to identify. ..."
"... The rising of the Populist parties in the UK, Germany, especially Italy and now Sweden, portends an interesting trend, not just nationally, but world wide... ..."
The faction that used to be the Democratic party can be described with some precision these days as a three-headed monster driving
the nation toward danger, darkness, and incoherence.
Anyone interested in defending what remains of the sane center of American politics take heed:
The first head is the one infected with the toxic shock of losing the 2016 election. The illness took hold during the campaign
that year when the bureaucracy under President Obama sent its lymphocytes and microphages in the "intel community" -- especially
the leadership of the FBI -- to attack the perceived disease that the election of Donald Trump represented. The "doctors" of this
Deep State diagnosed the condition as "Russian collusion." An overdue second opinion by doctors outside the Deep State adduced later
that the malady was actually an auto-immune disease.
The agents actually threatening the health of the state came from the intel community itself: Mr. Brennan, Mr. Clapper, Mr.
Comey, Mr. Strzok, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Ohr, Ms. Yates. Ms. Page, et. al. who colluded with pathogens in the DNC, the Hillary campaign,
and the British intel service to chew up and spit out Mr. Trump as expeditiously as possible.
With the disease now revealed by hard evidence, the chief surgeon called into the case, Robert Mueller, is left looking ridiculous
-- and perhaps subject to malpractice charges -- for trying to remove an appendix-like organ called the Manifort from the body politic
instead of attending to the cancerous mess all around him. Meanwhile, the Deep State can't stop running its mouth -- The New
York Times , CNN, WashPo , et al -- in an evermore hysterical reaction to the truth of the matter: the Deep State itself colluded
with Russia (and perhaps hates itself for it, a sure recipe for mental illness).
The second head of this monster is a matrix of sinister interests seeking to incite conflict with Russia in order to support
arms manufacturers, black box "security" companies, congressmen-on-the-take, and an army of obscenely-rewarded Washington lobbyists
in concert with the military and a rabid neocon intellectual think-tank camp wishing to replay the cold war and perhaps even turn
up the temperature with some nuclear fire. They are apparently in deep confab with the first head and its Russia collusion storyline.
Note all the current talk about Russia already meddling in the 2018 midterm election, a full-fledged pathogenic hallucination.
This second head functions by way of a displacement-projection dynamic. We hold war games on the Russian border and accuse
them of "aggression." We engineer and pay for a coup against the elected government of Ukraine, and accuse Russia of aggression.
We bust up one nation after another in Middle East and complain indignantly when Russia acts to keep Syria from becoming the latest
failed state.We disrupt the Russian economy with sanctions, and the Russian banking system with a cut-off of SWIFT international
currency clearing privileges, and accuse them of aggression. This mode of behavior used to be known as "poking the bear," a foolish
and hazardous endeavor. The sane center never would have stood for this arrant recklessness. The world community is not fooled, though.
More and more, they recognize the USA as a national borderline personality, capable of any monstrous act.
The third head of this monster is the one aflame with identity politics. It arises from a crypto-gnostic wish to change human
nature to escape the woes and sorrows of the human condition -- for example, the terrible tensions of sexuality. Hence, the multiplication
of new sexual categories as a work-around for the fundamental terrors of human reproduction as represented by the differences between
men and women. Those differences must be abolished, and replaced with chimeras that enable a childish game of pretend, men pretending
to be women and vice-versa in one way or another: LBGTQetc. Anything BUT the dreaded "cis-hetero" purgatory of men and women acting
like men and women. The horror .
Its companion is the race hustle and its multicultural operating system. The objective has become transparent over the past year,
with rising calls to punish white people for the supposed "privilege" of being Caucasian and pay "reparations" in one way or another
to underprivileged "people of color." This comes partly from the infantile refusal to understand that life is difficult for everybody,
and that the woes and sorrows of being in this world require fortitude and intelligence to get through -- with the final reward being
absolutely the same for everybody.
"We engineer and pay for a coup against the elected government of Ukraine, and accuse Russia of aggression. We bust
up one nation after another in Middle East and complain indignantly when Russia acts to keep Syria from becoming the latest
failed state. We disrupt the Russian economy with sanctions, and the Russian banking system with a cut-off of SWIFT international
currency clearing privileges, and accuse them of aggression. This mode of behavior used to be known as "poking the bear," a
foolish and hazardous endeavor. "
And this shit has been going on since the Soviet Union broke up and the
"Harvard Boys" helped turn Russia into
a corrupt Oligarchy, something the Left was first to identify.
I was talking to someone, who knows a lot about the 'inner workings' and we were discussing, not only the US, but Europe's
situation as well.
The rising of the Populist parties in the UK, Germany, especially Italy and now Sweden, portends an interesting trend,
not just nationally, but world wide...
The Founding Fathers had someone just like Donald Trump in mind when they
banned any and all emoluments to the president from any foreign or state
governments
Conservatives, we are constantly told, believe in strict adherence to the
Constitution based primarily on the text and secondarily on the views of the
Founding Fathers, who wrote and breathed life into our founding document. If
conservatives really were "originalists," they would be the first to say that
Donald Trump is exactly the kind of president who ought to be impeached.
The Founding Fathers, savvy students of history and human nature, were
highly attuned to the risks of public corruption -- actual or perceived -- and
inserted language into the Articles of Confederation and later into the
Constitution to guard against such human frailties. They wanted to make sure
that anyone who held a public office would serve only one master: the American
people.
A farewell to kings
For the Founders, public corruption wasn't just a theoretical danger. They
viewed it as the primary threat to their independence. Living in a small,
fledgling country, the Americans feared that the European powers would seize
control of the American democracy by flattering and bribing our officials.
The kings and princes of Europe were masters of the art. The British king
had corrupted Parliament by providing titles and sinecures, a major
contributor to the split between the colonies and Britain. The true history of
the 1670 Treaty of Dover had just been published, which revealed that King
Louis XIV of France had bribed Charles II of England with a secret pension, a
beautiful and beloved French mistress, and a promise of protection. In
exchange, Charles had agreed to convert to Catholicism and to join Louis in
his costly and fruitless war against the Dutch, his former ally.
During the Constitutional Convention (
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/debcont.asp
),
Gouverneur Morris (who is regarded as the chief architect of the presidency)
argued that receiving such emoluments would justify impeachment of the
president: Because the president would not have a lifetime office or income,
Morris said, "he may be bribed by a greater interest to betray his trust; and
no one would say that we ought to expose ourselves to the danger of seeing the
first Magistrate in foreign pay, without being able to guard against it by
displacing him."
It seems the Founding Fathers had Donald Trump (or someone very like him)
in mind when they wrote those clauses into the Constitution. They were
concerned about our government officials being corrupted by foreign or
domestic powers. Alexander Hamilton argued in Federalist Paper #73 (
https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers
)
that the domestic emoluments clause was designed to keep the president
independent and incorruptible.
'Appealing to his avarice'
"In the main," Hamilton argued, "it will be found that a power over a man's
support is power over his will."
With the emolument ban in place, "they can neither weaken his fortitude by
operating on his necessities, nor corrupt his integrity by appealing to his
avarice," Hamilton wrote.
The key passage in the Constitution is Article I, Section 9: (
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#toc-sect
-)
"No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person
holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent
of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any
kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."
The point of this clause is to prevent any foreign power from gaining
influence over the U.S. government by providing gifts, titles, jobs or other
benefits to its officials.
No exceptions
Article II, Section 1 (
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#toc-sect
)
specifically limits the president and does not allow Congress to approve
exceptions: "The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a
Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the
Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within
that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."
The point of this clause is to prevent the Congress or any of the states
from gaining undue influence over the president by lining his pockets.
Note that these prohibitions don't require a legal finding of bribery. The
Constitution doesn't say payments are OK as long as there's no quid pro quo.
Such "emoluments" are unconstitutional, full stop.
The only real point of dispute between Trump's defenders and his critics is
over the meaning of the word "emolument." Trump's lawyers say (
http://oag.dc.gov/sites/default/files/2018-03/Defendants-Motion-to-Dism
)"emolument"
means only the money that is earned for holding an office (and not for renting
a room or granting a lease). His critics say "emolument" means any profit,
advantage, gain or benefit.
It's interesting that Messitte's ruling relies heavily (but not
exclusively) on an "originalist" approach. He notes in his opinion that the
preponderance of the evidence shows that the common meaning in 1787 of the
word "emolument" was any "profit," "gain" or "advantage." Nearly all
dictionaries of the day followed this definition, and many authors and
politicians at that time also used that definition. Trump's alternative
definition has almost no contemporaneous support, the judge ruled.
Messitte's ruling may be overturned, of course. There is considerable
pressure on Republican office holders, as well as conservative jurists, to
ignore the stench of corruption stemming from Trump's ownership of a large and
complex business that does business with governments near and far.
The Founding Fathers could well imagine that a foreign or domestic power
would try to corrupt the president. But they could not imagine that the
constitutional system they created would ever permit the president to corrupt
the Congress or the courts. Let's hope they weren't wrong about us.
'Guard against corruption'
Edmund Randolph, governor of Virginia, delegate to the Philadelphia
convention and first attorney general of the United States, said during the
ratification debate that the president "is restrained from receiving any
present or emolument whatever. It is impossible to guard better against
corruption."
And if the president does so, "he may be impeached," Randolph declared with
no reservations.
The Founding Fathers, in other words, would have impeached Trump in a New
York minute.
The word "bagman" has fallen out of common usage over the years, which is a damned
shame. It's a perfect word for the era: According to Merriam-Webster, a "bagman" is defined as "a person who on
behalf of another collects or distributes illicitly gained money; an intermediary in an illicit or unethical
transaction."
Sound like anyone you've seen in the news lately?
So long as corruption has existed in the human hive, there have been bagmen to do the dirty work and move the
money. If you were a contractor in ancient Rome looking to get a piece of the action on that new Coliseum deal,
some version for the age -- a
hominis bulgae,
if you will would grease the skids to the doorstep of an
influential senator on the take.
Juicy historical parallels are, to me, better than a cold peach on a hot day. This one is especially sweet and
twice as timely. Back in the wildly corrupt 19
th
-century days of
Tammany Hall
, dirty money was often carried from person
to person in actual bags, hence the name. Tammany's top bagman was a chair-maker named James H. Ingersoll, who was
business partners with the Hall's most notorious leader, William "Boss" Tweed.
Ingersoll helped Tweed and his Tammany cohorts steal millions of dollars for the purposes of bribery and
personal enrichment, often siphoning the cash through shady real estate deals and properties that did not actually
exist. The money would find its way into Ingersoll's account, whereupon it was disbursed in various bags to
various swells in various parts of the city.
The New York Times and Harper's Weekly eventually blew the lid off the Tammany machine, and James Ingersoll's
lucrative bagman career was over. He was convicted on two counts of forgery in 1872 and spent two and a half years
in jail. He was pardoned in 1875 on the condition that he testify for the state in the second corruption trial of
Tweed; the first had ended in a hung jury. Ingersoll did exactly that, and "Boss" Tweed ultimately died of
pneumonia in the Ludlow Street Jail in 1878.
We don't say "bagman" anymore; the papers today would call James Ingersoll an "embezzler," a "fixer" or a
"money-launderer." Ingersoll was all those things, but language has a tendency to drift over time, especially in
matters of the law. "Graft" becomes "corruption," "grifter" becomes "politician,"
It is not only George Soros is losing. Neoliberalism is losing some of its fights too, despite recent revenge in sev eral Latin
American countries. Deep state was always an alliance of Wall Street sharks with intelligence agencies and Soros is a true representative
of this breed. He is connected and acted in sync with them in xUSSR space. In this sense he can be viewed as a part of Harvard
Mafia which economically raped Russia in 1990th...
Malaysia's prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, correctly called Soros and other speculators "unscrupulous profiteers" whose immoral
work served no social value. That actually aptly characterize all members of Harvard mafia not just George Soros.
BTW, if Victoria Nuland (of EuroMaydan putch fame) praises a particular person, you can be sure that his person serves US
imperial interests...
Notable quotes:
"... ...In the 1990s, he was portrayed by the far left as an agent of American imperialism, helping to foist the so-called neoliberal agenda (mass privatization, for example) on Eastern Europe. For some critics, Soros's Wall Street background has always been a mark against him. ..."
"... In one campaign rally in Budapest, Orban referred to Soros as "Uncle George," telling tens of thousands of supporters that "we are fighting an enemy that is different from us. Not open but hiding; not straightforward but crafty; not honest but base; not national but international; does not believe in working but speculates with money; does not have its own homeland but feels it owns the world." ..."
"... I always thought George Soros was a dangerous [neo]liberal but after reading this article and seeing the damage he has created around the world it has been confirmed. ..."
"... Mr. Soros fights for all the [neo]liberal causes no matter the consequences. ..."
"... I am glad that the conservatives and others are finally seeing his true colors and are trying to subdue him the best they can. He must be called out on this negative behavior before it is too late. It is reassuring that many of the European nations are implementing policies that are favorable to their countries and looking out for their people. Europeans must be protected and George Soros stopped. I am glad they see him for what he truly is which is frightening. ..."
"... As Mr. Soros said of himself, "I am a confirmed egoist." He has used his money to make the world as he thinks is best. But having money does not give you a better moral view of how the world should be governed nor make you a god to decide for the rest of us. ..."
"... I think this kind of undue influence (money in politics) is what is driving some of the back-lash against [neo]liberal democracy. So many of the "[neo]liberal" proponents of an open society, like George Soros and Bill Gates, seem to have an inordinate power to effect political outcomes because of their money. ..."
"... Soros is an enemy of the middle and working classes in America. ..."
"... Now, more than ever, American politics is defined by money, so it's important to understand how it is used in that context by those who have it. ..."
"... What about the devastating effects that free trade and globalization have had on the spread of inequality throughout the world... Huge corporations consistently use "free trade" or globalization as an excuse to offer the lowest possible wages, and move manufacturing to places with the least environmental protections and human rights. ..."
"... Soros didn't bet on Democracy, he bet on his version of it which he tried to buy through individual politicians on the take and the Democratic Party. Better he quit manipulating pols and gave his money to charity. ..."
"... Soros is a criminal by any other name. He hedged against the UK Pound 20 years ago, and earned $1B. He earned billions by manipulating the market. With his profits he wanted to create his own society where his money could be used to buy politicians and pass legislation according to his one man agenda. He's selfish, an egomaniac, and dangerous. ..."
"... George Soros is the epitome of corruption penetration and distortion of political process by obscene wealth. It does not matter what his true intentions are he can say whatever he wants but we will never know for sure. And stop calling that "philanthropy". ..."
"... What Soros is doing is imposing his personal political beliefs and ideas on everybody by buying political influence with his money - that is called "corruption" pure and simple. ..."
"... What he does is not democracy promotion - it is the exact opposite democracy destruction. It is good to know that he is failing in that effort. ..."
"... Neoliberalism has failed to improve democratic governance and reduced distribution of wealth ..."
"... What pharaonic globalist plutocrats like him mean by "Liberal Democracy" encompasses a sinister set of objectives. Prominent among which are these two: ..."
"... Full support for neocon/neoliberal destabilization, confrontation, and military interventionism. ..."
"... The destruction of borders, nations, and cultures -- particularly Western Culture here and in Europe. ..."
"... Soros and his peers want unhindered unlimited access to cheap Third World labor as well as to have complete control over the entire global economy. To his class nationalism and culture are speed bumps on the way to those self-serving goals. ..."
Yet the political realm is where Soros has made his most audacious wager. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, in 1989, he poured
hundreds of millions of dollars into the former Soviet-bloc countries to promote civil society and [neo]liberal democracy. It was
a one-man Marshall Plan for Eastern Europe, a private initiative without historical precedent. It was also a gamble that a part of
the world that had mostly known tyranny would embrace ideas like government accountability and ethnic tolerance. In London in the
1950s, Soros was a student of the expatriated Austrian philosopher Karl Popper, who championed the notion of an "open society," in
which individual liberty, pluralism and free inquiry prevailed. Popper's concept became Soros's cause.
... ... ...
...In the 1990s, he was portrayed by the far left as an agent of American imperialism, helping to foist the so-called neoliberal
agenda (mass privatization, for example) on Eastern Europe. For some critics, Soros's Wall Street background has always been a mark
against him.
Last autumn, he signaled that same sense of defiance when he announced that he was in the process of transferring the bulk of
his remaining wealth, $18 billion in total at the time, to the O.S.F. That will potentially make it the second-largest philanthropic
organization in the United States, in assets, after the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It is already a sprawling entity, with some
1,800 employees in 35 countries, a global advisory board, eight regional boards and 17 issue-oriented boards. Its annual budget of
around $1 billion finances projects in education, public health, independent media, immigration and criminal-justice reform and other
areas
... ... ...
He decided that his goal would be opening closed societies. He created a philanthropic organization, then called the Open Society
Fund, in 1979 and began sponsoring college scholarships for black South African students. But he soon turned his attention to Eastern
Europe, where he started financing dissident groups. He funneled money to the Solidarity strikers in Poland in 1981 and to Charter
77 in Czechoslovakia. In one especially ingenious move, he sent hundreds of Xerox copiers to Hungary to make it easier for underground
publications to disseminate their newsletters. In the late 1980s, he provided dozens of Eastern European students with scholarships
to study in the West, with the aim of fostering a generation of [neo]liberal democratic leaders. One of those students was Viktor
Orban, who studied civil society at Oxford. From his Manhattan trading desk, Soros became a strange sort of expat anticommunist revolutionary.
... ... ...
In one campaign rally in Budapest, Orban referred to Soros as "Uncle George," telling tens of thousands of supporters that
"we are fighting an enemy that is different from us. Not open but hiding; not straightforward but crafty; not honest but base; not
national but international; does not believe in working but speculates with money; does not have its own homeland but feels it owns
the world." Along with the fiery speeches, there were the billboards, which featured a picture of a smiling Soros and the message,
"Let's not let George Soros have the last laugh."
... ... ...
Orban's coalition won 49 percent of the vote, enough to give it a supermajority in Parliament. But the anti-Soros campaign didn't
end with the election. Days after the vote, a magazine owned by a pro-Orban businesswoman published the names of more than 200 people
in Hungary that it claimed were Soros "mercenaries."
... ... ...
There have been mistakes; by his own admission, Soros erred in championing Mikheil Saakashvili, the mercurial former president
of Georgia, and also became too directly involved in the country's politics in the early 2000s. He clearly misjudged Orban. But as
Victoria Nuland, a former American diplomat who worked for both Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton, put it when I spoke to her recently,
"George is a freedom fighter."
"Billionaire philanthropist?" Really? Does that make the Koch brothers and Sheldon Adelstein "philanthropists" too, or does
that label apply only to left-leaning individuals seeking political leverage many times that of the average citizen?
One citizen, 1 vote. ALL citizens should be limited to $100 contributions for their senators, representatives and the President.
NO citizen should be able to contribute to a campaign in a state where he/she is not a full-time permanent resident.
And NO citizen should be able to contribute more than $100 to his/her own campaign. We don't need more Kennedys, Clintons,
Bloombergs, Trumps, Perots or Forbes buying (or trying to buy) their way into public office, using their millions.
Of the people, by the people, for the people. That's the model, folks. Depart from it at your peril.
Soros--a "European at heart." Must have brought some much-needed smiles to the UK following the recent Trump Tour of Destruction.
How soon we forget--in the 90s, Soros broke the pound as the Brits were trying to unify European currencies--with unfortunate
conditions that weakened the effort and Soros smartly exploited.
Who can blame a globalist from crashing a poorly devised govt scheme and walking away with a cool $1B--back when a billion
dollars was a lot of money? I am not the person to say whether Soros may qualify as an honest proponent of democracy, but I strongly
suspect that he is a poster boy of the ultra-nationalists as they battle globalization.
In a way, Soros epitomizes the failure of globalization, which may or may not benefit the classic, labor-intensive industries
of manufacturing, agriculture, construction, and mining, but always benefits, sometimes wildly, the financial "industry."
As far as I'm concerned, Soros is merely making reparations. And, sorry to say, George, it's prob too little, too late.
I always thought George Soros was a dangerous [neo]liberal but after reading this article and seeing the damage he has
created around the world it has been confirmed. Nigel Farage, the British politician, recently said on television that Mr.
Soros is out to destroy the world. It certainly appears to be the case when you see what he did to the British and Thai economies.
He was so concerned with helping immigrants and refugees that he had little regard for the citizens that actually lived in those
countries that are being affected. People lost their livelihoods but that did not matter to him.
Mr. Soros fights for all the [neo]liberal causes no matter the consequences. He ... does not care who he hurts as
long as he promotes his progressive agenda. He wants to allow as many immigrants to enter a nation as possible even if it adversely
affects that country while he lives in luxury and is not inconvenienced by this invasion. He has billions and will probably never
be touched by massive immigration.
I am glad that the conservatives and others are finally seeing his true colors and are trying to subdue him the best they
can. He must be called out on this negative behavior before it is too late. It is reassuring that many of the European nations
are implementing policies that are favorable to their countries and looking out for their people. Europeans must be protected
and George Soros stopped. I am glad they see him for what he truly is which is frightening.
As Mr. Soros said of himself, "I am a confirmed egoist." He has used his money to make the world as he thinks is best.
But having money does not give you a better moral view of how the world should be governed nor make you a god to decide for the
rest of us.
I think this kind of undue influence (money in politics) is what is driving some of the back-lash against [neo]liberal
democracy. So many of the "[neo]liberal" proponents of an open society, like George Soros and Bill Gates, seem to have an inordinate
power to effect political outcomes because of their money.
The making of such huge amounts of money is not done with any charitable purpose. Only later, does charity come to mind.
Soros is an enemy of the middle and working classes in America. Yes, a billion people around the world are better
off because of the forces of "globalization" (this total most definitely includes Soros himself), but millions of Americans have
suffered economically as a result. GATT, NAFTA and the entire alphabet soup of trade deals have lined the pockets of the globalists,
while grinding the fortunes of U.S. working and middle class laborers into dust.
Great article. Now, more than ever, American politics is defined by money, so it's important to understand how it is used
in that context by those who have it. At this juncture, I think the American people deserve to see an expose of all those
millionaires and billionaires who have and continue to support Trump. It's only fair, to lay the money trail on the table, on
all sides, for everyone to see.
What about the devastating effects that free trade and globalization have had on the spread of inequality throughout the
world... Huge corporations consistently use "free trade" or globalization as an excuse to offer the lowest possible wages, and
move manufacturing to places with the least environmental protections and human rights.
Immigration policies are also sometimes used in ways to suppress wages, and even more worse, enacted with very little thought
given to assimilation. Most of the poorer areas, or ghettoes surrounding Paris for example are populated with huge numbers of
Muslim immigrants that face extremely daunting odds of fully assimilating into French culture.
While the wealthier (sometimes elite [neo]liberals) Parisians almost certainly live in gated or posh neighborhoods with hardly
any immigrants as their neighbors. Despite the generous financial support Soros (and some other elites) gives to human rights
causes, he rarely outright discusses some of these problems associated with free trade, globalization and mass immigration. These
seeming hypocrisies and inconsistencies then become much easier fodder for those of Orban's ilk to manipulate and ultimately consolidate
power.
Soros didn't bet on Democracy, he bet on his version of it which he tried to buy through individual politicians on the
take and the Democratic Party. Better he quit manipulating pols and gave his money to charity.
First, Hungary is not xenophobic, they merely want to protect their culture. Second, George Soros wants plenty of wealth for
him and his family, yet he wants those of us in the middle class to dive up our meager assets with the world's poorest. Third,
his personal wealth has often been generated by destroying currencies and the middle class who owns those currencies. Fourth,
he promotes open borders without consulting the citizenry of said borders as to their opinion regarding their own national sovereignty.
Our world would be a much better place without George Soros.
Soros is a criminal by any other name. He hedged against the UK Pound 20 years ago, and earned $1B. He earned billions
by manipulating the market. With his profits he wanted to create his own society where his money could be used to buy politicians
and pass legislation according to his one man agenda. He's selfish, an egomaniac, and dangerous.
Soros employs his vast wealth to create the society he dreams of, regardless of what the rest of us want. When the democratic
process veers away from his vision, he uses the power of his wealth to steer it back.
So he's just another wealthy and powerful elite trying to remake the world as he prefers it. Such arrogance!
Sucking money out of the world's economies so that he can direct it as HE sees fit does not make a man great. Rather, I would
argue that such actions contributed to the rise of both Brexiteers and Trumpsters.
If Soros really wants to contribute to society, he would lobby for financial industry reform - less favorable tax treatment
for hedge funds (what value do they really provide to society) and a transaction tax on trades to reduce speculation. Then fight
for minimum wage increases.
This is a horrifying interview and does not improve the image of George Soros. "My ideology is nonideological," he says while
spending billions on politics, which he defines as "In politics, you are spinning the truth, not discovering it." He describes
Obama as his greatest disappointment because Obama "closed the door on me," as in he expected Obama should work with him and take
his advice. Soros uses his billions to fund politicians and meddle in elections... this is a man who enjoys influencing and manipulating
politics and becomes frustrated when his efforts backfire or are not successful.
This man is the absolute worst! His no borders policy has done more to hurt Europe then Russia ever could. The Soros gang has
zero respect and tolerance for nation-state sovereignty and local governance. Talk about a global elite! He and his gang epitomize
that arrogance.
George Soros bet big on open borders,one world governance and destroying the working class through unfair trade agreements.
Yes he appears to be losing. Thank God for small favors.
It cracks me up to read these type of article in the NYT and then read another story in the NYT about how if you can pay the
money you can have yourself a private waiting area in a major airport to separate yourself from the chaos of the masses in the
public waiting areas. Maybe democracy wouldn't be in trouble around the world if it worked as well for the "slobs" in the public
waiting areas as it did for those in the exclusive waiting rooms. This is globalization in a nutshell. It works great for the
rich, not so well for the rest of us slobs. This is a government of the rich people, by the rich people, for the rich people.
The slobs realise their government doesn't really care that their jobs are disapearing and their standard of living is going down.
To say that George Soros is funding [neo]liberal democracy is a misnomer. What Soros is funding is open borders. Where national
interests are set aside, global interests prevail. This is precisely what George Soros is advocating. Tired of having to face
multitude regulatory systems in his effort to build a global financial empire, Soros is quite right in discerning that a borderless,
global regulatory system would increase his financial power exponentially. Nations are right to resist the encroachment of Soros
because global interests, by definition, are not local interests. Nationalism, so loathed by Soros and his open border lackeys,
serves as a check and balance on men like Soros who would be god and would dictate to the world from some point of central governance
what their truth and value should be. George Soros and his globalist kin should be resisted. The true threat to global interests
is not nationalism, it is globalism.
Soros, and American [neo]liberalism, economic and social [neo]liberalism championed by Soros and the NYT, is in its death throes.
Call us fascists, totalitarians, racists--- understand clearly: we do not care. Europe is waking up. [neo]liberalism is close
to being dead. No spectres or phantoms are haunting Europe. Blood is standing up and answering our ancestors.We are not commodoties,
consumers, meat for your wars. You have attacked us, belittled us, turned our queen of continents into latrines of filth. You,
American [neo]liberalism, have destroyed us.Now, we take our nations back.
It's amusing to read phrases like "nationalism and tribalism are resurgent". It never does to underestimate tribalism; as long
as groups feel safe they are tolerant. But when groups feel threatened, tribalism rears up in what is not so much a resurgence
but more like an awakening from a nap.
The older cultures of Europe are waking up from a nap and realizing that unless they reassess a few long-held assumptions,
they will eventually be ethnically diminished and culturally pressured.
Denmark has banned the burka and legislated some of the harshest migration, immigration, asylum, and naturalization laws in
Europe. It is implementing laws to ensure integration, including stopping benefits to families whose children are not integrating.
Do the author and Mr. Soros think that Denmark exercising control over its future demographics and preserving its culture are
malign?
The Danes some years ago elected the Danish People's Party to significant power; the DPP is often referred to as a far right
party, but is a typical left-wing party in everything except pushing Denmark toward "multiculturalism".
Sweden's centre-left government, on the other hand, brought in hundreds of thousands of Third World immigrants and then refused
even to admit, let alone discuss, the glaring problems with integration within its immigrant community.
Result: the Sweden Democrats, a bona fide neo-Nazi party, are set to do extremely and alarmingly well in Sweden's September
elections.
This super-rich elitist from Hungary is trying to buy American democracy and reshape it in his image regardless of what We
The People want. And the Democrats are on his payroll and totally owned by this foreign agent!
Soros' flaw is that he only tolerates centralized socialist democracy. He cannot stand the idea of democracy in the form of
a federal republic with a weak central government. Interestingly, he made his billions as a predatory capitalist now he turns
on capitalism. He also exhibits a particularly vicious elitism: No one should be allowed to own guns except his private security
guards. He knows that umarmed men are always someone's slaves.
Soros is a hypocrite who did one thing and is now out to create a legacy. All is shows is he is driven by both greed and ego.
His blatant hypocrisy probably did more harm than good - common denominator, it's always about him. Hey Soros, don't do us plebes
any more favors, ok?
Democracy is alive and well, regardless of what Soros thinks. He does not represent democracy, he was never been elected to
any public office. He represents open borders mass migration, as the name of one of his NGOs implies, Open Society Foundation.
Brexit voters, and other voters across the west are increasingly voting against his philosophy. Voters in the US, Hungary, Poland,
Czech Republic, Italy, Slovenia, etc, have democratically chosen as their leaders conservative controlled borders leaders, and
to underscore, all were elected via the democratic process.
Open Borders and globalism that Soros is pushing is increasingly being rejected in voting booths in the EU and the US.
It is hardly undemocratic to increasingly vote against what Soros is selling chaotic mass migration made possible by open
borders.
He represents [neo]liberal democracy, and voters increasingly favor conservative democracy.
George Soros is the epitome of corruption penetration and distortion of political process by obscene wealth. It does
not matter what his true intentions are he can say whatever he wants but we will never know for sure. And stop calling that
"philanthropy".
Red Cross and Salvation Army is philanthropy. What Soros is doing is imposing his personal political beliefs and ideas
on everybody by buying political influence with his money - that is called "corruption" pure and simple.
Sure, he is not the only one doing that, but he is the one doing that most overtly and blatantly. He seems to relish being
the face of the elitist disregard for the masses. What he does is not democracy promotion - it is the exact opposite democracy
destruction. It is good to know that he is failing in that effort.
Neoliberalism has failed to improve democratic governance and reduced distribution of wealth, just as leftists predicted.
Soros benefitted financially, which has increased his privilege to participate in governance voters cannot achieve. Despite Soros'
wealth, successfully manipulating currency markets does not easily transfer to manipulating electorates. Even if Soros believes
his projects would produce good governance, he lacks the ability to convince voters what is in their best interests.
I am elated to hear that George Soros might be losing.
What pharaonic globalist plutocrats like him mean by "Liberal Democracy" encompasses a sinister set of objectives. Prominent
among which are these two:
1). Full support for neocon/neoliberal destabilization, confrontation, and military interventionism.
2). The destruction of borders, nations, and cultures -- particularly Western Culture here and in Europe.
Soros and his peers want unhindered unlimited access to cheap Third World labor as well as to have complete control over
the entire global economy. To his class nationalism and culture are speed bumps on the way to those self-serving goals.
"... 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.
"... The activities of the organization are gussied up in sanctimonious prose about aiding the poor and raising the living standards of the third world. Don't be fooled. These bailouts are really about protecting interests of Chase Manhattan, J.P. Morgan, and Fidelity Investments ..."
"... for inexplicable reasons, ..."
"... harshly worded ..."
"... To be sure, there were unsettling reports of shady dealings during the takeovers, but most observers explained them away as inevitable side effects of such a far-reaching transformation. ..."
"... for the best of reasons ..."
"... Americans, who thought their money was helping a stricken land, have been dishonored; and the Russian people who trusted us are now in debt twice what they were in 1991 and rightly feel themselves betrayed. ..."
Within four weeks they bought $6.5 billion and transferred most of it to foreign banks.
[8] Most of the rest of IMF loan was a stealth bailout for western financial institutions
which had some $200 billion worth of loans and investments in Russia. The banks feared the
prospect of Russian default which would leave them with crippling losses. These risks became
even more acute in the aftermath of the 1997 East Asian financial crisis that would engulf
Russia in 1998.
In a testimony before the U.S. Congress, veteran investor Jim Rogers characterized IMF's
assistance to Russia as follows: " The activities of the organization are gussied up in
sanctimonious prose about aiding the poor and raising the living standards of the third world.
Don't be fooled. These bailouts are really about protecting interests of Chase Manhattan, J.P.
Morgan, and Fidelity Investments ."
[9]
In addition to loading Russia up with unproductive debt, IMF also engineered Russia's
hyperinflation and liquidity crisis. After eliminating price controls, IMF obliged Russia to
maintain the ruble as the common currency for all Soviet Union successor states, giving each of
the 15 new countries the incentive to issue ruble credits for their own benefit while fueling
inflation for all others. Sachs reported that he strenuously argued with the IMF against this
measure but " for inexplicable reasons, " he was consistently rebuked.
The result was a one-year delay in the introduction of national currencies for the former
Soviet republics, pushing Russia into hyperinflation and needlessly prolonging its economic
depression. At this same time, the IMF engineered Russia's staggering liquidity crisis that
made it almost impossible for enterprises to pay their suppliers and workers. Under IMF's
dictate, Russian economy struggled along on less than one sixth of the currency required to
operate an economy of its size.
The extent of IMF's iron-fisted control over Russian economy was exemplified in a letter
from the IMF's representative Yusuke Horaguchi to Russia's central bank chairman Sergei Dubinin
. The letter specified the precise schedule of Russia's ruble supply along with " harshly
worded " instructions regarding bank credits, the state budget, energy policy, price
levels, trade tariffs and agricultural policies. Horaguchi's letter even included a warning
that any acts of the parliament contravening the IMF mandates would be vetoed by president
Yeltsin.
[10]
It is clear that shock "therapy" was little more than a relentless, cruel strangulation of
Russia's economy to facilitate looting of her vast industrial and resource wealth .
Nonetheless, most Western-published analyses of this episode tended to treat it as failure of
good intentions. While lamenting the outcomes and certain questionable practices, most analysts
essentially attribute the failure of Russian transition to honest errors, Russia's endemic
corruption, and perhaps inexperience in many of the drama's protagonists.
Goldman Marshall
of Harvard and the Council of Foreign Relations wrote: " To be sure, there were unsettling
reports of shady dealings during the takeovers, but most observers explained them away as
inevitable side effects of such a far-reaching transformation. "
Naturally, Marshall fails to detail how or where he polled these "most observers," but his
message to the readers is unmistakable: move along folks, there's nothing to see here –
especially pay no attention to the fact that many of those thousands of Westerners who came to
Russia " for the best of reasons ," including Bill Browder , Andrei Schleifer and
Jonathan Hay ,
[12] returned from Russia as multi-millionaires. Financial reporter Anne Willamson , who
covered Russia for the New York Times and Wall Street Journal rightly remarked in her
Congressional testimony that, " Americans, who thought their money was helping a stricken
land, have been dishonored; and the Russian people who trusted us are now in debt twice what
they were in 1991 and rightly feel themselves betrayed. "
[12] During his time managing the HIID's Moscow operation, Andrei Schleifer and Jonathan
Hay took advantage of their position and relationships to make personal investments in Russia.
An investigation by the FBI and U.S. Justice Department found evidence of fraud and money
laundering by Harvard's consultants. In 2004, Schleifer was found guilty of fraud and he agreed
to pay a $31 million fine to settle the case. Not only did Harvard University persist in
defending Schleifer over the 8 years of investigations and trials, it paid the bulk of
Schileifer's fine and kept him on university's faculty.
The Times dug into their relationship in 2013 after the
Federal Bureau of Investigation raided the doctor's offices, drawing scrutiny to his relationship with the
senator.
According to that article, Dr. Melgen delivered hundreds
of thousands of dollars to benefit Mr. Menendez and the Democratic Party, flying him around on a private jet
for lavish vacations and rushing to the senator's side when his mother died. After Mr. Menendez's failure to
report the trips as gifts surfaced, he later sent Dr. Melgen a check to reimburse him for the costs.
Dr. Melgen also received favors.
In 2011, he bought a stake in a company that had a
long-dormant contract with the Dominican Republic to provide port security. Mr. Menendez used his influence
to urge officials in the State and Commerce Departments to intervene so the contract would be enforced, at
an estimated value of $500 million.
The Times also reported at the time that Floridians
looking for federal appointments requiring Mr. Menendez's approval needed to first get Dr. Melgen's backing.
Dr. Melgen faced scrutiny again last year when The Times
reported that he had received $21 million in Medicare reimbursements in 2012 alone.
According to the article
: "Mr. Menendez's aides acknowledged that the senator called the Medicare
director at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services in 2009 and brought it up at a meeting with the
acting administrator in 2012. Now both Dr. Melgen and Mr. Menendez find themselves under federal scrutiny."
Dr. Melgen and Mr. Menendez became friends in the 1990s,
when Mr. Menendez, who entered the House of Representatives in 1993, made regular visits to the Dominican
Republic.
Asked about the relationship in 2013, Mr. Menendez's
office said in a statement: "Dr. Melgen has been a friend and political supporter of Senator Menendez for
many years."
The expected charges against Mr. Menendez were first
reported by CNN.
Senator Robert Menendez has been helpful to Dr. Salomon E. Melgen, a
friend and contributor, in ways that could be lucrative for the doctor, according to records and
interviews.
In February, the Pentagon announced
a $950 million no-bid contract to REAN Cloud, LLC for the migration of legacy systems to the
cloud. As an Amazon Web Services consulting partner and reseller, REAN Cloud was likely favored
due to Amazon's recent $600 million cloud project for the Central Intelligence Agency. Creating
an unusually large contract with little oversight or competition led to ample criticism of the
Pentagon, as lawmakers demanded an explanation from DoD. In response to the brouhaha, the
Pentagon announced in early March that the maximum value of the contract would be
reduced from $950 million to $65 million.
As it turned out, though, even the Pentagon wasn't exactly sure how to apply the murky
requirements of OTA. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) ruled in May that the REAN contract did not
accord with federal law, in that REAN was granted an award without even really considering
going through a competitive bidding process. "Vague and attenuated" statements from the
Pentagon to potential bidders in the beginning of the process ensured that the process would
not be an open one. After the cancellation of the REAN deal, the Pentagon finally seems open to
competitive bidding for cloud migration.
Unfortunately, OTA is still alive and well across the DoD procurement process. In June, the
Defense Information Systems Agency
joined the growing list of agencies dabbling in OTA, noting that "many of the companies
we're dealing with are small start-ups." But as the REAN Cloud case shows, many companies
appear "small" but have far larger partners. According to statistics in the
Federal News Radio report , "Only $7.4 billion of the nearly $21 billion went to
nontraditional companies." The problem is created in part by the use of consortiums, which are
comprised of multiple companies, which vary in size. The consortium can decide how money is
allocated for an award, allowing larger businesses to benefit disproportionately out of sight
of the DoD and taxpayers.
Congress has finally started to demand more accountability for OTAs. The 2019 National
Defense Authorization Act passed by Congress requires more data
reporting and analysis by acquisition officials. But far more work remains.
Lawmakers should set stricter limits on when it's okay to eschew competitive bidding, and
lower the threshold for requiring congressional notification (currently set at $500 million).
Allowing tens of billions of dollars to be spent behind the backs of taxpayers without a
bidding process cannot continue.
Ross Marchand is the director of policy for the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.
The jury selection comes more than two years after Mr. Menendez was
indicted on eight bribery counts , the result of a federal investigation into Mr.
Menendez's relationship and dealings with Dr. Melgen.
Mr. Menendez is charged with receiving luxury hotel rooms, flights on Mr. Melgen's private
jet and donations to a Democratic super PAC in exchange for political advocacy, lobbying and
favors, such as intervening to help obtain visas for Mr. Melgen's college-age girlfriends from
Brazil, Ukraine and the Dominican Republic.
Mr. Menendez is also accused of lobbying the Obama administration to change the Medicare
reimbursement policy, which would have brought a financial windfall for Mr. Melgen.
NEWARK -- The federal corruption trial of Senator Robert Menendez of New Jersey ended in a mistrial on Thursday after jurors said
they were unable to reach a verdict, leaving Mr. Menendez, a Democrat, free to return to Congress but injecting uncertainty as he
faces re-election next year and his party faces a difficult battle to retake the Senate.
After interviewing jurors individually in his chambers, Judge William H. Walls emerged to tell the court that, after nine weeks
of testimony, the jury was deadlocked and that, as a result, "there is no alternative but to declare a mistrial."
One juror told reporters that 10 of the 12 jurors supported finding Mr. Menendez, a Democrat, not guilty, saying that prosecutors
had not made the case that the favors and gifts exchanged between the senator and a wealthy eye doctor went beyond what good friends
do for each other.
Following the ruling, Mr. Menendez seemed both relieved and defiant, denouncing prosecutors who pursued criminal charges against
him. "The way this case started was wrong, the way it was investigated was wrong, the way it was prosecuted was wrong, and the way
it was tried was wrong as well," he said.
How Sen. Bob Menendez's corruption case could change the way members of Congress do business - The Washington Post
In April 2015, federal prosecutors
dropped a bomb
on one of Senate Democrats' leading foreign policy voices. They accused Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.)
of doling out political favors for one of his longtime friends in exchange for luxurious trips, lavish gifts and
campaign cash.
Menendez, who was reelected to his second full term in 2012 and was the top Democrat on the Senate
Foreign Relations committee at the time, has pleaded not guilty and said he has done nothing wrong.
His lawyers have spent the past year battling the FBI and Justice Department over whether federal prosecutors can
actually investigate Menendez in the first place -- a debate centered on a centuries-old constitutional clause that
has the potential to redefine how the executive branch can look into the legislative branch. On Monday, Menendez's
lawyers are asking a federal three-judge panel in Philadelphia to throw out some or all of the dozen or so bribery
and corruption charges facing Menendez on the basis of a 1780s constitutional clause that they argue prevents
scrutiny of lawmakers' official legislative activities.
What the judges decide later this year could have major ripple effects for how secure -- or not -- members of
Congress feel in their day-to-day jobs from federal prosecution. Adding to the drama: The whole case has the
potential to reach the Supreme Court. Here's what you need to know about this latest turn in a complicated corruption
case, in three questions:
Remind me again of the case's details?
Sen. Menendez indicted on corruption charges
Skip
(Reuters)
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) was indicted on Wednesday on federal corruption charges.
(Reuters)
This past spring, Menendez became just
one of 12 U.S. senators indicted
while in office. Proving corruption is a high bar in the U.S judicial system. In
Menendez's case, prosecutors are trying to prove that Salomon Melgen, a Florida eye doctor, specifically
received political favors from Menendez in exchange for giving Menendez something.
They are trying to show that Menendez intervened on behalf of Melgen twice -- once to try to solve his friend's
Medicare billings problem with the government and another trying to grease the wheels for Melgen's port cargo
contract in the Dominican Republic. In exchange, prosecutors argue, Menendez accepted a series of trips and gifts
over the years from his friend, including free private-jet flights, stays at resorts in Paris, trips to the Dominican
Republic and more than $750,000 in campaign contributions.
"No ordinary constituent from New Jersey received the same treatment," the Justice Department said in an August
filing. (In a sign of just how tough it is to prove bribery charges, in September, a federal judge
threw
out four bribery charges
, saying Melgen's contributions to Menendez's legal defense fund didn't contain any
explicit agreement of quid pro quo.)
Menendez has said his friend's trips and gifts were a natural result of his friendship and that he never
inappropriately intervened on behalf of his friend. In what's become a nasty back and forth, lawyers have accused
prosecutors of trying to dig up dirt on him -- even his sex life. The investigation started after an anonymous tipster
told the FBI and media outlets that Menendez was patronizing underage prostitutes in one of his trips to the
Dominican Republic. Those allegations appear to be fabricated, wrote
The Post's Carol Leonnig in August
, but they've given the defense leverage with which to argue that the Justice
Department will "stop at nothing" to try to put Menendez behind bars.
So what's going on Monday?
Menendez in March 2015: 'I'm not going anywhere'
Skip
(Reuters)
During a news conference, March 6, 2015, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said he had no
intention of resigning during the trial phase of the corruption investigation against him. (Reuters)
Three federal appellate court judges will be hearing arguments from both sides about something much broader than
the two friends' alleged quid pro quo. The judges will be considering whether the executive branch, in the form of
the Justice Department, overstepped its constitutional bounds by investigating and charging Menendez in the first
place.
Menendez's lawyers are arguing that the senator was doing official legislative business in advancing his
constituent's interests in Washington, and the Constitution's "speech or debate" clause prevents lawmakers'
legislative acts from being scrutinized by the other two branches of government -- except for "Treason, Felony and
Breach of Peace." Menendez was engaged in none of that, they say, and they're asking the judges to throw out at least
some of the dozen or so counts of bribery and corruption on the claim that federal prosecutors unconstitutionally
investigated Menendez.
Federal prosecutors argue that the "speech or debate" clause doesn't apply if lawmakers are trying to influence
the other branches of government, and they say they can prove in court that Menendez was trying to do just that.
What the judges decide later this year could go to trial, possibly right around the time of the November
presidential elections. Depending on how the judges rule later this year, the case and its applications to the
"speech or debate" clause could also end up at the Supreme Court.
What happens next?
That's an open-ended question. Over the years, courts have expanded the protections lawmakers have from
investigation to go beyond what they say or do on the House or Senate floor,
reports
the Associated Press's David Porter
. But Lee Vartan, a former assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey, told Porter
that a case as specific as this is "uncharted territory."
And that's what makes this case and its potential legal ramifications so appealing to analyze. It is a
high-profile case litigating a not-widely-known constitutional clause. What the judges decide could set the precedent
for how protected -- or not -- lawmakers feel they are from investigation in the future.
The Supreme Court has rejected Sen. Bob Menendez's attempt to throw out the bribery and corruption charges against him, setting
the stage for a trial for the New Jersey Democrat this fall.
With Monday's announcement, Menendez can no longer block the proceedings against him from moving forward, a major setback for
his efforts to avoid criminal trial.
Abbe Lowell, Menendez's lead defense attorney, said the Supreme Court's decision not to hear the appeal was "disappointing," but
still said Menendez will be "vindicated when all the facts are heard at trial."
"It's disappointing that the Supreme Court did not take this opportunity to set a clear, bright line of the separation of powers
to ensure that Congress remains an independent and co-equal branch of government, free of interference and retribution from the executive
as the Framers intended," Lowell said in a statement. "While the senator always understood it is rare that the Supreme Court hears
any case before trial, given the gravity of the Constitutional issues raised, he believed it was important to try."
Lowell added: "As the senator has been saying for more than four years since the government began chasing these wild allegations,
he has always acted in accordance with the law. Sen. Menendez remains confident that he will be vindicated when all the facts are
heard at trial." Menendez's defense team had filed an appeal to the Supreme Court in December, seeking a hearing on its argument
that the Justice Department violated the senator's constitutional privilege under the Speech or Debate Clause, which shields lawmakers
and aides from legal action for legitimate legislative activities. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled against Menendez.
After a long-running criminal probe, Menendez was indicted by the Justice Department in April 2015 on 14 felony counts related
to favors allegedly done in exchange for gifts and political contributions made by Dr. Salomon Melgen, a longtime friend and campaign
donor.
Federal prosecutors claim Menendez or his staff intervened with federal agencies on Melgen's behalf to resolve a multi-million
dollar billing dispute over Medicare charges, to maintain a $500 million port security contract with the Dominican Republic and to
obtain U.S. visas for Melgen's girlfriends. Melgen has also been indicted in this matter.
Menendez pled not guilty in the case and has argued that his actions were routine constituent services or did not directly involve
Melgen. Menendez's attorneys have also argued that the New Jersey Democrat never mentioned Melgen's name during an August 2012 meeting
with then-Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Marilyn Tavenner, then the acting head of the Center for Medicare
and Medicaid Services.
Sebelius and Tavenner were summoned to Capitol Hill for a private meeting with Menendez in the office of Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.),
who at that time was the Senate majority leader. According to Sebelius, the topic of the meeting was a dispute between CMS and Melgen.
CMS claimed Melgen had overbilled the government for millions of dollars, which Melgen fought.
A unanimous Supreme Court has overturned the corruption convictions of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell,
ruling that federal prosecutors relied on a "boundless" definition of the kinds of acts that could lead
politicians to face criminal charges.
The decision from the eight-justice court could make it tougher for prosecutors to prove corruption cases
against politicians in cases where there is no proof of an explicit agreement linking a campaign donation or
gift to a contract, grant or vote.
Story Continued Below
The court's opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, rejected the government's position that simply
agreeing to meet with someone on account of such largesse could be enough to constitute an official act that
could trigger a corruption conviction.
"There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with
tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the
Government's boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute," Roberts wrote. "A more limited
interpretation of the term 'official act' leaves ample room for prosecuting corruption, while comporting with
the text of the statute and the precedent of this Court."
The justices set forth a straightforward rule: "Setting up a meeting, calling another public official, or
hosting an event does not, standing alone, qualify as an 'official act.'"
In addition, the chief justice warned that accepting the government's stance in the case could chill all
sorts of routine interactions between politicians and their supporters.
"Conscientious public officials arrange meetings for constituents, contact other officials on their behalf,
and include them in events all the time. The basic compact underlying representative government assumes that
public officials will hear from their constituents and act appropriately on their concerns -- whether it is the
union official worried about a plant closing or the homeowners who wonder why it took five days to restore
power to their neighborhood after a storm," Roberts wrote.
"The Government's position could cast a pall of potential prosecution over these relationships if the union
had given a campaign contribution in the past or the homeowners invited the official to join them on their
annual outing to the ballgame. Officials might wonder whether they could respond to even the most commonplace
requests for assistance, and citizens with legitimate concerns might shrink from participating in democratic
discourse," the chief justice added.
A jury convicted McDonnell on 11 corruption-related felony counts in 2014, including "honest services"
fraud, extortion and conspiracy.
The trial triggered public outrage as evidence showed the Virginia Republican and his wife accepted over
$175,000-worth of loans and gifts, such as vacations, designer clothes and a Rolex watch, from a businessman
seeking the state's help in promoting a tobacco-based dietary supplement. McDonnell also borrowed a Ferrari
from the businessman, Johnnie Williams, who turned state's evidence and was not prosecuted.
In the court's opinion, Roberts seemed eager to head off criticism that the justices were blessing
politicians' brazen attempts to improve their own financial condition through use of their official positions.
However, the chief justice emphasized that there were also risks in allowing prosecutors to decide for
themselves what kinds of conduct crossed the line.
"None of this, of course, is to suggest that the facts of this case typify normal political interaction
between public officials and their constituents. Far from it. But the Government's legal interpretation is not
confined to cases involving extravagant gifts or large sums of money and we cannot construe a criminal statute
on the assumption that the Government will 'use it responsibly,'" Roberts wrote.
McDonnell was sentenced to two years in prison, but never began serving the time after the Supreme Court put
his sentence on hold last year.
In a statement, McDonnell thanked his legal team and repeatedly invoked his religious faith.
"From the outset, I strongly asserted my innocence before God and under the law. I have not, and would not,
betray the sacred trust the people of Virginia bestowed upon me during 22 years in elected office," the former
governor said. "It is my hope that this matter will soon be over and that my family and I can begin to rebuild
our lives."
In an interview Monday, a lawyer for McDonnell hailed the court's unanimous decision as a blunt rebuke of
the prosecution.
"The court squarely rejected the entire theory this prosecution was based on from the beginning and embraced
the theory we've been articulating literally from day one on this case," said Noel Francisco, the attorney who
argued for McDonnell at the Supreme court. "We think it's a vindication for the governor."
McDonnell's wife, Maureen, was also convicted for conspiracy by the same jury and sentenced to a year and a
day in prison. She was free pending appeal. Her attorney, William Burck, expressed confidence Monday that her
conviction will also be overturned.
"This decision applies no less to our client Maureen McDonnell and requires that her conviction immediately
be tossed out as well, which we are confident the prosecutors must agree with," Burck said in a statement.
"Mrs. McDonnell, like her husband, was wrongfully convicted. We thank the Supreme Court for unanimously
bringing justice back into the picture for the McDonnells."
U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Dana Boente, whose office prosecuted the McDonnells,
issued a terse statement about the high court's ruling.
"The U.S. Attorney's Office is reviewing the Supreme Court's decision in the
McDonnell
matter and
does not have any further comment at this time," Boente said.
Despite the public outcry over the McDonnells' actions, his challenge to his convictions received a
groundswell of support from public officials, ex-prosecutors and former legal advisers to presidents of both
major parties.
In a series of amicus briefs filed with the high court, the former officials warned that giving
anti-corruption laws the sweeping breadth urged by the Justice Department would have dramatically constrained
the normal operation of government.
The Supreme Court noted those briefs in its opinion Monday -- the final one delivered before the typical summer
break. The ruling also allowed the shorthanded court, through the voice of its chief, to emphasize agreement at
the end of a term where the justice deadlocked in a series of cases.
"... In May it was revealed that AT&T paid Cohen up to $600,000 for his "insights" - asking him to specifically look into the proposed $85 billion merger with Time Warner Inc. He also took money from Swiss healthcare giant Novartis, Korea Aerospace Industries and Russian businessman Victor Vekselberg. In total, Cohen has been paid a total of $1.8 million since Trump took office for his "insights," according to the companies, which would have been better off tossing their money in a fireplace. ..."
"... In other words, Cohen - who Trump has severed ties with, was either a terrible unregistered lobbyist or ran a bait and switch operation. ..."
"... Authorities are investigating whether Mr. Cohen engaged in unregistered lobbying in connection with his consulting work for corporate clients after Mr. Trump went to the White House, according to people familiar with the probe ..."
"... Investigators are also examining potential campaign-finance violations and bank fraud surrounding, among other deals, Mr. Cohen's October 2016 payment to Stephanie Clifford , the former adult-film star called Stormy Daniels, to keep her from discussing an alleged sexual encounter with Mr. Trump, according to people familiar with the probe. Mr. Trump denies any encounter took place. - WSJ ..."
Right before the feds raided former Trump attorney Michael Cohen in early April, a top Trump
donor offered to pay Cohen $10 million plus a retainer fee in exchange for help securing
funding for a nuclear-power project - including a $5 billion loan from the US Government,
claims the
Wall Street Journal , citing people familiar with the matter.
Under the contract, Mr. Haney agreed to pay Mr. Cohen a monthly retainer in addition to
the $10 million success fee if he could help obtain the funding, including approval of the
full amount of the project's application under a U.S. Department of Energy loan program, the
people familiar with the deal said. -
WSJ
Before we get too far down the rabbit hole, it should be noted that Cohen never actually
entered into the deal according to the donor's attorney, while application with the Department
of Energy (DOE) is still pending. The Journal also provides no evidence of the contract, only
anonymous sources, and there is also no suggestion that President Trump knew about the alleged
offer from the donor - who contributed $1 million to Trump's inaugural fund, yet primarily
backed Democrats before the Cohen arrangement.
The donor, Franklin L. Haney , gave the contract to Trump attorney Michael Cohen in early
April to assist his efforts to complete a pair of unfinished nuclear reactors in Alabama,
known as the Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant, these people said.
Had he been paid the success fee, Mr. Cohen's deal with Mr. Haney could have been among
the most lucrative of the known consulting agreements he secured after Mr. Trump's election
by emphasizing his personal relationship with the president, according to people familiar
with his pitches. -
WSJ
According to the DOE, Cohen hasn't communicated with Energy Secretary Rick Perry about the
project, however he did make "several calls to officials at the Energy Department in the
spring" to inquire about the process for securing the loan - including what could be done to
speed it up, according to the Journal.
Had Cohen accepted the deal, it would mark yet another corporate interest which lined his
pockets, yet received nothing in return.
In
May it was revealed that AT&T paid Cohen up to $600,000 for his "insights" - asking him
to specifically look into the proposed $85 billion merger with Time Warner Inc. He also took
money from Swiss healthcare giant Novartis, Korea Aerospace Industries and Russian businessman
Victor Vekselberg. In total, Cohen has been paid a total of $1.8 million since Trump took
office for his "insights," according to the companies, which would have been better off tossing
their money in a fireplace.
In other words, Cohen - who Trump has severed ties with, was either a terrible unregistered
lobbyist or ran a bait and switch operation.
Authorities are investigating whether Mr. Cohen
engaged in unregistered lobbying in connection with his consulting work for corporate
clients after Mr. Trump went to the White House, according to people familiar with the
probe.
Investigators are also examining potential campaign-finance violations and bank fraud
surrounding, among other deals,
Mr. Cohen's October 2016 payment to Stephanie Clifford , the former adult-film star
called Stormy Daniels, to keep her from discussing an alleged sexual encounter with Mr.
Trump, according to people familiar with the probe. Mr. Trump denies any encounter took
place. -
WSJ
"Neither Mr. Haney nor Nuclear Development LLC ever entered into a contract with Michael
Cohen or his affiliate for lobbying services related to the Bellefonte project," said Haney's
attorney, Larry Blust, referring to the name of the Company Haney is using for the project.
Haney's company, Nuclear Development, agreed to pay $111 million in a November 2016 contract
to purchase the unfinished Bellefonte Nuclear Plant from the Tennessee Valley Authority. He has
until this November to close on the deal.
One month after the November agreement, Haney donated $1 million to the Trump inaugural fund
via a corporate entity, according to FEC records. He had previously backed Democrats. As part
of their arrangement - perhaps to take him for a test drive, Cohen reportedly participated in
an April 5 meeting in Miami with Haney to pitch his project to the vice chairman of the Qatar
Investment Authority, Sheikh Ahmed bin Jassim bin Mohammed al-Thani, the Journal
reported in May , citing yet more anonymous people familiar with the matter.
The meeting took place near Miami Beach, where a Qatari delegation had come to promote
business ties with the U.S. Mr. Cohen spent a night on Mr. Haney's yacht during the trip, one
of those people has said.
There is no indication that the Qataris have decided to invest with Mr. Haney. A Qatar
spokesman in Washington has confirmed the meeting. A representative of the Qatari
sovereign-wealth fund didn't respond to a request for comment. -
WSJ
A professor of government at American University, James Thuber, told the WSJ that such fees
are "outside the ethical norms" among Washington lobbyists are frowned upon.
Century-old court rulings deemed fees contingent on lobbyists obtaining public funds or
killing legislation unenforceable and counter to public policy, saying they encouraged
corruption, he said. Several lobbyists contacted by the Journal said $10 million was an
unheard-of sum to pay a consultant for government-related work. -
WSJ
That said, there is no blanket federal ban on success fees for Washington lobbyists, while
Cohen has never worked for the Trump administration - something former chief strategist Steve
Bannon ensured early on in the campaign.
Following the money...
Meanwhile, five Republican Congressmen urged the Trump administration in a May 14
letter to finish reviewing Nuclear Development's loan application , describing the project
as an "engine for economic development."
According to the Journal , the DOE's Loan Programs Office COO Dong Kim wrote back saying
that the agency would address the application "as quickly as possible, while still performing
the necessary due diligence to protect taxpayer interests."
The most veteran member of a
deeply corrupt Baltimore police unit has been sentenced to 18 years in federal
prison.
U.S. District Judge Catherine Blake handed down the punishment
Friday to former Gun Trace Task Force member Daniel Hersl. The 48-year-old
ex-detective was the oldest member of the disbanded unit and the sixth to get
sentenced.
Wearing a red jail jumpsuit, Hersl shrugged in resignation as he was led
out of the courtroom in front of a gallery holding about a dozen relatives.
Federal prosecutor Leo Wise said Hersl "abused his power" as a city law
enforcer for years.
A jury had found the disgraced officer guilty of racketeering and robbery
earlier this year.
Hersl sought a new trial early Friday, but Blake rejected the request.
A unanimous Supreme Court has overturned the corruption convictions of former Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell,
ruling that federal prosecutors relied on a "boundless" definition of the kinds of acts that could lead
politicians to face criminal charges.
The decision from the eight-justice court could make it tougher for prosecutors to prove corruption cases
against politicians in cases where there is no proof of an explicit agreement linking a campaign donation or
gift to a contract, grant or vote.
Story Continued Below
The court's opinion, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, rejected the government's position that simply
agreeing to meet with someone on account of such largesse could be enough to constitute an official act that
could trigger a corruption conviction.
"There is no doubt that this case is distasteful; it may be worse than that. But our concern is not with
tawdry tales of Ferraris, Rolexes, and ball gowns. It is instead with the broader legal implications of the
Government's boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute," Roberts wrote. "A more limited
interpretation of the term 'official act' leaves ample room for prosecuting corruption, while comporting with
the text of the statute and the precedent of this Court."
The justices set forth a straightforward rule: "Setting up a meeting, calling another public official, or
hosting an event does not, standing alone, qualify as an 'official act.'"
In addition, the chief justice warned that accepting the government's stance in the case could chill all
sorts of routine interactions between politicians and their supporters.
"Conscientious public officials arrange meetings for constituents, contact other officials on their behalf,
and include them in events all the time. The basic compact underlying representative government assumes that
public officials will hear from their constituents and act appropriately on their concerns -- whether it is the
union official worried about a plant closing or the homeowners who wonder why it took five days to restore
power to their neighborhood after a storm," Roberts wrote.
"The Government's position could cast a pall of potential prosecution over these relationships if the union
had given a campaign contribution in the past or the homeowners invited the official to join them on their
annual outing to the ballgame. Officials might wonder whether they could respond to even the most commonplace
requests for assistance, and citizens with legitimate concerns might shrink from participating in democratic
discourse," the chief justice added.
A jury convicted McDonnell on 11 corruption-related felony counts in 2014, including "honest services"
fraud, extortion and conspiracy.
The trial triggered public outrage as evidence showed the Virginia Republican and his wife accepted over
$175,000-worth of loans and gifts, such as vacations, designer clothes and a Rolex watch, from a businessman
seeking the state's help in promoting a tobacco-based dietary supplement. McDonnell also borrowed a Ferrari
from the businessman, Johnnie Williams, who turned state's evidence and was not prosecuted.
In the court's opinion, Roberts seemed eager to head off criticism that the justices were blessing
politicians' brazen attempts to improve their own financial condition through use of their official positions.
However, the chief justice emphasized that there were also risks in allowing prosecutors to decide for
themselves what kinds of conduct crossed the line.
"None of this, of course, is to suggest that the facts of this case typify normal political interaction
between public officials and their constituents. Far from it. But the Government's legal interpretation is not
confined to cases involving extravagant gifts or large sums of money and we cannot construe a criminal statute
on the assumption that the Government will 'use it responsibly,'" Roberts wrote.
McDonnell was sentenced to two years in prison, but never began serving the time after the Supreme Court put
his sentence on hold last year.
In a statement, McDonnell thanked his legal team and repeatedly invoked his religious faith.
"From the outset, I strongly asserted my innocence before God and under the law. I have not, and would not,
betray the sacred trust the people of Virginia bestowed upon me during 22 years in elected office," the former
governor said. "It is my hope that this matter will soon be over and that my family and I can begin to rebuild
our lives."
In an interview Monday, a lawyer for McDonnell hailed the court's unanimous decision as a blunt rebuke of
the prosecution.
"The court squarely rejected the entire theory this prosecution was based on from the beginning and embraced
the theory we've been articulating literally from day one on this case," said Noel Francisco, the attorney who
argued for McDonnell at the Supreme court. "We think it's a vindication for the governor."
McDonnell's wife, Maureen, was also convicted for conspiracy by the same jury and sentenced to a year and a
day in prison. She was free pending appeal. Her attorney, William Burck, expressed confidence Monday that her
conviction will also be overturned.
"This decision applies no less to our client Maureen McDonnell and requires that her conviction immediately
be tossed out as well, which we are confident the prosecutors must agree with," Burck said in a statement.
"Mrs. McDonnell, like her husband, was wrongfully convicted. We thank the Supreme Court for unanimously
bringing justice back into the picture for the McDonnells."
U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Dana Boente, whose office prosecuted the McDonnells,
issued a terse statement about the high court's ruling.
"The U.S. Attorney's Office is reviewing the Supreme Court's decision in the
McDonnell
matter and
does not have any further comment at this time," Boente said.
Despite the public outcry over the McDonnells' actions, his challenge to his convictions received a
groundswell of support from public officials, ex-prosecutors and former legal advisers to presidents of both
major parties.
In a series of amicus briefs filed with the high court, the former officials warned that giving
anti-corruption laws the sweeping breadth urged by the Justice Department would have dramatically constrained
the normal operation of government.
The Supreme Court noted those briefs in its opinion Monday -- the final one delivered before the typical summer
break. The ruling also allowed the shorthanded court, through the voice of its chief, to emphasize agreement at
the end of a term where the justice deadlocked in a series of cases.
" American politicians like Senators John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Ben Cardin and ex-Senator Joe Lieberman "
American? I beg to differ. All of those turncoats serve their Master Israel and kiss the nether regions of those TBTF Wall
Street Casinos.
Browder is one of those nine Russian oligarchs -- eight of whom are Jews -- who stole hundreds of billions from Russia when
it was decompressing from being the USSR, helped by the drunken buffoon Yeltsin and a battery of Wall Street financial sharpies
who also filled their pockets.
Watch the tough guy Browder run like a scared bunny rabbit in NYC from a process server.
Browder needs to be arrested by Interpol, tried, convicted and spend the rest of his sorry life in a Super Max prison for his
thefts, frauds and helping to poison the relationship between the USA & Russia, in an effort to save his sorry ass from prosecution.
"Yeltsin had won a fraudulent election in 1996 supported by the oligarch-controlled media and by President Bill Clinton,
who secured a $20.2 billion IMF loan that enabled him to buy support. Today we would refer to Clinton's action as "interference
in the 1996 election," but at that time a helpless and bankrupt Russia was not well placed to object to what was being done
to it."
[emphasis mine]
So Mother Russia was raped, and by Bill Clinton, of all people. Where is the outrage? #MeToo
Although I posted this comment under another thread, I think it bears repeating here (especially relevant to your point is
the bolded part):
I think debunking the vulture capitalist Bill Browder's false claim of being, of all things, a human rights advocate is
the key to unraveling the Russia-gate hoax. I also think the following information goes a long way in doing that:
1. Nekrasov's documentary, The Magnitsky Act: Behind The Scenes, now available for viewing
2. Alex Krainer's The Killing of William Browder, now available online; and
3. Bill Browder's Previzon deposition in which he claims "I can't remember" at least 50 times and answers "I don't know"
fully 211 times.
Notwithstanding these facts, it appears Mr. Browder is an untouchable. The Russians have issued a Red Notice at least
six times and he has managed to walk away scot free on each occasion.
The zinger was when the Senate Judiciary Committee invited him to testify as an expert witness against Fusion GPS, arguing
that it should have registered under FARA because it was working on behalf of a foreign government, in this case the Russian.
The irony of this scene was incredible. The hallowed chamber in which this inquiry took place is completely bought and paid
for by The Lobby but not a peep about having it register under FARA. Totally surreal!
An interesting thing about this that has gone almost completely unreported is that HSBC quietly held a series of closed-door meetings
with Russian authorities earlier this year regarding the tax fraud charges leveled at Browder and his businesses (HSBC jointly
managed Hermitage) and decided to pay up some of the cash he illegally siphoned out of the country (22 million dollars I believe,
so a drop in the ocean given the scale of his endeavors, but it's something.)
"Bill Browder declined to comment" according to one of the few articles on the matter.
Isn't all of that more or less tantamount to an admission of guilt?
(2) How does a respectable congress pass a law based solely on the testimony of someone convicted of a crime by another country?
No jury in the world would reach a verdict based solely on the word of a convict, without it being substantiated by numerous pieces
of other circumstantial and direct evidence.
(3) Even if he paid everyone oodles of money and brought a thousand lawsuits, why would gazillionaire corporations cave in
to his demands to ban books, movies, organizations, etc.?
There is something more powerful about Bill Browder than just his pile of money.
In fact, most (not all) US lawmakers long ago became a euphemism for incompetence, corruption and lies. So, no -- modern US
Congress is not respectable by people and numbers reflect that. Hopefully, sometime in the future, some honorable and loyal to
their country people will make it there.
Can someone help me remember the names of those 9 oligarchs?
These are the ones I remember:
1) Anatoly Chubais
2) Browder
3) Boris Berezovsky
4) Mikhail Khodorkovsky
5) Vladimir Gusinsky
Who were the others? Thanks.
Of these 5, Chubais remained in Russia but the others fled. Chubais was the one who was instrumental in starting the loans-for-shares
scheme. My understanding is that those who fled are real scum, since Putin offered all oligarchs the chance to keep their money
so long as they avoided politics. Most vulture capitalists agreed to this arrangement, but the worst of the Jewish oligarchs were
too greedy and lustful to give in. So I have heard, anyway.
"... 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.
" The US fabricated evidence to start the Vietnam war and the US fabricated WMD talk on the second war in Iraq. US intelligence
had no idea the Berlin Wall was about to fall. The US meddled in Russia supporting a drunk named Yeltsin because we erroneously
thought we could control him."
YUP! AMEN.
It's amusing to me that the Leftist's NOW have a blind-faith trust in government, whereas during the Vietnam war, and at the
start of the Iraq war the opposite was (justifiably) the case.
And remember, the [neoliberal] Left was all OVER how we manipulated Russia into an Oligarchy:
I think there is much more to the comment made by Putin regarding Bill Browder and his money flows into the DNC and Clinton
campaign. That would explain why the DNC didn't hand the servers over to the FBI after being hacked. If you follow the money a
lot of what happened during the election and afterwards in regards to Russia and Trump start to make sense. Could it be that we
are finally witnessing the removal the last layers of the center of the onion?
"... Two U.S. 'realists', Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, had always warned that the 'west' must keep China and Russia apart if it wants to keep its leading global position. Nixon went to China to achieve that. ..."
"... Years later the U.S. fell for the myth that it had 'won' the Cold War. It felt invincible, the 'sole superpower' and sought to 'rule them all'. It woke up from that dream after it invaded Iraq. The mighty U.S. military was beaten to pulp by the 'sand niggers' it despised. A few years later U.S. financial markets were in shambles. ..."
"... Crude attempts to further encircle Russia led to the Chinese-Russian alliance that now leads the SCO and soon, one might argue, the world. There will be no photo like the above from the SCO summit. The Chinese President Xi calls Russia's President Putin 'my best friend'. ..."
"... Agreed! But what will the US psychopaths do to maintain their grip when they realize they are really losing it? Nuclear war? ..."
"... Watching the two meetings play out has really been interesting, that the West is dead is not in question. And once it started it seems to be gaining momentum. I don't know how many readers here watch CGTN but it is amazing. My IQ goes up every time I watch. Astonishing how much more valuable information you get from a "heavily censored" Chinese news compared to MSM. The website is a little slow at times but it is well worth the wait. ..."
G-7 summits are supposed to symbolize "the west", its unity and its power. The summits pretended to set policy directions for
the world. We are happy to see that they are dead.
Trump was obviously not inclined to compromise.
Before attending the summit Trump trolled his colleagues by inviting Russia to rejoin the G-7/G-8 format without conditions. Russia
had been kicked out after Crimea voted to join its motherland. Merkel, who had negotiated the Minsk agreement with Russia, was furious.
She wants to use such an invitation as an element of future negotiations. (It is stupid talk. Russia is not interested in rejoining
the G-7/G-8 format.)
There are now many fields where the U.S. and its allies disagree: climate change, the Iran deal, trade are only the major ones.
Before leaving the summit Trump again
used
Mafia language against everyone else:
As he prepared to depart early from the G-7 summit in Charlevoix, Canada, to head to Singapore ahead of his planned meeting with
North Korean leader Kim Jong Un, Trump delivered an ultimatum to foreign leaders, demanding that their countries reduce trade
barriers for the U.S. or risk losing market access to the world's largest economy.
"They have no choice. I'll be honest with you, they have no choice," Trump told reporters at a news conference, adding that
companies and jobs had left the U.S. to escape trade barriers abroad. "We're going to fix that situation. And if it's not fixed,
then we're not going to deal with these countries. "
The row at the G-7 meeting was in stark contrast to the more important other meeting that happened today, the 18th Shanghai Cooperation
Organization (SCO) summit in Qingdao, China:
Dazzling against the city skyline of Qingdao, fireworks lit up the faces of guests who traveled across the vast Eurasian continent
to the coast of the Yellow Sea for the 18th Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit, on Saturday night.
It is the first such summit since the organization's expansion in June 2017 when India and Pakistan joined as full members.
...
The Shanghai Spirit of mutual trust, mutual benefit, equality, consultation, respect for diverse civilizations and pursuit
of common development , was stated in the Charter of the SCO, a comprehensive regional organization founded in 2001 by China,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan and later expanded to eight member states.
This weekend Xi will chair the summit for the first time as Chinese president, which is attended by leaders of other SCO member
states and four observer states, as well as chiefs of various international organizations.
...
The SCO has grown to be an organization covering over 60 percent of the Eurasian landmass, nearly half the world's population
and over 20 percent of global GDP.
Two U.S. 'realists', Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, had always warned that the 'west' must keep China and Russia
apart if it wants to keep its leading global position. Nixon went to China to achieve that.
Years later the U.S. fell for the myth that it had 'won' the Cold War. It felt invincible, the 'sole superpower' and sought
to 'rule them all'. It woke up from that dream after it invaded Iraq. The mighty U.S. military was beaten to pulp by the 'sand niggers'
it despised. A few years later U.S. financial markets were in shambles.
Crude attempts to further encircle Russia led to the Chinese-Russian alliance that now leads the SCO and soon, one might argue,
the world. There will be no photo like the above from the SCO summit. The Chinese President Xi calls Russia's President Putin 'my
best friend'.
The 'west' has lost in Eurasia.
The U.S. is reduced to a schoolyard bully who beats up his gang members because their former victims have grown too big. Trump is off to Singapore to meet Kim Yong-un. Unlike Trump North Korea's supreme leader will be well prepared. It is likely that
he will run rings around Trump during the negotiations. If Trump tries to bully him like he bullies his 'allies', Kim will pack up
and leave. Unlike the U.S. 'allies' he has no need to bow to Trump. China and Russia have his back. They are now the powers that
can lead the world.
The 'west' is past. The future is in the east.
Posted by b on June 9, 2018 at 03:14 PM |
Permalink
Yeah, I was just thinking that. Trump is running full-speed into isolation. It's an ancient policy, which recalls the 1920s. What
does America need of the outside world? Good question.
I would think we will hear in the not too distant future of a European replacement of the US exchange systems, such as VISA.
The Americans have become too unreliable. Obviously the Russians and Chinese do have their own systems, but that won't do for
the EU.
Independence is going to be forced, and the consequences will be permanent.
Watching the two meetings play out has really been interesting, that the West is dead is not in question. And once it started
it seems to be gaining momentum. I don't know how many readers here watch CGTN but it is amazing. My IQ goes up every time I watch. Astonishing how much more
valuable information you get from a "heavily censored" Chinese news compared to MSM. The website is a little slow at times but
it is well worth the wait.
Last year during the border standoff with India they had on strident Indian voices arguing the Indian position every day. Imagine
if CNN had on Mexican reps regarding the wall - never happen.
Because Iran was under sanctions levied by the United Nations earlier, it was blocked from admission as a new member of the Shanghai
Cooperation Council [SCO]. The SCO stated that any country under UN sanctions could not be admitted. After the UN sanctions were
lifted, Chinese president Xi Jinping announced its support for Iran's full membership in SCO during a state visit to Iran in January
2016.Iran must join the SCO ASAP it is also a military alliance and should prepare itself for a big effort at regime change by
the US and lackeys. The moral of the story unless they hang together, the US will hang them separately.
Well, China as the text books say was always ' half the human story' - only eclipsed by Western connivance in the 1860's .I remember
my father argueing with high ranking Australian government and commercial figures in 1970.
My father argued Australia needed
to find its own voice with China and Chinese policy . They replied sneeringly '' Ralph , their just red communists and will never
amount to anything ' . Shortly thereafter Nixon flew to Beijing and my father sat back in his living room with a sardonic look
on his face !
You may like Freedland's article yesterday, which unusually I agreed with, that in fact Trump is a poor negotiator, and gives
away tricks he doesn't have to. Why no concession from Israel, over the move of the US embassy to Jerusalem? Why give away the
honour to NK of a one-to-one with the US president? I'd be surprised if NK surrenders, when they know what will happen if they
do.
"President Putin is the leader of a great country who is influential around the world," Xi said. "He is my best, most intimate
friend." Xi promised Russia and China would increase their coordination in the international arena.
Putin expressed his thanks for the honor and said he saw it as an "evaluation" of his nation's efforts to strengthen its relationship
with its southern neighbor.
"This is an indication of the special attention and respect on which our mutual national interests are based, the interests
of our peoples and, of course, our personal friendship," Putin said.
Interesting that Trump has said Russia should be invited back into the west's G7/G8 at this time. In cold war 1.0, Soviet Union
was the main enemy of the US and China was split away from the Soviet Union. In this war, Trump sees China's economy as the main
threat to the US and is trying but failing to pull Russia away from China.
They did win the Cold War. That's how they became the'sole superpower'.
If winning the Cold War is about vanquishing communism, they flat out lost. Because, while they were concentrating on the end
of the USSR and celebrating, China was going up and up and up. They never saw her coming, yet to this day and for the foreseeable
future, China is a socialist, Marxist country.
So the new, desperate Western spin is to try to argue that China has "succumbed" to capitalism. Yeah, right, a country where
all the private companies have to have members of the CPC on their board and hand over enough shares to the state to grant it
veto powers, not to mention the Central bank and all its major companies are state-owned... Lol.
After the collapse of the USSR the consensus - even of the alt-media (what little of it existed) was that a new American century
was on the way and the whole world would be better off for it. A decade later in 2003 the consensus (post 'shock & awe' Gulf War
2) was that America had the ability to re-structure the Asian /African world and that it would all be for good.
15 years later we are all sick of the fruit of that delusion. So we look to another power to save us... Do we understand nothing?
Without the accountability of multi-polarity, Western supreme power all became security-obsessed privilege, self-aggrandizement,
blatant plunder and total disregard for moral value and life. Power corrupts - it knows no exceptions.
If the West is truly dead, the East will be no different.
Interesting that Trump has said Russia should be invited back into the west's G7/G8 at this time.
Thought of a moment to annoy the Europeans. It is obvious that Trump was pissed off about having to attend, and left at the earliest
opportunity. The Europeans heard that, and will draw the inevitable conclusions.
Lea @ 13 Socialist, Marxist, Capitalist, what does it matter: it seems to work for China, at least for the time being. It's success
makes me think that a bit more government control of corporations might not be such a bad thing.
The summit with Kim will be fascinating to observe. In my view, NK has finessed the US and the Trump administration to a degree
I would not have thought possible, even from native US insiders. To do it long range from the other side of the world speaks to
me a lot about the power of Asia, and the clarity of view from there.
I agree with Laguerre @9 that Trump is a terrible negotiator (forgive that I didn't read the Guardian piece). I would take
this much further and say that all the US institutions themselves are culturally crippled in terms of understanding what's happening
in the ascendancy of Asia. All of their negotiation is feeble, because their grasp on their own true position is based on yesterday's
view of their power. You cannot go into negotiation without knowing what you hold.
Every day, I become more confident in the ability of the elder nations to put the young western empires to rest without their
being triggered into death spasms.
Red Ryder @11 - I see China's full-on drive for the one Road as its way of waging total war, its strategic masterstroke to
render the enemy powerless without the enemy's realizing that it is being attacked. Russia as the other half of the Double Helix
mesmerizes the west with weaponry while China undercuts the ground. Both countries are fully at war, and winning, while unseeing
commenters complain that it's time for them to "do something." How superb the silk rope drawn so softly around the throat.
It's a beautiful play. I very much hope - and truly expect - that we can all survive to be able to sit back and admire it as
the years unfold.
I have a small quibble with b's wording but thank him for following and reporting on our evolving world.
b's words:"
The U.S. is reduced to a schoolyard bully who beats up his gang members because their former victims have grown too big.
"
My rewording:
The global elite have their US puppet acting like a schoolyard bully who beat up his gang members because their former victims
have grown too big.
The West is trying to consolidate power and control while they still have some ghost of a chance. How they hold countries after
this global divorce will be interesting.
At his time the West has little to offer humanistically except its vice grip on most economic interaction and the tools including
banking underpinning the "system". The elite have deluded the public in the West for centuries about private finance behind the
scenes of all/most conflict......pointing to other religions but never their own.
It sure is getting interesting. IMO, the two Koreas are going to announce a reconciliation that requires the removal of America
military forces/bases et al, which fits in with the fake nationalism efforts of Trump.
That the US and the EU and their respective camps are at loggerheads over trade and perhaps other economic issues should not (I
hope) lead readers to assume that one side has the interests of the public it represents uppermost in mind. As the US and the
Anglosphere is dominated by one set of neoliberals, so Germany and the lackey EU nations following Berlin are dominated by another
set of neoliberals in thrall to an export-led mercantilist ideology. Just as the elites in charge of US power structures are only
interested in enriching themselves, the same can be said for those in charge of power structures in Europe. Whether under the
US or the EU, the public suffers.
Notice that Germany benefits from being the major economic power in the EU while its fellow EU nations around the Atlantic
and Mediterranean rim flail under a huge debt (and Greece is being punished back into the impoverished colonial status it held
under Nazi German occupation) and eastern European EU members are following suit running their economies into the ground and having
to beg NATO into setting up bases in their territories to attract money. At the same time German workers are becoming poorer,
they are not benefiting from Berlin's economic policies, they are not reproducing fast enough so Berlin needs to bring in more
foreign workers in the guise of "refugees" to prop up factories and keep wages low.
@ Madderhatter67: The US did not win the Cold War because the Cold War was only ever a propaganda front for the secret war
waged by US / UK elites against Russia and China to dominate and rob these nations and their neighbours of their natural resources.
thanks b - and for the laugh with the marjorie and homer pic for comparison!
i think this parallel you draw is a good one.. the west is certainly floundering... i am not sure how global finance responds
here... i can't imagine the 1% being on the wrong side of a bet on the direction of things here either..
@6 harry law.. did iran make it into the sco? it sounds like it did.. good!
@14 les7.. regarding your last line - i tend to agree with that viewpoint..
@19 jen... do you think it will be somehow different if the power shifts to russia/china? i guess i am not so sanguine over
power, regardless of who holds it.
Very well put, only issue that as to be dealt with is all those Stan Countries, they are a hibernating and breeding ground for
Terrorists and Arms dealers , who don't care who they sell arms to and how they get them to rogue regimes.
I see China's full-on drive for the one Road as its way of waging total war, its strategic masterstroke to render the enemy
powerless without the enemy's realizing that it is being attacked.
I do think you're exaggerating there.
China's past history has been one of a country very contented with itself, much like the US, because defended geographically
by vast deserts. A longer history, so some foreigners did traverse the deserts.
The Chinese exported their products by foreign ships (Arabo-Persian) arriving at Canton, and buying cargoes, or camel caravans
arriving in the north and buying silk. The Chinese themselves did not travel abroad very much, and so didn't know very much about
surrounding countries, or the rest of the world. There was a fleet of Chinese junks which arrived in the Gulf in the 14th century,
but it was the only one.
Today's situation is not so different. There are Chinese interventions in Africa, but their diplomacy is pretty ham-fisted.
The Belt-and-Road initiative is in fact intended to bring up to speed Central Asian countries like Tajikistan. Fine, Tajikistan
needs it, but it's not world-changing.
The rail freight from Beijing to Frankfurt works better as an intermediate between sea and air freight, but essentially it
is what has always happened - foreigners export Chinese products. The Chinese don't know how to run a foreign policy.
from their body language, I would say that Japan is surely 'with' Trump and the US, but that's only because that arch-reactionary
Abe is in power.....and when he goes, and go he will, there will be a big period of adjustment...some day.
The scambastic Trump could be inclined to make a slightly more fair deal in Singapore just to make a deal, but he is going extra
early (no jet lag) and will be controlled by Pompeo with his 'Grim Reaper' CIA-dog/warhawk/translator/born & raised S. Korean
with multiple relations in their South KCIA (NIS) and cabinet leadership, Andrew Kim (born Kim Sung-hyun). Kim's purpose will
be to control Trump's spontaneaous decision making, inform him on what he reads as N. Korea's intent, and give baseline hawkish
color to the translations for his own hawkish viewpoint.
bjd, bolton is trump's overseer, making sure he doesn't step out of line.
Trump is a poor negotiator, and gives away tricks he doesn't have to. Why no concession from Israel, over the move of the
US embassy to Jerusalem?
Laguerre, you have it backwards. the embassy move, the iran deal, and the appointment of bolton are all concessions trump made,
as payback for adelson's millions to both the gop and his campaign. possibly also has a little something to do cambridge analytica,
honey traps or whatever.
The imprint of the 84-year-old's political passions is seen in an array of Donald Trump's more controversial decisions, including
violating the Iran nuclear deal, moving the American embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, and appointing the ultra-hawkish John
Bolton as national security adviser.
......The New York Times reported that Adelson is a member of a "shadow National Security Council" advising Bolton
James @ 21: I think one should always be a bit suspicious of those who hold power, especially those who find themselves holding
the uppermost hand in power as a result of victory in war (whether in the form of actual military combat, trade war or other wars
in soft power).
Russia under Vladimir Putin and China under Xi Jinping may be fine but will their successors know not to abuse the power they
may gain from the New Silk Road projects encompassing Eurasia and Africa?
Of course, it is about Iran. It's the Iranian deal that the EU needs to continue. They benefit as the biggest vendors to Iran.
They want to get inside that developing 70 million person market, also.
Bolton wants regime change. The EU knows that will be worse than Iraq. And economically, the EU will be in the dumps for 2
decades if there's another war they are forced to join. And they will be forced to join. They cannot say No to the Hegemon.
The EU 2, Germany and France, are at a historic moment of truth.
They could have a great future with Russia, China, Iran, the BRICS, SCO, OBOR and EAEU or they could be crippled by the Empire.
"...But Canada, which pushed for Russia to get the boot in 2014, is not onside. 'Russia was invited to be part of this club
and I think that was a very wise initiation, and an invitation full of goodwill,'[FM Chrystia Freeland] she told reporters at
the summit. 'Russia, however, made clear that it had no interest in behaving according to the rules of Western democracies..."
it's kind of wonderful to see all these imperialist and former neo-colonial powers fighting among themselves.
unfortunately, like the old African proverb goes, when the elephants fight it's the grass and small animals that suffer.
I see no reason for optimism for the peoples of europe at this point, as the stranglehold of the Trioka is perhaps as strong
as ever, and hundreds of millions of people are suffering; the people simply have to get organized at all levels and take back
their sovereignty at least as a start
The US still has the power of the dollar in its arsenal. The UK and EU, and any nation that deals with Wall Street, are addicted
to US investment in dollars. Since the EU is run by the banks, and western banks can't function with the dollar, any statements
by the EU that they're going to avoid US sanctions over Iran are meaningless.
The equation is essentially this: you can have your sovereignty or you can have the benefits of the dollar that make your 1%
very rich. You can't have both. Since the EU is ruled by the 1% banker/investor class they will forestall any attempts to regain
sovereignty by the people. In a sense, Europe is like Russia 10-15 years ago, thinking that the US is the key to the golden calf.
Russia learned the hard way they needed to establish some independence (although to this day Russia doesn't have nearly the financial
independence one might hope), and China saw from Russia's example they needed to do so as well. This led them to team up on many
economic initiatives while seeking to reduce the dominance of the dollar.
Perhaps someday Europe will learn this lesson. But as long as the EU exists, I kind of doubt it. The EU-crats will cry and
criticize Trump but the bankers love US money too much to let them actually do anything serious.
If the West is dead and the East is the future, then why are so many Chinese buying houses and living part time in Canada, Australia,
and the USA? Why is there so much emphasis put on Western education facilities by Asians?
Most Americans don't no matter how much explanation I go into.
They insist its a tariff or duty,which its not.
I've given up trying to explain its a sales tax on all,paying at customs is merely a cash flow issue for the importer.A reclaimable
input on his VAT return,did it many times myself.
there is only a bunch of paid of administrators running the countries and the corporations that pay them.
Trumps quid pro quo is deals that benefit his family. I don't thinks he cares one bit about the GOP and how the party fundraises.
He cares about advancing his family and keeping the loot.
maybe we should realize that the concepts of east and west, as much as neo liberalism or neo conservatism or any other moniker
that we could apply to loot and steal - legally and without shame under the guise of trade - are concepts of the past.
the future is for the strongest, irrespective of their origins or philosophy. we are burning this planet down with a vengeance
and we - the people - are to numerous and too expensive to keep.
while we debate and some even chuckle with delight as to how the west is treated by trump, or how much the west deserves to
be made redundant and all hail the Russians and the Chinese - the king is dead, long live the king - it is us who dies in the
wars, it is our children that are being kidnapped and locked up in prison when arriving on the border seeking asylum, it is us
who will watch the women in our live die in childbirth because of lack of medical care, it is us who will die of black lung, hunger,
thirst and general malice.
and while we gossip, they laugh all the way to the bank.
b, we have no doubt that the North Korean leadership is ready for the Americans and know the score with a rising Eurasia and a
sinking NATO. However, your last assumption of Kim being more than ready to go toe-to-toe with DJT smacks of some of the worst
tendencies of many posters here who are ready to venerate Kim without him ever even making formal address of more than a few words
to a) his people, 2) his allies, or D) even the world. This is a laughable assumption from you and it would be like having the
most beautifully-made garment handy for a long while, desperate for anyone to come along so you could fling it on them to prove
they were the most amazing supreme leader in all the world!
This is not to say I do not want the NoKos to succeed in their endeavors of getting a fair deal...hardly: I think they will
succeed eventually because they are shrewd. But this is an attempt to squash the unbelievably propagandistic (or naive) attempts
to place the mantle of imperviousness, all-knowingness, utterly-innocentness, and insurmountably-cleverousness onto the boy that
would be king. DJT could eat a boy like Kim for breakfast if left alone from their advisors.
Trump is very dependent on his base. He knows them well. At risk of hitting a discordant note I suspect a lot of his fans are
happy seeing him sock it to the goddamn ch*nks and euro faggots.
It's a big weekend. G7, SCO, Bilderberg, NATO Defence Ministers meeting in Brussels and the huge NATO "Drills" including the Baltic
States and for the first time, Israel.
Oh, and the US called on NATO to add 30 land battalions, 30 air fighter squadrons, and 30 naval ships to "counter Russian aggression."
I predicted it would become the G6+1 and so it has. Trump told his staffers NOT to sign the Joint Communique, which I believe
is a first.
On the issue of power
and the BRI , the linked item is a trove of info as it focuses on perhaps the most problematic region of the SCO/BRI.
If Europe is to break free from the Outlaw US Empire, Merkel must be jettisoned and independent-minded leaders must take control
of Germany and EU. I'm not at all surprised with how events went in Canada. However, I see the Policy as the Bully, not Trump,
the policy still being the attempt to gain Full Spectrum Domination. What's most important, IMO, is this spectacle will not go
unnoticed by the rest of the world. The Outlaw US Empire cannot make it any plainer that it's the primary enemy state of all except
the Zionist Abomination. I think Abe wonders why he's there and not in Qingdao.
Although this item focuses on Kashmir , it should be read after the longer article linked above. There's little news as of
yet coming from Qingdao other than who's cooking what and sideline meets. I expect more coming out beginning Monday. Of course,
Kim-Trump begins now, it being the 10th in Singapore already.
The difference between the two projects- the western Empire and the Eurasian schemes exemplified by OBOR- is that the former,
as 500 years of experience teaches us, relies on ethnic divisions, wars and competition while the latter requires peace and co-operation.
In a sense that answers Jen @ 32. It really doesn't matter who runs the governments of China and Russia, provided that they
can prevent the imperialists from distracting them into rivalry. It was that which, thanks to plenty of stupidity on both sides,
gave rise to the tensions of which Nixon and Kissinger took advantage.
Had the USSR and China ironed out their small differences on the sixties- and Vietnam gave them a perfect excuse to do so,
history would have been very different and probably much less bloody.
The truth is that, as b asserts, the SCO is already much more important than the G7- America and the Six Dwarfs. How much more
important is shown by the role of Freeland (the neo-Nazi Ukrainian apologist) in insisting on holding the line against Russia's
re-admission to a club that it almost certainly does not want to rejoin.
Trump may not be a 'good negotiator' but he has a position of relative strength vis a vis the rest of the G7 who cannot negotiate
because they do as they are told. If they won't do what Trump tells them to do they will be on the lookout for someone else to
give them orders-they have no idea of independence or sovereignty. Just watch most of them scuttle back to Brussels for ideas,
or set up back channels to Moscow- once a puppet always a puppet.
The Sino-Soviet Split occurred while Stalin was still alive--he refused to allow the Chinese to develop "Communism with Chinese
Characteristics" just like any other European Orientalist. And as the Monthly Review article I linked, the Chinese must
beware of becoming/being seen as Imperialistic in their zeal to push BRI--Imperialist behavior will kill the Win-Win concept as
it will revert to just another Zero-sum Game.
One of the factors which has been killing the 'Democratic' West is that its bribed & blackmailed leaders have alienated themselves
from The People whose views they were elected to represent.
No-one living in a so-called democracy is prepared to tolerate a leader who spends too much time praising, and making excuses
for, the crimes of the racist-supremacist Zionist Abomination (h/t karlof1) and its Piece Process in Palestine. It can be persuasively
argued that embrace of and fealty to the Z.A. is the only factor which Western Leaders have in common. And it's neither a coincidence
nor happenstance.
Grrr! I still don't get why so many humans believe anything good comes from chucking aside one greedy oppressive arsehole then
replacing it with another. Sure the SCO has a founding document laden with flowery words and seemingly wonderful concepts but
I say "So what" check out the UN charter or the amerikan constitution and you'll find the same.
These issues of justice & equity
cannot be fixed by swapping bosses because every society has its share of pathologically fucked up greedies who have the means
and lack of empathy to destroy anything and everyone in their lust for whatever it is they imagine they need.
We have to accept that will never change and that trying to purge the planet of those types just creates more of them from
within the structure most successful in effecting the swap.
I know I sound like a scratched disc but the only fix that could hope to work is one that smashes the conglomerations into
tiny shards, reducing the world to thousands of small self governing entities; sure some places will still end up being taken
over by low self esteem motivated arseholes, but not only will they not be able to do as much damage, arseholes stand out in a
small society where more 'normal' humans interact with them - currently all the pr1cks coagulate in spots such as the G7 and few
non-pr1cks ever get close enough to see them for what they are. A low count on the old degrees of seperation register makes it
much more difficult for the scum to rise. Making sure that no chunk is sufficiently big to force its will on another would also
be vital.
That won't fix everything, but who outside some totally screwed up anal regressive would want that anyway? I just want to live
in a world where no one cops it like the entire Yemeni population currently is. I see no benefit in moving the horror from Yemen
to Uigar-land or whatever place the new bosses decide should be their fun palace of hate, murder and misery.
The Congo and/or Nigeria another coupla sites of misery for money. Timor Leste aka East Timor, now that the Portuguese expats
in the form of the man with the Nobel stamp of obeisance to the monied
Jose Ramos Horta have done over the
locals, something Xanana Gusmγo always said could happen. Horta's arseholeness made the wealthiest nation in the world (divide
resources by population) riven by poverty, lack of health and education services plus of course old favourite, racist oppression.
Check out these kids here untroubled
by issues like getting a decent phone signal or their ranking on Twitch - wondering where their next decent feed is coming from
is prolly their most pressing issue.
Swapping SCO for G7 will do SFA for them or anyone else unlucky enough to be living on top of whatever the current 'must have'
is deemed to be.
Humanity either learns how to live with itself on an equal basis or it will perish; it's really that simple. The likes of the
Outlaw US Empire, its NATO vassals and the Zionist Abomination are shining examples of what MUST be exorcised for ever more.
Ivanka is Lady Macbeth of Trump administration. She insisted Trump to bomb Syria of false pretences and he obliged.
Notable quotes:
"... Another source close to the couple, speaking to Esquire, put it more cynically, "Power, power, power, power. Jared's got plenty of money, but the only way he can separate himself from his family is power. They're a great match because that's also what Ivanka is after." ..."
For all of the speculation and media scrutiny surrounding the Trump family, Jared and
Ivanka's marriage actually shows no signs of strain. Granted, they play everything extremely
close to the chest, but most normal marriages would falter under the stress of just the 24 hour
media coverage, let alone the privacy intrusion of a presidential election. But Jared and
Ivanka's marriage is anything but normal, and the introduction of the stressful world of
politics has only seemed to strengthen their bond.
Telling Vogue that she believes "your choice of spouse is really everything," Ivanka said
that Jared is her ideal partner because his drive and ambitions match her own. "His own dreams
are bold, and I love that in someone," she also said.
Another source close to the couple,
speaking to Esquire, put it more cynically, "Power, power, power, power. Jared's got plenty of
money, but the only way he can separate himself from his family is power. They're a great match
because that's also what Ivanka is after."
"... I guess the CIA couldn't credibly stop AMLO from winning the election by popular vote and that major mass-media confidently plans to set on fire: paper bag after bag of ca-ca, on the front steps of Los Pinos whilst cooking-up virulent "anti-corruption" impeachment against the new president, a la Lula in Brazil. ..."
"... "Corruption Allegations" are one of the tools in the toolbox. It's how that evil Harper came to power in Canada. He's still lurking among the other nefarious vampires intent on destroying the commons. ..."
I wonder why it appears that the USA did not sufficiently meddle in the Mex. election. Typically the US heavily involves
itself to ensure a compliant austerity type is elected.
Lopez Obredor was robbed of the Presidency in 2006; there was a prolonged organized popular protest.
I guess the CIA couldn't credibly stop AMLO from winning the election by popular vote and that major mass-media confidently
plans to set on fire: paper bag after bag of ca-ca, on the front steps of Los Pinos whilst cooking-up virulent "anti-corruption"
impeachment against the new president, a la Lula in Brazil.
I remember that now. Same Obredor of 2006 who was expected to win at that time. There were USA instigated riots and a USA instigated
vote recount too, IIRC.
Yes, I suppose they intend to Lula him - Which will begin very soon.
"Corruption Allegations" are one of the tools in the toolbox. It's how that evil Harper came to power in Canada. He's still
lurking among the other nefarious vampires intent on destroying the commons.
He hasn't completed it yet. But he gave us a sneak preview. Bernal is the national director of the public interest group Stop
Predatory Gambling.
If he were to call it right now, which would be the five worst states?
Oregon, West Virginia, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania.
What about Nevada?
"We don't debate Nevada," Bernal told Corporate Crime Reporter in an interview last week. "If you were going to have
one place to gamble, have it be Nevada. I always exclude Nevada."
What are the best five?
Utah, Hawaii, Alaska, Nebraska with New Hampshire and Vermont tied for the number five slot.
"It's hard to do a ranking," Bernal said. "Oregon has one tribal casino. But the Oregon lottery has video gambling machines. Technically
they don't have many casinos in Oregon. But Oregon is as bad as any state in the country in terms of harming the public."
"West Virginia is there as one of the worst. Oregon is right there. It's not a uniform thing."
"Our goal is to have a ranking of the biggest predatory gambling states in the country. And factor in the different forms of gambling
they have."
How would you describe the politics behind the movement to stop predatory gambling?
"We are one of the most politically diverse movements in the United States. We have people from all political stripes who work
together. You would be hard pressed to find a more diverse network of citizens involved with this."
Is your group opposed to all gambling?
"We are opposed to the role of government in actively promoting and sanctioning commercialized gambling to citizens."
Isn't that all gambling?
"If you and I went bowling or were playing golf and we had a friendly wager on the game, that is technically gambling. I'm not
talking about prohibiting that. We are talking about gambling for profit."
You would prohibit gambling for profit?
"We would prohibit running a gambling ring for profit, yes we would."
If you prohibited gambling for profit, you are prohibiting 99 percent of the gambling in the United States, right?
"Running it as a business."
Isn't that 99 percent of gambling in the United States?
"No. There are all sorts of social gambling where people have Friday night poker gamers, office Super Bowl pools."
What percentage of all gambling in the United States is gambling for profit?
"In 2016, the American people lost $117 billion to government sanctioned gambling."
How much did they lose in other gambling?
"The numbers on illegal gambling don't compare."
The legalized gambling piece is $117 billion in 2016.
"That's what they lost. What they wagered is close to $200 billion."
And illegal gambling is much less?
"Well, if you and I are in a Friday night poker game, that's gambling."
How about bookies?
"Those guys are doing it for profit. That's called illegal commercial gambling."
How big is that market?
"The American Gaming Association make up a number of $150 billion on illegal sports gambling."
Give us your argument against government sanctioned gambling.
"The American people lost $117 billion to government sanctioned gambling in 2016. At the same time one out of two citizens in
this country own zero net assets no stocks, no property, no bonds."
"Here you have an enormous number of people who lack assets to grow into the middle class. And the public voice of government
is targeting that same constituency to play games that are rigged against them."
"We start with this moral belief that all men and women deserve a fair opportunity to have the best life possible for themselves
and their family. That's why we show up every day to compete on this."
"You have citizens losing $117 billion a year. And meanwhile, half the citizens don't have any assets at all. The public voice
of government to most citizens today no matter where you live is gambling."
"We see a lottery class of citizens. You don't have a chance to improve your life. You are stuck with a lack of mobility out of
poverty. And your best hope is to try and play a rigged game to make some cash to pay your rent every month."
"At the same time, government is advertising these games relentlessly to citizens. We spend more than $1 billion a year advertising
gambling to the American people on lotteries alone. That pales in comparison to any other form of government advertising."
"When I was a kid growing up I used to see advertisements with John Wayne saying invest in your country buy US Savings Bonds.
The idea behind that was to encourage citizens to build assets. Everyone points back to the 1950s where there was a growing middle
class and a chance for people to climb out of poverty."
"We had a high savings rate. People were building assets. That was an understated part of keeping people in the middle class.
We talk a lot about wages, but wages are only one part of the equation. You also have to encourage people to build assets."
"We come off the great depression during World War II. And the public voice of government then was we have to put people to
work. Imagine government encouraging people back then to go out and spend their money on lottery tickets to raise the money for the
war. Instead they encouraged the citizens to go out and buys savings bonds, to invest in your country, invest in your neighbor. It
created this strong sense of a common good. It was stronger then than it is today."
Of the $117 billion that the American people lost, how much of that came from poor people?
"Without question, a large portion is coming from the poor. David Just and his team at Cornell have done the best research on
that. And it consistently shows that the people who are participating come from the least favored sections of our society. And they
are playing out of financial desperation. It's a Hail Mary investment strategy."
"Two-thirds of the public doesn't gamble at all. You have one third of the public participating in this government sanctioned
gambling. The messaging that is targeting those folks is this is a chance to change your life. They sell scratch tickets that say
money for life. This is going to be your answer to get ahead in society."
"The average person sees the lottery as Powerball and Megamillions. But the truth is that those two games represent only a small
portion of lottery revenues. Where lotteries make most of their cash are on what are called scratch tickets. Scratch tickets are
the number one money maker, unless you are a state like Oregon that has these electronic gambling machines, which are the most lucrative
of all."
"Scratch tickets are these high frequency games where you play many times a day at higher and higher wagered amounts."
What impact does gambling have on the poor?
"Government sanctioned gambling goes to the heart of many issues that the poor face. It's a big factor in the lack of mobility
out of poverty. By encouraging people to gamble on these rigged games, instead of being able to build a savings account, they are
spending on these rigged games at the street corner on a daily basis."
"What are the key elements of mobility out of poverty? Family structure. If you can keep a family unit together, you have a better
shot of getting out of poverty than if you don't. Two of the biggest factors shown to disrupt family structure are infidelity and
financial problems."
"Here you have a government program that directly attacks the family structure and the family structure is the key to pulling
people out of poverty. Government sanctioned gambling is designed to get citizens to lose their cash as frequently as possible at
higher wagered amounts. It directly intersects with rising inequality. We define it as a lack of opportunity."
[For the complete q/a format Interview with Les Bernal, see 32 Corporate Crime Reporter 24(11), June 7, 2018,
print edition only .]
"... The top White House adviser and son-in-law of Trump failed to identify his part ownership of Cadre, a real-estate startup he founded, which links him to the Goldman Sachs Group and the mega-investors George Soros and Peter Thiel, sources told The Journal. ..."
I guess the "Deep State" is deeper than the White House is reporting.....
Jared Kushner didn't disclose his business ties with George Soros, Peter Thiel, and Goldman Sachs, or that he owes $1 billion
in loans, The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday.
The top White House adviser and son-in-law of Trump failed to identify his part ownership of Cadre, a real-estate startup
he founded, which links him to the Goldman Sachs Group and the mega-investors George Soros and Peter Thiel, sources told The Journal.
"... The magic of Neoliberalism is to transform acts that should be illegal into legal ones. In fact they do so explicitly as their argument for reducing taxation is exactly that of getting rid or decreasing the problem of illegal tax evasion.... so they say. Their problem is that we have no evidence that tax evasion decreases under Neoliberalism on top of the legal tax minimisation already provided. The only thing that happens under Neoliberalism is that the Tax Office tends to be under-resourced and everybody likes to conveniently look somewhere else. ..."
A "legal system of tax evasion", written like that, in quotes, is obviously a metaphor with an intended sarcasm. Clearly, logically,
if a taxation system is legal, by using it you are not "evading" taxes, which is an illegal act.... Anyway, everybody seems to
have understood my intention but you. Well, now you also know.
The magic of Neoliberalism is to transform acts that should be illegal into legal ones. In fact they do so explicitly as their
argument for reducing taxation is exactly that of getting rid or decreasing the problem of illegal tax evasion.... so they say.
Their problem is that we have no evidence that tax evasion decreases under Neoliberalism on top of the legal tax minimisation
already provided. The only thing that happens under Neoliberalism is that the Tax Office tends to be under-resourced and everybody
likes to conveniently look somewhere else.
A "legal system of tax evasion" is a non sequitur, what they have done is create a set of tax laws that enable more opportunities
for tax avoidance by the well off, and Kerry very correctly took advantage of it. If you can, get a copy of the Senate hearing
- it's gold.
This message is clear and concise. It is however never going to be heard beyond the
'Guardian'.
The MSM are hardly going to publish this article, nor are they going to
reference it, why should they? It goes against everything they have been fighting for and the
tin ear of their readership are unwilling to change teir views.
The only thing that they understand is money and the concentration of wealth. This
misonception as Dennis So far this has been handed to them on a plate, the taxation system
has enabled them to manipulate an multiply their earnings. So much of money the has nothing
to do with adding value to this countries economy but is speculative in nature based on
financial and overseas instruments.
No is the time for our government to take the lead and start as the Victorian ALP have
done and invest in people and jobs on the back of strategic investment. It is a fallacy that
governments don't create jobs they, through their policies do just that.
Friends of mine who make a living out of dealing both in stock and wealth creating schemes
have no loyalty to this country, they are self motivated and libertarian in persuasion.
"Government should get out of the way!" This is nothing short of scandalous.
Unless we stand up for our rights and a civil society that provides adequate provision for
fair and balanced policy making,xwe will continue until we will see an implosion. History is
littered with examples of revolution based on the kind of inequality we are seeing happen in
this country. Let's hope it doesn't come to that.
It is indeed important to make the distinction between the ideology of neoliberalism - the
ideology of private enterprise is good, and public spending is bad - and the operational
system of crony capitalism - the game of mates played by government and the special
interests.
And it is certainly equally important to call out the monumental hypocrisy involved in the
government's application of the ideology's set of rules to the powerless and public and the
government's application of corrupt practice rules to the special interests.
The system is destroying the egalitarian character of Australia and fanning the flames of
nativist authoritarianism here.
But what's even more dangerous is the fundamental dishonesty that the system necessitates,
and the alienating influence it has - on top of the growing economic inequality.
The system has destroyed the economic and environmental viability and sustainability of
the planet on which human civilization depends.
What is becoming increasingly clear to more and more of the public is that - simple put-
the system cannot be allowed to go on as it has been proceeding because it threatens the
future of civilization on earth.
Change is imperative now. However, how that will unfold is unclear, as well as, the toll
the destruc5turing system will take.
What is clear is that a great restructuring must happen - and soon.
The neo liberals are intent on defacing Australia. Their pusstulant tentacles stretch into
our classrooms forcing our kids to believe in their god. They tell us that white millionaire
farmers deserve refugee status and all the benefits bestowed on poor persecuted minorities.
They tell us that the disgustingly rich deserve tax relief. Their's is a world where their
children are entitled to safe electoral sets. But they can be defeated and sent to misery. We
did it in the Same Sex Marriage fiasco and we can do it to their more insidious behaviours.
Write to your local member. Barrage them with emails. Write to their propaganda Letters to
the Editor. Donate to GetUp. Keep on keeping on.
Neoliberalism, the dogma was was sourced from Milton Freidman's Monetarism economic theory.
When it morphed into the 'Greed is Good' credo is unclear.
Guess you have to call the disease something, so Neoliberalism it is.
Is capitalism stuffed?
There is much debate at the moment about which Party has the best economic plan going
forward. The Coalition maintains that the best way is by giving large tax breaks to
business.
This is currently being called 'Pre GST theory or old style trickle down economics'.
Lenore Taylor writes:
"The investment bank once chaired by Malcolm Turnbull has backed the view that much of the
benefit from the Coalition's company tax cuts could flow to offshore investors, as the
prime minister insisted his plan was the best way to ensure continued economic growth".
"The domestic benefits would be far bigger if companies used the tax cut to grow their
business, but according to Goldman Sachs "survey evidence suggests that companies are less
likely to voluntarily lower the dividend payment ratio", in other words, the real-world
impact was likely to be closer to the scenario where 60% of the benefit flowed
offshore"
Paul Craig Roberts is right about dominance of neoliberal economics in Russia. But what is the alternative?
Notable quotes:
"... If the neoconservatives had self-restraint, they would sit back and let America's Fifth Column -- Neoliberal Economics -- finish off Russia for them. Russia is doomed, because the country's economists were brainwashed during the Yeltsin years by American neoliberal economists. It was easy enough for the Americans to do. Communist economics had come to naught, the Russian economy was broken, Russians were experiencing widespread hardship, and successful America was there with a helping hand. ..."
"... For example, neoliberal economics exposes Russia's currency to speculation, manipulation, and destabilization. Capital inflows can be used to drive up the value of the ruble, and then at the opportune time, the capital can be pulled out, dropping the ruble's value and driving up domestic inflation with higher import prices, delivering a hit to Russian living standards. Washington has always used these kind of manipulations to destabilize governments. ..."
"... Neo-liberal economics has also brainwashed the Russian central bank with the belief that Russian economic development depends on foreign investment in Russia. This erroneous belief threatens the very sovereignty of Russia. The Russian central bank could easily finance all internal economic development by creating money, but the brainwashed central bank does not realize this. The bank thinks that if the bank finances internal development the result would be inflation and depreciation of the ruble. So the central bank is guided by American neoliberal economics to borrow abroad money it does not need in order to burden Russia with foreign debt that requires a diversion of Russian resources into interest payments to the West. ..."
"... As Michael Hudson and I explained to the Russians two years ago, when Russia borrows from the West, the US for example, and in flow the dollars, what happens to the dollars? Russia cannot spend them domestically to finance development projects, so where do the dollars go? They go into Russia's foreign exchange holdings and accrue interest for the lender. The central bank then creates the ruble equivalent of the borrowed and idle dollars and finances the project. So why borrow the dollars? The only possible reason is so the US can use the dollar debt to exercise control over Russian decision making. In other words, Russia delivers herself into the hands of her enemies. ..."
"... Putin is struggling to have Russia integrated into the Western economic system while retaining Russia's sovereignty (an unrealistic goal), because Putin has been convinced by the element in the Russian elite, which had rather be Western than Russian, that Russia's economic development depends on being integrated into the Western economy. As the neoliberal economic elite control Russia's economic and financial policy, Putin believes that he has to accept Western provocations or forfeit his hopes for Russian economic development. ..."
This is the lecture I would have given if I had been able to accept the invitation to
address the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in Russia this weekend.
Executive Summary:
From the standpoint of Russia's dilemma, this is an important column.
Putin's partial impotence via-a-vis Washington is due to the grip that neoliberal economics
exercises over the Russian government. Putin cannot break with the West, because he believes
that Russian economic development is dependent on Russia's integration within the Western
economy. That is what neoliberal economics tells the Russian economic and financial
establishment.
Everyone should understand that I am not a pro-Russian anti-American. I am anti-war,
especially nuclear war. My concern is that the inability of the Russian government to put its
foot down is due to its belief that Russian development, despite all the talk about the
Eurasian partnership and the Silk Road, is dependent on being integrated with the West. This
totally erroneous belief prevents the Russian government from any decisive break with the West.
Consequently, Putin continues to accept provocations in order to avoid a decisive break that
would cut Russia off from the West. In Washington and the UK this is interpreted as a lack of
resolve on Putin's part and encourages an escalation in provocations that will intensify until
Russia's only option is surrender or war.
If the Russian government did not believe that it needed the West, the government could
give stronger responses to provocations that would make clear that there are limits to what
Russia will tolerate. It would also make Europe aware that its existence hangs in the balance.
The combination of Trump abusing Europe and Europe's recognition of the threat to its own
existence of its alignment with an aggressive Washington would break the Western alliance and
NATO. But Putin cannot bring this about because he erroneously believes that Russia needs the
West.
If the neoconservatives had self-restraint, they would sit back and let America's Fifth
Column -- Neoliberal Economics -- finish off Russia for them. Russia is doomed, because the
country's economists were brainwashed during the Yeltsin years by American neoliberal
economists. It was easy enough for the Americans to do. Communist economics had come to naught,
the Russian economy was broken, Russians were experiencing widespread hardship, and successful
America was there with a helping hand.
In reality the helping hand was a grasping hand. The hand grasped Russian resources through
privatization and gave control to American-friendly oligarchs. Russian economists had no clue
about how financial capitalism in its neoliberal guise strips economies of their assets while
loading them up with debt.
But worse happened. Russia's economists were brainwashed into an economic way of thinking
that serves Western imperialism.
For example, neoliberal economics exposes Russia's currency to speculation, manipulation,
and destabilization. Capital inflows can be used to drive up the value of the ruble, and then
at the opportune time, the capital can be pulled out, dropping the ruble's value and driving up
domestic inflation with higher import prices, delivering a hit to Russian living standards.
Washington has always used these kind of manipulations to destabilize governments.
Neo-liberal economics has also brainwashed the Russian central bank with the belief that
Russian economic development depends on foreign investment in Russia. This erroneous belief
threatens the very sovereignty of Russia. The Russian central bank could easily finance all
internal economic development by creating money, but the brainwashed central bank does not
realize this. The bank thinks that if the bank finances internal development the result would
be inflation and depreciation of the ruble. So the central bank is guided by American
neoliberal economics to borrow abroad money it does not need in order to burden Russia with
foreign debt that requires a diversion of Russian resources into interest payments to the
West.
As Michael Hudson and I explained to the Russians two years ago, when Russia borrows from
the West, the US for example, and in flow the dollars, what happens to the dollars? Russia
cannot spend them domestically to finance development projects, so where do the dollars go?
They go into Russia's foreign exchange holdings and accrue interest for the lender. The central
bank then creates the ruble equivalent of the borrowed and idle dollars and finances the
project. So why borrow the dollars? The only possible reason is so the US can use the dollar
debt to exercise control over Russian decision making. In other words, Russia delivers herself
into the hands of her enemies.
Indeed, it is the Russian government's mistaken belief that Russian economic development is
dependent on Russia being included as part of the West that has caused Putin to accept the
provocations and humiliations that the West has heaped upon Russia. The lack of response to
these provocations will eventually cause the Russian government to lose the support of the
nationalist elements in Russia.
Putin is struggling to have Russia integrated into the Western economic system while
retaining Russia's sovereignty (an unrealistic goal), because Putin has been convinced by the
element in the Russian elite, which had rather be Western than Russian, that Russia's economic
development depends on being integrated into the Western economy. As the neoliberal economic
elite control Russia's economic and financial policy, Putin believes that he has to accept
Western provocations or forfeit his hopes for Russian economic development.
Russian economists are so indoctrinated with neoliberal economics that they cannot even look
to America to see how a once great economy has been completely destroyed by neoliberal
economics.
The US has the largest public debt of any country in history. The US has the largest trade
and budget deficits of any country in history. The US has 22 percent unemployment, which it
hides by not counting among the unemployed millions of discouraged workers who, unable to find
jobs, ceased looking for jobs and are arbitrarily excluded from the measure of unemployment.
The US has a retired class that has been stripped of any interest payment on their savings for
a decade, because it was more important to the Federal Reserve to bail out the bad loans of a
handful of "banks too big to fail," banks that became too big to fail because of the
deregulation fostered by neoliberal economics. By misrepresenting "free trade" and "globalism,"
neoliberal economics sent America's manufacturing and tradeable professional skill jobs abroad
where wages were lower, thus boosting the incomes of owners at the expense of the incomes of US
wage-earners, leaving Americans with the lowly paid domestic service jobs of a Third World
country. Real median family income in the US has been stagnant for decades. The Federal Reserve
recently reported that Americans are so poor that 41 percent of the population cannot raise
$400 without selling personal possessions.
Young Americans, if they have university educations, begin life as debt slaves. Currently
there are 44,200,000 Americans with student loan debt totalling $1,048,000,000,000 -- $1.48
trillion! https://studentloanhero.com/student-loan-debt-statistics/
In the US all 50 states have publicly supported universities where tuition is supposed to be
nominal in order to encourage education. When I went to Georgia Tech, a premier engineering
school, my annual tuition was less than $500. Loans were not needed and did not exist.
What happened? Financial capitalism discovered how to turn university students into
indentured servants, and the university administrations cooperated. Tuitions rose and rose and
were increasingly allocated to administration, the cost of which exploded. Today many
university administrations absorb 75% of the annual budget, leaving little for professors' pay
and student aid. An obedient Congress created a loan program that ensnares young American men
and women into huge debt in order to acquire an university education. With so many of the
well-paying jobs moved offshore by neoliberal economics, the jobs available cannot service the
student loan debts. A large percentage of Americans aged 24-34 live at home with parents,
because their jobs do not pay enough to service their student loan debt and pay an apartment
rent. Debt prevents them from living an independent existence.
In America the indebtedness of the population produced by neoliberal economics -- privatize,
privatize, deregulate, deregulate, indebt, indebt -- prevents any economic growth as the
American public has no discretionary income after debt service to drive the economy. In America
the way cars, trucks, and SUVs are sold is via zero downpayment and seven years of loans. From
the minute a vehicle is purchased, the loan obligation exceeds the value of the vehicle.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Mike Meru, a dentist earning $225,000 annually, has
$1,060,945.42 in student loan debt. He pays $1,589.97 monthly, which is not enough to cover the
interest, much less reduce the principal. Consequently, his debt from seven years at the
University of Southern California grows by $130 per day. In two decades, his loan balance will
be $2 million.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-meru-has-1-million-in-student-loans-how-did-that-happen-1527252975
If neoliberal economics does not work for America, why will it work for Russia? Neoliberal
economics only works for oligarchs and their institutions, such as Goldman Sachs, who are
bankrolled by the central bank to keep the economy partially afloat. Washington will agree to
Russia being integrated into the Western system when Putin agrees to resurrect the Yeltsin-era
practice of permitting Western financial institutions to strip Russia of her assets while
loading her up with debt.
I could continue at length about the junk economics, to use Michael Hudson's term, that is
neoliberal economics. The United States is failing because of it, and so will Russia.
John Bolton and the neocons should just relax. Neoliberal economics, which has the Russian
financial interests, the Russian government and apparently Putin himself in its grip, will
destroy Russia without war.
[May 27, 2018] Turning on Russia by Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould
"... Coming Next, Part 2: The post WWII global strategy of the neocons has been shaped chiefly by Russophobia against the Soviet Union and now Russia ..."
"... * Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould are the authors of Invisible History: Afghanistan's Untold Story , Crossing Zero The AfPak War at the Turning Point of American Empire and The Voice . Visit their websites at invisiblehistory and grailwerk .com ..."
In this first of a two-part series, Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould trace the origins
of the neoconservative targeting of Russia.
By Paul Fitzgerald and Elizabeth Gould April 29.2018
The German newsmagazine Der Spiegel last September reported
that, "Stanley Fischer, the 73–year-old vice chair of the U.S. Federal Reserve, is
familiar with the decline of the world's rich. He spent his childhood and youth in the British
protectorate of Rhodesia before going to London in the early 1960s for his university studies.
There, he experienced first-hand the unravelling of the British Empire Now an American citizen,
Fischer is currently witnessing another major power taking its leave of the world stage the
United States is losing its status as a global hegemonic power, he said recently. The U.S.
political system could take the world in a very dangerous direction "
With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the creation of the so called Wolfowitz
Doctrine in 1992 during the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush, the United States
claimed the mantle of the world's first and only. Unipower with the intention of crushing any
nation or system that would oppose it in the future. The New World Order, foreseen just a few
short years ago, becomes more disorderly by the day, made worse by varying degrees of
incompetence and greed emanating from Berlin, London, Paris and Washington.
As a further sign of the ongoing seismic shocks rocking America's claim to leadership, by
the time Fischer's interview appeared in the online version of the Der Spiegel , he had
already announced his resignation as vice chair of the Federal Reserve -- eight months ahead of
schedule. If anyone knows about the decline and fall of empires it is the "globalist" and
former Bank of Israel president, Stanley Fischer. Not only did he experience the unravelling of
the British Empire as a young student in London, he directly assisted in the wholesale
dismantling of the Soviet Empire during the 1990s.
As an admitted product of the British Empire and point man for its long term imperial aims,
that makes Fischer not just empire's Angel of Death, but its rag and bone man.
Alongside a handful of Harvard economists led by Jonathan Hay, Larry Summers, Andrei
Shleifer, and Jeffry Sachs, in the "Harvard Project," plus Anatoly Chubais, the chief Russian
economic adviser, Fischer helped throw 100 million Russians into poverty overnight –
privatizing, or as some would say piratizing – the Russian economy. Yet, Americans never
got the real story because a slanted anti-Russia narrative covered the true nature of the
robbery from beginning to end.
As described by public policy scholar and anthropologist Janine R. Wedel in her 2009 book
Shadow Elite: "Presented in the West as a fight between enlightenment Reformers trying
to move the economy forward through privatization, and retrograde Luddites who opposed them,
this story misrepresented the facts. The idea or goal of privatization was not controversial,
even among communists the Russian Supreme Soviet, a communist body, passed two laws laying the
groundwork for privatization. Opposition to privatization was rooted not in the idea itself but
in the particular privatization program that was implemented, the opaque way in which it
was put into place, and the use of executive authority to bypass the parliament."
Intentionally set up to fail for Russia and the Russian people under the cover of a false
narrative, she continues "The outcome rendered privatization 'a de facto fraud,' as one
economist put it, and the parliamentary committee that had judged the Chubais scheme to 'offer
fertile ground for criminal activity' was proven right."
If Fischer, a man who helped bring about a de facto criminal-privatization-fraud to
post-empire Russia says the U.S. is on a dangerous course, the time has arrived for post-empire
Americans to ask what role he played in putting the U.S. on that dangerous course. Little known
to Americans is the blunt force trauma Fischer and the "prestigious" Harvard Project delivered
to Russia under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin during the 1990s. According to The American Conservative's James Carden "As the Center for Economic and Policy
Research noted back in 2011 'the IMF's intervention in Russia during Fischer's tenure led to
one of the worst losses in output in history, in the absence of war or natural disaster.'
Indeed, one Russian observer compared the economic and social consequences of the IMF's
intervention to what one would see in the aftermath of a medium-level nuclear attack."
Neither do most Americans know that it was President Jimmy Carter's national security
advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski's 1970s grand plan for the conquest of the Eurasian heartland that
boomeranged to terrorize Europe and America in the 21 st century. Brzezinski spent
much of his life undermining the Communist Soviet Union and then spent the rest of it worrying
about its resurgence as a Czarist empire under Vladimir Putin. It might be unfair to say that
hating Russia was his only obsession. But a common inside joke during his tenure as the
President's top national security officer was that he couldn't find Nicaragua on a map.
If anyone provided the blueprint for the United States to rule in a unipolar world following
the Soviet Union's collapse it was Brzezinski. And if anyone could be said to represent the
debt driven financial system that fueled America's post-Vietnam Imperialism, it's Fischer. His
departure should have sent a chill down every neoconservative's spine. Their dream of a New
World Order has once again ground to a halt at the gates of Moscow.
Whenever the epitaph for the abbreviated American century is written it will be sure to
feature the iconic role the neoconservatives played in hastening its demise. From the chaos
created by Vietnam they set to work restructuring American politics, finance and foreign policy
to their own purposes. Dominated at the beginning by Zionists and Trotskyists, but directed by
the Anglo/American establishment and their intelligence elites, the neoconservatives' goal,
working with their Chicago School neoliberal partners, was to deconstruct the nation-state
through cultural co-optation and financial subversion and to project American power abroad. So
far they have been overwhelmingly successful to the detriment of much of the
world.
From the end of the Second World War through the 1980s the focus of this pursuit was on the
Soviet Union, but since the Soviet collapse in 1991, their focus has been on dismantling any
and all opposition to their global dominion.
Pentagon Capitalism
Shady finance, imperial misadventures and neoconservatism go hand in hand. The CIA's
founders saw themselves as partners in this enterprise and the defense industry welcomed them
with open arms. McGill University economist R.T. Naylor, author of 1987's Hot Money and the
Politics of Debt , described how "Pentagon Capitalism" had made the Vietnam War
possible by selling the Pentagon's debt to the rest of the world.
"In effect, the US Marines had replaced Meyer Lansky's couriers , and the European central
banks arranged the 'loan-back,'" Naylor writes. "When the mechanism was explained to the late
[neoconservative] Herman Kahn – lifeguard of the era's chief 'think tank' and a man who
popularized the notion it was possible to emerge smiling from a global conflagration – he
reacted with visible delight. Kahn exclaimed excitedly, 'We've pulled off the biggest ripoff in
history! We've run rings around the British Empire.'" In addition to their core of
ex-Trotskyist intellectuals early neoconservatives could count among their ranks such
establishment figures as James Burnham, father of the Cold War Paul Nitze, Senator Daniel
Patrick Moynihan, Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Brzezinski himself.
From the beginning of their entry into the American political mainstream in the 1970s it was
known that their emergence could imperil democracy in America and yet Washington's more
moderate gatekeepers allowed them in without much of a fight.
Peter Steinfels' 1979 classic The
Neoconservatives: The men who are changing America's politics begins with these fateful
words. "THE PREMISES OF THIS BOOK are simple. First, that a distinct and powerful political
outlook has recently emerged in the United States. Second, that this outlook, preoccupied with
certain aspects of American life and blind or complacent towards others, justifies a politics
which, should it prevail, threatens to attenuate and diminish the promise of American
democracy."
But long before Steinfels' 1979 account, the neoconservative's agenda of inserting their own
interests ahead of America's was well underway, attenuating U.S. democracy, undermining
détente and angering America's NATO partners that supported it. According to the
distinguished State Department Soviet specialist Raymond Garthoff, détente had been
under attack by right-wing and military-industrial forces ( led by Senator "Scoop"
Jackson ) from its inception. But America's ownership of that policy underwent a shift
following U.S. intervention on behalf of Israel during the 1973 October war. Garthoff writes in
his detailed volume on American-Soviet relations Détente
and Confrontation , "To the allies the threat [to Israel] did not come from the Soviet
Union, but from unwise actions by the United States, taken unilaterally and without
consultation. The airlift [of arms] had been bad enough. The U.S. military alert of its forces
in Europe was too much."
In addition to the crippling Arab oil embargo that followed, the crisis of confidence in
U.S. decision-making nearly produced a mutiny within NATO. Garthoff continues, "The United
States had used the alert to convert an Arab-Israeli conflict, into which the United States had
plunged, into a matter of East-West confrontation. Then it had used that tension as an excuse
to demand that Europe subordinate its own policies to a manipulative American diplomatic gamble
over which they had no control and to which they had not even been privy, all in the name of
alliance unity."
In the end the U.S. found common cause with its Cold War Soviet enemy by imposing a
cease-fire accepted by both Egypt and Israel thereby confirming the usefulness of
détente. But as related by Garthoff this success triggered an even greater effort by
Israel's "politically significant supporters" in the U.S. to begin opposing any
cooperation with the Soviet Union, at all.
Garthoff writes, "The United States had pressed Israel into doing precisely what the Soviet
Union (as well as the United States) had wanted: to halt its advance short of complete
encirclement of the Egyptian Third Army east of Suez Thus they [Israel's politically
significant supporters] saw the convergence of American-Soviet interests and effective
cooperation in imposing a cease-fire as a harbinger of greater future cooperation by the two
superpowers in working toward a resolution of the Israeli-Arab-Palestinian problem."
"... 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 ].
I am starting wondering what was the role of intelligence agencies, especially CIA is creation of the neoliberal myths and
spreading of the ideology... What connections to CIA has such figured and Milton Friedman and Hayek? Harvard
mafia definitely has such connections.
Neoliberalism is the refinement of this basic human tendency for domination. It is a
camouflaged form of oppression that is revealed through its ultimate effect, not what it does
at the moment. A neoliberal is a disguised raider or conquerer.
Notable quotes:
"... It got to be a running joke how these gang bosses and members were always denying that the mafia was an actual thing. ..."
"... Could it be that the neoliberals took a page out of their book and adopted the same tactic of denying the existence of neoliberalism while actively pushing it at every opportunity? ..."
"... To extend your analogy, much like the mafia, there's a handful of shadowy law breakers who benefit from neoliberalism and a whole lot of people that suffer violence so that those benefits can flow up to that few. ..."
"... Like the concurrent and related "Conservative revolution"(1973-), they stole the Cell Structure from the Comintern, and bought out the competition. ..."
Hey, I just remembered something. When I was a kid growing up everybody knew all about the
mafia but all those in the know denied that there was any such thing when questioned in a
court of law. It got to be a running joke how these gang bosses and members were always
denying that the mafia was an actual thing.
Could it be that the neoliberals took a page out of their book and adopted the same
tactic of denying the existence of neoliberalism while actively pushing it at every
opportunity?
And like the line from 'fight club', the first rule of neoliberalism is that you don't
talk about it.
To extend your analogy, much like the mafia, there's a handful of shadowy law breakers
who benefit from neoliberalism and a whole lot of people that suffer violence so that those
benefits can flow up to that few.
this is why I keep Mario Puzo next to Adam and Karl on the econ shelf in my library. It's
not so much Omerta, as gobbdeygook and wafer thin platitudes.
Like the concurrent and related "Conservative revolution"(1973-), they stole the Cell
Structure from the Comintern, and bought out the competition.
I am inclined to believe that the Libertarian Party was a vehicle for this
counterrevolution, too. And finally, with the DLC, they were able to buy the "opposition
party" outright and here we are.
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 ιminence 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 Cαceres, 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.
"... 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.
UUUge mistake, Jimmy Dore; you should have done some homework before you elevated Jeffrey
Sachs to truth-teller status. Spend a few minutes with The Saker -- William Engdah interview:
http://thesaker.is/the-rape-of-russia-saker-blog-exclusive-interview/
Sache is not trustworthy.
Sachs worked closely w/ Soros to plunder USSR/ FSU. His job now is to establish
Jews/Israel/banker class, Deep State of which he's a part, and think tankers as absolutely
innocent of any complicity in the destruction of Syria. He's most likely in it up to his
eyeballs.
"... What the US Government under George Herbert Walker Bush, Bush Senior organised together with CIA, old boy networks of his, in terms of the breaking up of the Soviet Union and the looting of the assets, this open theft, the destruction of pensions, security, the health system and everything. The only appropriate word is the rape of Russia. They just pondered anything that they could. ..."
"... And the West, the Bush networks recruited a handful of KGB agents around Yeltsin who literally promoted Yeltsin to the top when they engineered the August 1991 fake coup. ..."
"... And through that the – this network, this corrupt network within the KGB that was working with the CIA, working with General Philip, Bob [unclear] is one of them, so called at that time the KGB brain. He was head of the KGB Fifth Directorate controlling to roll this in. ..."
"... They engineered a complete opening up of the assets of the Russian Federation which called today the Russian Federation, the largest part of the former Soviet Union and they made it such that the Russian Federation would assume all of the debts of Ukraine, of Kazakhstan and the other socialist republics of the Soviet and all the assets, all the crucial assets that were within the Russian Federation so the aluminium Rusal that's in the headlines yesterday, the nickel, the oil, the gas, just hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars' worth of assets that came into Yeltsin's control. ..."
"... Soros was very intermittently tied with Jeffrey Sachs and the whole Harvard to become a shock therapy group and working with Lawrence Summers team at the US Treasury under Clinton. ..."
"... So, Chubais was as an adviser to Yeltsin at that time and the key person on the economy arranged the secret meeting with George Soros. And Soros agreed to finance of course on behalf of Yeltsin, the referendum campaign. So he funnelled money over a million dollars by some accounts to offshore accounts set up to be used by Chubais to buy media. ..."
"... In 1989 President George H. W. Bush began the multi-billion dollar Project Hammer program using an investment strategy to bring about the economic destruction of the Soviet Union including the theft of the Soviet treasury, the destabilization of the ruble, funding a KGB coup against Gorbachev in August 1991 and the seizure of major energy and munitions industries in the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Given the depth of the fall, the rise (under Putin) has been remarkable. ..."
Lars Schall: Hello ladies and gentlemen. I am now connected with F. William Engdahl, who has
written a new book, Manifest Destiny: Democracy as Cognitive Dissonance. Hi William.
F. William Engdahl: Hello, Lars. Good to be with you again.
LS: Great to have you with us. And first off, let me read something to you and our audience
that was written by the economist Dean Baker earlier this month.
As a long-term columnist at the NYT, Thomas Friedman apparently never feels the need to
know anything about the topics on which he writes. This explains his sarcastic speculation that
Putin could be a CIA agent since he has done so much to hurt Russia.
For all his
authoritarian tendencies, it is likely that most Russians think primarily about Putin's impact
on the economy, just as is typically the case among voters in the United States. On that front,
Putin has a very good record.
According to data from the IMF Russia's economy had plunged in the 1990s under the
Yeltsin presidency. When Putin took over in 1998, per capita income in the country had shrunk
by more than 40 percent from its 1990 level. This is a far sharper downturn than the United
States saw in the Great Depression. Since Putin took power its per capita income has risen by
more than 115 percent, an average annual growth rate of more than 3.9 percent.
While this growth has been very unequal, that was also the case even as Russia's economy
was collapsing under Yeltsin. The typical Russian has done hugely better in the last two
decades under Putin than they did in the period when Yeltsin was in power.
For this reason, there are probably few Russians who would have sympathy for Friedman's
speculation about Putin's ties to the CIA. The same would not be the case for Boris
Yeltsin.
Now, I think this is a good starting point for our discussion William because in your book,
you have a chapter entitled The Rape of Russia, the CIA's Yeltsin Coup d'état. Why do
you talk about rape related to Russia?
FWE: What the US Government under George Herbert Walker Bush, Bush Senior organised together
with CIA, old boy networks of his, in terms of the breaking up of the Soviet Union and the
looting of the assets, this open theft, the destruction of pensions, security, the health
system and everything. The only appropriate word is the rape of Russia. They just pondered
anything that they could.
And what you just read from Mr. Friedman is of course horse rubbish but the real CIA asset
of this whole collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s was in fact Boris Yeltsin and the
so called Yeltsin Family, the Yeltsin Mafia. And in my book, the Manifest Destiny book I
document and detail at great lengths the relation of a handful of KGB very, very senior persons
who worked with the Bush Senior old boys CIA networks in the West and their banks to create a
group of oligarchs around Yeltsin, you know the famous Russian oligarchs, well, The New York
Times and other Western Media portrayed them as Russian Mafia. They were kind of mafia but the
real point was that they were a CIA-run mafia. They were run by the West. They betrayed their
own country, their own people and literally stole billions and billions and billions of dollars
of assets. And that's the reason for the title in that chapter.
LS: And Boris Yeltsin was very essential for this.
FWE: He was the key figure. He had been selected as a regional governor and brought into
Moscow and a certain point Gorbachev saw him as a rising star and someone that could help with
a little bit more liberal image as [unclear] was – the Russian economy was running into
serious trouble in the '80s, the Star Wars of Reagan, the Nicaragua and above all the war in
Afghanistan which is a CIA project with the Mujahideen, that took 10 years long that was
bleeding the Soviet economy, the Soviet Union's Vietnam, as Brzezinski used to call it.
And the West, the Bush networks recruited a handful of KGB agents around Yeltsin who
literally promoted Yeltsin to the top when they engineered the August 1991 fake coup. You
remember, I'm sure many people remember the picture of Boris Yeltsin standing there
courageously on top of a Soviet tank in front of the Russian White House or Soviet House, the
Supreme Soviet building and reading a speech defying Gorbachev and so forth. Well, that was a
KGB CIA-engineered coup d'état in June 1991. And through that the – this network,
this corrupt network within the KGB that was working with the CIA, working with General Philip,
Bob [unclear] is one of them, so called at that time the KGB brain. He was head of the KGB
Fifth Directorate controlling to roll this in. And he later joined the [#inaudible 00:06:40-0#]
oil and to this day he's still a member of the State Duma giving him prosecution immunity.
So, some of these people are still around after some 23, 25 years and incredibly enough but
others of them have died off, have been killed, or murdered or whatever. But the operation that
was done with Yeltsin, this corrupt KGB network working with the CIA financed Yeltsin's the
silent seat of the presidency of the Russian Federation. And once they had their man in
controlling the Russian Federation which is the largest of the former Soviet Union, the
Socialist Republic, they were able to engineer through the international monetary fund that was
mandated to oversee the transformation of the Soviet economy.
They engineered a complete opening up of the assets of the Russian Federation which called
today the Russian Federation, the largest part of the former Soviet Union and they made it such
that the Russian Federation would assume all of the debts of Ukraine, of Kazakhstan and the
other socialist republics of the Soviet and all the assets, all the crucial assets that were
within the Russian Federation so the aluminium Rusal that's in the headlines yesterday, the
nickel, the oil, the gas, just hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars' worth of
assets that came into Yeltsin's control.
LS: But those assets were sold to a price that was rather ridiculous.
FWE: Someone estimated that that gets into the whole coupon privatisation that was set up
under Yeltsin in the '90s. The coupon privatisation issued one coupon to every single Russian
man, woman and child 140 million in total. And the value of those coupons was such someone
estimated that the totality of Russian Soviet's Fed assets or Russian Federation assets now was
equal to the value of the stock at that point of General Electric Company on the New York Stock
Exchange. I mean that's just laughable. Russia had financial bankruptcy because the shock
therapy, the Jeffrey Sachs and others from Harvard and elsewhere brought in, George Soros and
his pals. That created bankrupt companies that couldn't stand on their own and suddenly they
had no, no resources. But the assets, the assets on the ground, the nickel, the aluminium, the
uranium that Hillary Clinton knows more than a little bit about them, all of these were
estimated to be in the trillions of dollars. And this is what the Bush operation aimed at. And
they used NGOs, they used the National Endowment for Democracy, they used, George Soros' Open
Society Foundation and so forth to bring this about.
LS: You've mentioned already the coup d'etat attempt of August 1991. Highly important for
things to come was something that took place in early 1991 and that was the theft of the Soviet
gold. Please tell us about this.
FWE: The, under the Soviet Union, this is a very crucial point about the transition that
Washington forced on the Russian Federation because Yeltsin was, I think as long as he was
well-supplied with vodka he didn't protest very much. But under the Soviet system and the
Russian Federation took this over, there was a state bank, not a private central bank like the
Federal Reserve or the European Central Bank today but a state bank that was an entity of the
Russian State apparatus and that was called the Gosbank. And a man named Viktor Gerashchenko
was the chairman of Gosbank at the time of Yeltsin's early start in 1991.
And Gerashchenko made a speech around that time in November of '91 to the Russian Duma or
the parliament such as it was and said, "I have to report to you ladies and gentlemen that of
perhaps 3,000 tons of Gosbank state-owned gold reserves, we have an estimated less than 400
tons that we can account for." And then he had to go to tell, shock members of parliament that
he had no idea what happened to the missing gold, which of course was a lie. And Gerashchenko
had created right after 1989 to prepare this coup d'etat coup, which was the CIA and Bush's old
boys, he had created something called [unclear] on the Channel Islands in the Island of Jersey
to handle the Russian foreign currency reserves.
And the Jersey was exempt from European supervision, so this was a perfect place to hide
money, dirty money or stolen money and they managed something like $37 billion between 1993 and
1998. The Gerashchenko and the Gosbank even went to the lengths of hiring a New York Financial
Detective firm called the Financial CIA back then called Jules Kroll Associate. And they were
told to track the Soviet gold, find out what happened to it and something like $14 billion of
communist party assets that were missing as well. And the Cruel which was tied with the CIA
linked AIG Insurance Group Hank Greenberg whom you remember from the 2008 to the bail out of
Henry Paulson.
LS: Yes.
FEW: The Kroll Associates after a few months announced that they had no results in the
attempt to find the missing Soviet Gosbank gold. Then to add insult to injury, the IMF came in
and rewrote the constitution of the Russian Federation under Yeltsin and took the power of
money creation just like the Federal Reserve took the power of money creation from the congress
in 1913. They took the power of money creation from the state and created the Russian
Federation Central Bank, the Russian Central Bank and gave it a mandate for two things. One, to
control inflation and the other to create currency stability.
Now, in Russia that day that meant stability of the ruble against the US dollar. So it
effectively hammer-locked the Russian money creation into the US dollar. And unfortunately that
constitution amendment holds until the present day. It's one of the difficulties that Vladimir
Putin has been having to try to persuade the Independent Central Bank to lower interest rates
more rapidly as inflation is simply managed as a problem in Russia in the last two years.
So, they looted the gold so that there would be no stability to the ruble. If you don't have
any gold-backing, then western investors are going to lack confidence which is sort of what
happened. And then they began working with very select western bankers to get their money out
of Russia.
LS: And instrumental to get money out of Russia were Valmet and Riggs. Can you tell us
please about some crucial personnel that was employed there at Valmet and Riggs?
FWE: Valmet Riggs was kind of a fusion of a Swiss bank and Riggs Bank of Washington D. C.
And Riggs Bank, this is really quite a fascinating and very little discussed aspect of the
reign of Russia back in the '90s.
So you have something called Riggs Bank in Washington and they were set up decades earlier
since the 1960s CIA Bay of Pigs operation, they were known as the CIA tied bank. They invested
the assets of people like Marcos of the Philippines until when he was close to the CIA. And
there was a former NATO Ambassador named Alton Keel and in 1989 when the Soviet KGB generals
and they had a group of protégés called the 'Kids' by George Bush Senior. The
protégés were in their 30s and a couple of them were in their 40s but rather
young. And they were the ones who were nominated to become the oligarchs, the frontal men for
taking these state assets the aluminium, the oil assets and other things and looting the
Russian Federation.
And Alton Keel just as the Russians were setting up men at a bank for the oligarchs to
funnel their stolen assets, de facto stolen assets, Keel went from NATO and the National
Security Council to become a head of international banking of Riggs Bank in Washington and its
deputy chairman.
Now, it gets even more interesting because the international banking group of Riggs included
a new entity that had been created called Riggs Valmet SA in Switzerland, and Riggs Valmet was
set up by a man named Jonathan J. Bush, a private banker, who just happened to be the brother
of George Herbert Walker Bush. So, Bush brother and Alton Keel set up Riggs Valmet, there was a
money laundering apparatus in Geneva and Riggs then through their help bought the major share
in Geneva Valmet to create Riggs Valmet.
So, you have the brother of the president of the United States up to his eyeballs in this
whole Yeltsin CIA money laundering operation. And then Jonathan Bush was created CEO of
something called Riggs Investment in Connecticut where he lived and at that point the looting
and taking of the dollar assets out of Russia was just unstoppable. It was in the billions and
tens of billions of dollars.
LS: William, there is one guy who was working closely with those people and he was working
on Wall Street but later on he was personally recruited by George Tenet then the Director of
CIA to become the number three at the CIA, and this is Alvin Bernard "Buzzy" Krongard.
FWE: Yes. We meet "Buzzy" Krongard at Bankers Trust, which bought up Alex Brown, and
Krongard became vice chairman of Bankers Trust along with another charming character named
Carter Beese. And at the time of the 1998 collapse of the ruble, Krongard was formally made, as
you've pointed out, number three, the executive director at the CIA under George Tenet. So,
it's a CIA network from beginning to end, from the banking side to you know the direct CIA
side. You have Carter Beast, you have "Buzzy" Krongard, Jonathan Bush and Alton Keel and they
were the ones working with Valmet as the Riggs Valmet Bank in Geneva to pull this money out
through shell companies.
And the oligarchs, this is an interesting part of this whole thing that you know right now
Theresa May and the foreign secretary Boris Johnson in the UK are accusing Putin of murdering
almost everybody since the birth of Jesus Christ. And one of them was the person who had been
the trusted bodyguard of one of the oligarchs living in London Boris Berezovsky.
And Berezovsky was one of the dirtiest of these oligarchs. He'd financed the Ukrainian
Colour Revolution back in 2003, 2004 as a revenge against Putin because he at first thought
Putin could be bought like Yeltsin and suddenly he realized that he was up against the faction
of nationalists within of what had been the KGB but wanted to stabilise and preserve Russia as
a functioning nation today. And so Mikhail Khodorkovskyi, Roman Abramovich, who is listed on
the sanctions list yesterday, and Berezovsky were some of the leading oligarchs that were created
by this Bush operation.
LS: And to jumpstart all of this, we have to talk about something that is well, that is
stranger than fiction and that is something called for example "Yamashita's Gold". If our
audience is interested in this, they could for example look for an article written by Chalmers
Johnson, the famous Asian expert, The Looting of Asia, which was published at the London Review
of Books on the 20 th of November of 2003 because then they can find something on
this topic of Yamashita's gold on an instant basis in the internet ( https://www.lrb.co.uk/v25/n22/chalmers-johnson/the-looting-of-asia
). I think this is just fair
FWE: Yeah.
LS: because no one really is aware of this whole story. Please tell us about this.
FWE: The Yamashita Gold story is one of the, as you've said really incredible stories of
post-World War II. During the Second World War, the Japanese Imperial Family looted the gold of
occupied Arch of China, they looted the gold of all the parts of Asia that they had
conquered.
LS: Basically from 1895 to 1945.
FWE: Yeah, yeah. And because they had no guarantee that Japan was going to win the war, the
emperor ordered the gold to be hidden away in, mostly in the Philippines as far as we know and
literally untold tons of gold were buried so deep underground in tunnels around the Philippines
and the people who dug the tunnels in many cases were later shot you know so that they couldn't
tell. But Marcos who was a CIA asset initially, the dictator of the Philippines through much of
the '70s and into the '80s, yeah through the '70, Ferdinand Marcos somehow came upon some of
this gold. So, the Japanese looted war body was buried in the early '40s before the end of the
war on orders of Emperor Hirohito should they lose the war.
And at some point in the 1970s, Marcos discovered some of the sites where Hirohito's
soldiers had buried the gold and the gold was stolen from China, Korea, Philippines, Indonesia
and other countries occupied by the Japanese forces. And Marcos, and I think this is the major
reason the CIA dumped him, got a little bit greedy and took that gold and started selling it
under the market through selective secret Swiss banks. But he used the CIA asset, the Saudi
billionaire named Adnan Khashoggi to help them get the gold under the market. And what he
didn't realise was that Khashoggi would double cross him. He got a better deal from Bush Senior
and the old boys.
LS: We have to say Khashoggi is a figure who is involved for example in B.C.C.I. and in
Iran-Contra.
FWE: Back in the '70s he was involved in everything dirty that Bush and the CIA were
involved in. B.C.C.I. Bank, the money laundering bank of the CIA, the arms deals, Khashoggi was
a huge arms dealer during the Iran and Iraq war the CIA was feeding. He was involved in almost
every dirty thing the CIA was doing.
LS: He was aware of this gold.
FWE: Supposedly he was helping Marcos to sell the gold out of the market. So he was not only
aware of it, he was right in the middle of it. But then once Marcos was tackled by the CIA Bush
got rid of Marcos in 1986. Then someone named Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Armitage and Khashoggi
began to work with someone in Canada to create something called – Peter Munk was his
name, a rather dubious businessman there – to found something called Barrick Gold of
Canada and later it went on to become the world's largest gold mining company.
But Barrick Gold, all available evidence is that buried gold was used to melt down the
– I don't want to get too much into the details of this but basically to melt down the
Emperor Hirohito's gold that had been discovered by Marcos in the Philippines, to melt it down
and use that as collateral for derivatives that would be the collateral used to take over the
Russian Federation assets.
LS: The money was basically transformed into bank loans into Russia so that the would-become
oligarch people could buy up those assets
FWE: Yes, exactly. So, Yegor Gaidar, the economic privatisation adviser of Yeltsin and his
sidekick Anatoly Chubais privatisation had kind of guided this whole process together with
Jeffrey Sachs and a group from Harvard University. #00:28:37-8#
LS: Yeah. Let us talk about this. This is known as Harvard Shock Therapy.
FEW: Well, the Jeffrey Sachs Shock Therapy, but the Harvard shock therapy is – well,
what happened, the next phase of this incredible story and it's important to keep all this in
mind, this is one reason that I wrote the book because of what was clear after the CIA coup
d'etat of 2014 in Ukraine and all the sanctions against Putin's Russia and so forth, that if
you don't understand what really happened in the '90s, the deep-seated hatred there is on these
neoconservatives around Washington and their think tanks as well as, the US political
establishment for Putin's Russia and the nationalism behind group Russia. You can't make much
sense out of what's going on today with all these incredible lies and accusations against
Russia for every crime under the book.
So, what happened is the, as I mentioned the IMF, the International Monetary Fund which had
done a beautiful job for Washington in terms of, and George Soros and others in terms of
looting the assets of the dead economies of Latin America, Yugoslavia, Poland and others during
the oil crisis in the 1970s. The IMF was used and a group of economists around Jeffrey Sachs, a
young professor at Harvard University then to impose what Sachs called shock therapy.
And the idea was that Sachs convinced Yeltsin, let prices rise through western market prices
and this will increase the supply of goods, you know the stores had a paucity of goods back in
the Soviet Times and get rid of trade barriers so foreign commodities could flow in to fill the
shelves of Russian stores. The problem was that was a lie. The shops had been full. Okay, you
could say it wasn't Kellogg's Corn Flakes and Fried Perdue Chickens or whatever, but they were
full of Russian food products until November of '91 when Yeltsin announced that the exact date
on December 31 st of 1991, that price controls would be suddenly lifted. So, shop
owners immediately hid their goods and waited for December 31 st . So, suddenly the
shops were empty and rationing was imposed and so forth. It's just unbelievable.
So, into this, this was Jeffrey Sachs on shock therapy and a group of Harvard University
under the auspices of the Harvard Institute for International Development, a group of, among
other things later documented CIA agents set up shop in Moscow and worked with Yeltsin's
economic team Gaidar and Yegor Gaidar and Anatoly Chubais and themselves got in on the thunder
the Russian East Harvard economist working. Now we have a transition in '93 through the Clinton
Administration and there former Harvard professor and former World Bank Chief Economist
Lawrence Summers became the deputy secretary of treasury responsible for the looting of Russia,
effective and responsible for the gold economic transition in the Russian Federation.
And all of the key actors were named by Summers and they were all involved in the
privatisation of Russia. They were all from this Harvard Mafia. For example of David Lipton, a
former consulting partner of the Jeffrey Sachs, became deputy assistant secretary of treasure
for former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and Sachs himself was named Director of Harvard HIID
that oversaw the looting of Russia through the voucher privatisation and so forth. And they got
grants from the USAID, AID works very closely with the CIA in different parts of the world,
this is documented. And so it was really a tight-knit cabal around Lawrence Summers that
oversaw this complete theft through these pieces of paper called privatisation coupons.
And what you had was the economic situation under Yeltsin had become so severe I mean people
literally they had no jobs because of the freeing up of prices, they could afford to buy little
or nothing. So, most people, millions of Russians sold their privatisation vouchers on the
street corners to the highest bidder. And of course the would-be oligarchs were the ones with
hard currency dollars that they could buy these things up as you pointed out earlier when we
talked about them. So, they had credits from their friends in the West, the Riggs Valmet and so
forth to buy up these vouchers and therefore they were able when the cost came up, were able to
simply steal the property titles, the ownership titles of some of the most valuable investor
assets and mineral assets in the world.
LS: And we can talk about this as a classical case of leveraged buyout – even though
it was a covered leveraged buyout, if it was?
FEW: Well, you could call it a leveraged buyout. I know Anne Williamson has used that term,
the earlier descriptions of it. I think it was simply legalised theft, leveraged buyout gives
it too much dignity. That was a term that was quite popular in the financial world back in the
'80s and the early '90s. But whatever name you want to give it, it was certainly not a
conventional leveraged buyout, it was bizarre in every sense of the word.
LS: An influential figure in this was mentioned by you already, George Soros. And in 1994,
as you point out in your book, he was described with the following words from The Guardian in
London, "Soros extraordinary role not only as the world's most successful investor but now
possibly fantastically as the senior most powerful foreign influence in the whole of the former
Soviet Empire, it tricks more suspicion than curiosity." What was he doing back then in
Russia?
FWE: Soros was very intermittently tied with Jeffrey Sachs and the whole Harvard to become a
shock therapy group and working with Lawrence Summers team at the US Treasury under Clinton.
And in 1993 already the opposition inside what was left of Russia when the old communist party
was in the Duma and so forth and the population generally was such that the opposition
threatened to get out of hand and Yeltsin was forced to agree to hold a national referendum on
the entire privatisation. So, this was in April of '93 and the referendum that was given to the
population had four questions, yes or no. Do you support Yeltsin? Yes or no? Do you support
Yeltsin's economic policy? Yes or no? Do you want early election for president? Yes or no? And
do you want early elections for parliament? Yes or no?
So, Chubais was as an adviser to Yeltsin at that time and the key person on the economy
arranged the secret meeting with George Soros. And Soros agreed to finance of course on behalf
of Yeltsin, the referendum campaign. So he funnelled money over a million dollars by some
accounts to offshore accounts set up to be used by Chubais to buy media. And so the media
campaign and by this time most of the national media had been bought up by the oligarchs around
Yeltsin so they were able to exercise undue influence. So they barely squeak through and got a
yes to the privatisation scheme that Harvard, Jeffrey Sachs and George Soros and others had
going on. And then of course Soros' company himself benefitted enormously from this
privatisation just a little bit later when the auctions took place.
LS: A figure that connects yesterday with today is Vladimir Putin who came to international
attention first in 1998, the same year when the ruble crisis took place.
FWE: This was 1999 and in August '98 you had the collapse of the ruble. This was part of the
Bush "Operation Hammer's" original design. You had a huge scam going on in the GKO Russian Bond
market where the interest rates were just unbelievably high. So, you had all sorts of hot money
coming in, making profits and pulling it up including Soros Fund, quantum fund and so
forth.
And finally, Yeltsin was getting near the end of his ability to hold this thing together. And he appointed in August '99, he
appointed a young former KGB officer who served
during the Cold War in East Germany named Vladimir Putin. And briefly Putin had been a deputy
mayor in St. Petersburg and briefly had been the head of the successor to the KGB called FSB
and the oligarchs around Putin, I've heard various Russian accounts have had this happen but
Berezovsky, Brzezinski and other, the Yeltsin oligarchs thought they could take this young guy
Putin and do business with him and you know that he was young and had no political base.
So, at that point Putin gave the ultimatum to Yeltsin, resign or face serious consequences
and it turned out that Putin which has later been confirmed was the spokesperson for a
nationalist faction within the intelligence community, a patriotic faction, call it what you
want but Russian nationalist. And so Yeltsin was told, "If you resign and just get out of
politics, we'll leave you alone." So he took the offer and ran. And before he did that he named
Vladimir Putin as acting president until elections in March the following year.
So, Putin then came into power and called a meeting as it were of the most powerful
oligarchs who had made staggering fortunes at the expense of Russia and he called them creators
of a corrupt state through insider dealings and began criminal prosecution against oligarchs
like Vladimir Gusinsky and Media-Most, a financial group led by Vladimir Potanin who is in the
newspaper today and soon left an oil company controlled by a Roman Abramovich and Boris
Berezovsky. So, at that point Putin began the uphill battle of trying to stabilise Russia as a
functioning economy. And the recent re-election of Putin indicates that the Russian people by
and large support that effort of Putin's.
LS: Meanwhile he also had to react to something new that was taking place then and that was
NATO was marching east.
FWE: The negotiations and this is, has been confirmed by former US Ambassador to Russia Jack
Matlock and that was the negotiations between the Bush administration in 1991 Germany and
Gorbachev included a solemn guarantee as Jack Matlock, Ambassador Matlock who was in Moscow in
'87 until '91 in this period. He said that we gave a categorical assurance to Gorbachev when
the Soviet Union still existed that if United Germany was able to stay in NATO, NATO would not
move eastward. So, of course that pledge like so many pledges of Washington under Bush
successor governance was honoured in the breach and the newly created National Endowment for
Democracy that I write about quite a bit in the Manifest Destiny.
You had, Vin Weber was the chairman of the NED at that time and he took US taxpayer money
through the NED to supposedly bring democracy into former communist states. Then Weber was also
a member of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the neocon think tank which really
shaped the personnel of George W. Bush in the year 2000 and 2001. And Vin Weber was also a
lobbyist for the largest military industrial conglomerate of the US Lockheed Martin.
So, he was instrumental together with another military industrial Lockheed Martin, former
Vice President for Strategy named Bruce Jackson, Bruce P. Jackson to promote back democracy in
former communist countries including Russia. And they started the process of expanding NATO to
the east in strict violation of the pledges that had been given back in the early '90s. So, by
2003, they had begun this whole expansion of NATO into Poland, into Hungary, all the former
communist countries.
LS: And the countries at the Baltic Sea.
FWE: So, at the Baltic Sea right on the doorstep of the Russian Federation, and Poland,
Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria and so forth. And you began to see a very
definite NATO encirclement of Russia. And then in 2003-2004, the National Endowment for
Democracy, George Soros' Foundation, the whole arm of the fake democracy NGOs of Washington,
began to create the so called Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and also the Rose Revolution in
Georgia next door. And if you look at a map, if you bring a pro NATO government into power in
Ukraine, this they did under Viktor Gerashchenko in 2004, then you're presenting a pretty
formidable military threat to the national security of Russia.
Now, at that time 2003, Russia was in no shape to do much more than feebly protest as loud
as they could but of course they were ignored. Then you had something quite dramatic in 2006,
the end of 2006. The George W. Bush administration Donald Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defence
back then announced that they were installing ballistic missile defence now I'll get to that in
a minute but it's anything but defensive. In Poland, in the Czech Republic and that those
anti-missile defence installations which included missiles would be aimed at a rogue nuclear
attack from Iran.
In early 2007, Vladimir Putin personally came as president of Russia Federation to the
Munich Security Conference, the International Security Conference held here in Munich Germany
and gave a speech which really defines the security position of Russia right up to the present
date. He said of course this is not aimed at Iran or North Korea as Washington says. That's a
lie. It's like taking your right arm to scratch your left ear we say in Russian. It's aimed at
Russia. And we consider this intolerable as a threat to our national security and we will be
forced to respond.
LS: And it is aimed at Russia as a first strike possibility.
FWE: Yeah. Well, the point about the missile defence is I – in connection with the
book, I interviewed, in an earlier book I wrote, I interviewed Colonel Robert Bowman who had
been briefly the head of Ronald Reagan's Star Wars or missile defence programme. And became a
very, very severe critic of the Bush administration's reckless policies withdrawing from the
antiballistic missile ABM Treaty and so forth, said that missile defence is the missing link to
Nuclear Primacy. First strike capability.
And that's something that Pentagon planners had been opting for since the 1950s. And he
said, "If you can block the counterattack from your opponent and you then have this possibility
to make a first strike and wipe them out because they can't simultaneously fire an effective
counterstrike." So, that in a nutshell destroys the whole cold war doctrine of mutual and sure
destruction that kept nuclear options off the table up until that time. And the Russians
understand military strategy rather well I would say. And said, "This is simply intolerable. We
have to respond and we will respond but in our own way and you will see."
LS: And the Russians have reacted.
B: The Russians have reacted, and if we can go for a minute up until the present
LS: Please
FEW: On March 1st Putin gave an address to the Federal Assembly in Moscow televised to the
nation. The beginning part of the speech, his annual speech there, was about the Russian
economy and plans for the future. This was shortly before the Russian elections that
overwhelmingly gave him a new term. But the crucial part of that speech to the Federal Assembly
was Russia's military technologies and this is as he put it. He referred to that 2007 speech in
Munich and he said, "We said at that time that Russia would have to reply and since the
expansion of NATO to the east which really to be honest that's – see there is no reason
after 1991 or certainly after 2000 for the existence of NATO other than the reason given when
NATO was created by the first secretary general of NATO to keep the Russians out the Germans
down and the Americans in."
But Putin's speech talked about nuclear primacy and the Russian response and he outlined the
military are the developments that they had quietly brought online since Washington tore up,
unilaterally tore up the ABM Treaty in 2002/2003. So he outlined an awesome array of missiles,
hypersonic low flying stealth missiles carrying nuclear warheads, unpredictable trajectories,
invisible against perspective missile defence and air defence systems, unmanned submersible
vehicles to great depth that could go many times higher than the speed of submarines cutting
edge torpedoes just and commentators in the West like CNN. They said, "Oh, this is just bluff
and so forth."
People who know Russian military technology and the intensity of the kind of research and
development that's focused on defending the nation confirm that this is no joke. Hypersonic
aircraft five times the speed of sound, that's hypersonic and they have something called the
[unclear] which goes 10 times mark 10 and as Putin described it, "This missile flying 10 times
faster than sound can manoeuvre in all phases of the flight trajectory, overcome all
prospective and aircraft county missile defences in a range of 2000 kilometres."
He outlined about six or seven of these I would call them not even cutting edge, bleeding
edge military technology and as The Saker commented in his blogpost after the speech, it's
indeed set marching game over for the empire. There's no more military option against
Russia.
This all is to make a point that the entire history up until now, these fake accusations of
Putin would have an interest or Russia would have an interest to meddle with the US elections
when you have a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump to accuse Putin and Russia of
international violations of law by allowing a referendum to take place in Crimea after the CIA
coup d'etat in Kiev and now it's come out from actual mercenary snipers that were brought in
from Georgia under [#inaudible 00:55:08-0#] umbrella that they were paid by the CIA or promised
to be paid by cut outs to the CIA to create the Maidan Square February 2014 chaos that led to
the collapse of the government and the coup d'etat.
So, you know, this is not Russia is the arch Evel Knievel looking for a fight every corner
of the world. It's not Russia doing bad things in Syria. It's Russia trying to stop a NATO and
Saudi and other embedded destruction of the Middle East and create some kind of peace and
stability. And anyone modest to take the slightest bit of care and follow this, they can read a
running commentary on my website williamengdahl.com but not only there, it's all over the
place. You realise that the fake media is the media that dominates and is guided by NATO public
relations strategy in the West and it's not the so called critical media that's being
sanctioned and censored right now.
LS: Let's talk further about the present, William, by closing one circle of our interview.
As we've discussed the Russian gold vaults were empty since the early 1990s. This has changed
since basically the financial crisis broke out in 2007, 2008, 2009. Since then the Russian
Central Bank is buying gold like basically no other nation in a very rapid tempo.
FWE: Since the financial crisis and especially since the opposition of sanctions after the
annexation of Crimea in 2014, it's been the policy of the Russian Central Bank and the Russian
Federation to buy as much gold for reserves of the ruble as they can get their hands on. And
they are now I think number five or number six in the world in terms of gold reserves and
correct me if I'm wrong but just slightly behind the people's republic of China which has also
been vigorously adding gold towards Central Bank reserves for the yuan.
So, what Russia is doing is creating a buffer gold, by the way in my view has never ceased
being an object of value to stand behind currencies. If you have currencies like the dollar
after all this 1971 when Nixon took the dollar off the bread and wood, gold exchange [unclear],
then if you have a military you might or manipulate the oil price petrodollar and so forth, you
can create money if you have the reserve currency you can create money without them. So what
the Russia is doing is creating a security in terms of its currency and now that security is
probably going to be tested by the economic warfare division of the US Treasury in these new
sanctions.
But Russia is merging together with China. Interestingly enough after 2014 when the CIA coup
d'etat Ukraine took place, Putin responded not by getting bogged down in the destructive war
inside the Eastern Ukraine but he responded by turning east, strengthening his relationships
with China, with the new president of China then Xi Jinping bringing the Asian economic Union
which Russia is the leading economy in, together with Belarus and Kazakhstan, Armenia and
others, bringing that in a coherence with Xi Jinping's Belt and Road Initiative One Belt, One
Road to link the infrastructure, the energy pipelines, the high-speed rail networks, the deep
water ports and so forth to create a Eurasian, some people call it the land bridge but it's an
economic space in Eurasia that would have the majority of the world's population, would have
every raw material resource that the world needs including rare earth metals that China is
world's leading supplier of at the moment.
And Russia has vast oil and gas reserves and military technology, civilian technology, an
educated labour force that is probably one of the finest in the world and scientific country
and so forth. And independent of the bankrupt economies of Britain and the United States and
very rapidly of the European Union where this banking crisis has, since the crisis of 2008 has
just been swept under the rug but it's ready to explode on a moment's notice. So, you have a
depth loaded western NATO world. Let's call it a NATO world, a world of the NATO member
countries and you have Russia together, which by the way, Russia has unbelievably small
LS: Debt.
FWE: National debt.
LS: Yes.
FWE: Something like 13 to 17% of the gross domestic product.
LS: And now they have this huge stock of gold relative to very little sovereign debt. It's
almost ideal.
FWE: Yes, and that's by design. That is by Putin's intention to create this independence.
And one thing, I am very often in Russia, have a very, very dear special friends in Russia over
the years, the first time I was there was 1994. That was a vastly different, that was in the
middle of the Yeltsin and the insanity. The Russians are very not only proud people but they
are very determined and they protect their existence and have done that I would say for well
over 1000 years going back to the great schism between the Western church in Rome and the
Eastern Church in 1054. I think that was a pivotal date in modern history, the division
there.
But certainly the Russians have gone through two World Wars and the rape of Russia under
Yeltsin, unbelievable trials and tribulations and they are not shying away from defending their
existence. That's something I think the west or certainly Washington with these neocons really
doesn't have a sense of.
LS: One thing that I would like to ask you about as my final question is the following. You
are a renowned expert for the geopolitics and the history of oil. And since this month we have
a future's contract in Shanghai, denominated in yuan for oil and we also hear that the Chinese
are planning to price oil that they import in yuan which is safe for this buying of oil
internationally via yuan, Russia would be the candidate number one as the exporter?
FWE: Definitely. Most definitely and Russia and China are connecting their financial markets
ever closer. The Russian government is the in the process sometime this year of issuing Russian
bonds denominated new Chinese yuan. The announcing of the petrol yuan, the oil futures
contracts being sold in Shanghai, ultimately it won't happen overnight but it's certainly off
to a positive start in the marketing acceptance. That has the basis for taking oil sales.
Let's step back a moment to the 1970s and I document this at length in two of my books,
Myths, Lies and Oil Wars and A Century of War. In the early 1970s when Nixon took the dollar
off of gold, the dollar relative to the German mark and the Japanese yen dropped like a stone,
something like 40% over a period of five or six months. And in order to stop that because the
New York Banks were hurting quite a bit from that, there was a oil price shock that was
orchestrated. I won't go into the details it's documented quite extensively in those two books
of mine.
LS: And Sheikh Yamani had said something about this, too.
FWE: Yes. He invited me after reading my book to his annual energy retreat in London in
2000, September 2000. And then called me to a private dinner discussion at his home outside of
London to talk about what I wrote about in the book. And he later went on CNN on an interview
and mentioned my book by name. In the written transcript it's in there and in the television
version they spliced it out so that you couldn't realise that it'd been in there. But Sheikh
Yamani told me you are the first journalist or the first person outside of myself that writes
correctly what happened with that oil shock. And that was manipulated by among others Henry
Kissinger, the Secretary of State and by a group in the Atlantic establishment called the
Bilderberg meeting in Saltsjöbaden, Sweden back in May of that period before the Yom
Kippur War.
In any case, the US circles around Rockefeller, who at that point was the chairman of the
board of USA Incorporated, I would say. They had engineered a 400% price rise in oil and to
make sure that Germany and Japan and other countries wouldn't make deals to buy oil in German
mark but keep the dollar demand high and the dollar value high. They send a delegation from the
US Treasury to sign an agreement with the Saudi Arabian monetary agency for a new relationship
taking surplus Saudi petrodollars or OPEC petrodollars and buying US government debt.
LS: Yeah, and outside of the normal auction to privileged conditions.
FWE: Yes. In return, Washington agreed to give the Saudis tens and billions of dollars of
defence equipment.
LS: Yeah, and Saudi Arabia would use its status as a swing producer in OPEC that it would
only accept dollars as a pricing for oil.
FEW: And the quid pro quo was after 1975, this was formalised that Saudis would as swing
producer in OPEC guarantee that OPEC sold its oil only in dollars and that held up until the
time of Saddam Hussein during the sanctions shortly before the US invasion and Saddam Hussein
began buying oil through a French bank denominated in Euros and not in dollars.
LS: And he made a plus, he made a net plus because he did sell his oil in Euro.
FWE: Yeah, yeah. And so this, what that has done up until the present is prop up the US
dollars despite the fact that the internal industrial economy import activity of the United
States went down the tubes over the past 40 years since the taking the dollar off of gold and
the, putting of English dollars for the world economy. So, the idea than China and Russia would
trade in energy and that other economies would begin to sell oil to China, Iran for example is
a prime candidate in the petro yuan not in petrodollars, this began slowly like acid drops
begins to erode the reserve currency status of the US dollar. And if that goes, it's end game
for the US as a financial global power.
LS: We have to make clear to our audience. The fact that you have to buy oil in dollar makes
sure that you need dollar, that you acquire dollar in order to buy oil.
FWE: Yeah.
LS: And so if this mechanism goes, well then the US has a problem because the dollars that
are floating around internationally would find their way back into the homeland of the US.
FWE: Well, the other thing is that in order to sell now you have under this wonderful
Trumponomics as I call it, you have projections that the US annual government deficit, shortage
of tax income from tax outgo, spending outgo will by 2020 exceed one trillion dollars a year
for every year as far as the eye can see. And by end of 2020, 2028 I think was figured by the
congressional budget office, the US public debt is estimated to be well over $33 trillion, it's
20 now, 38 maybe, it's just out of control. So, if the ability of the US dollar to command use
in the world economy is severely undermined, you're going to have to raise interest rates so
high to sell this debt and it just becomes dysfunctional.
LS: Yes, but you have already in the last few years interest rates payments on this already
existing that of per annum $400 billion.
FWE: Yeah.
LS: And if interest rates go up
FWE: Yeah and that was under zero interest rates, but now, you know, if they have to put up
interest rates to five, six, seven, 8% like it was in the 1980s. the whole thing just blows up
sky high.
LS: And so coming back to gold, gold has the advantage relative to bonds or shares or the US
dollar or other Fiat currencies that there is no counterparty risk. If you have the gold in
physical form, there is no counterparty risk.
FWE: Right.
LS: So would you say that gold will be one of the ultimate winners of the ongoing financial
crisis when it goes into full gear?
FWE: Well, it's documented that J. P. Morgan, Chase and other select banks with this
collusion of the Federal Reserve have been artificially depressing the price of gold for years.
Every time there's a new financial crisis, they intervene and keep gold within a very tight
range. At a certain point that's not going to work anymore and then some people estimate to
follow the gold markets much more than I do but it could quickly go up to $10,000 an ounce or
even beyond that.
Be that as it may, gold as you point out has no counterparty risk and it's a historic store
of value. It's one of the beautiful commodities out there and it has a special – the
other just being special significance economically and historically, the other thing is that
China is the number one mining producer of gold in the world today, not South Africa. South
Africa has fallen far behind
LS: Yeah, and Russia is number three.
FWE: Russia is number three.
LS: And a lot of member states of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation are producers or are
buying gold.
FWE: At the rail connections of the circle of the China Belt Road Initiative in part are
aiming to go in the areas where there are known gold reserves but no infrastructure during the
Soviet era to bring that gold down to market. So, we have an extremely fascinating prospect,
not just for China and Russia, for the world really to build up instead of tear down, destroy
and burn and bankrupt which is the only policy that Washington seems able to follow these
days.
LS: Yeah. To sum it up with a famous Chinese proverb. "May you live in interesting times"
– you and all the others.
FWE: We certainly do.
LS: Okay. great. Thank you very much, William, for this interview.
In 1989 President George H. W. Bush began the multi-billion dollar Project Hammer
program using an investment strategy to bring about the economic destruction of the
Soviet Union including the theft of the Soviet treasury, the destabilization of the
ruble, funding a KGB coup against Gorbachev in August 1991 and the seizure of major
energy and munitions industries in the Soviet Union.
Those resources would subsequently be turned over to international bankers and
corporations. On November 1, 2001, the second operative in the Bush regime, President
George W. Bush, issued Executive Order 13233 on the basis of "national security" and
concealed the records of past presidents, especially his father's spurious activities
during 1990 and 1991.
Yeltsin's oligarchs remained as rich as they were; Yeltsin's family still possesses
immense riches. And Putin does not dare to touch them. He goes hat in hand to open a
Yeltsin's Memorial Centre; he is courteous with Yeltsin's widow and daughter. Putin's
establishment cautiously avoided celebration, or even mention of the Revolution
centenary, in keeping with Yeltsin's anticommunism. This is the Deal.
The rise has been astounding and all because they have a leader that can't be bought ,
not corrupt and loves his country. That is why he literally was swept in in the last
election. The Western leaders will not admit it but I am sure they are terribly envious
.
It open eyes on how the West political elite are a criminal rotten cancer syndicate
and Georg Bush Sr. shows up to be even worse than the disgusting profile he already has
in media and Georg Soros bad reputation gets confirmed.
No police or court are available to take this out. We only have John Connor or The One
to count on.
Choice is the problem now. We will have to make a choice.
"... 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
"... 'A relatively recent body of research has shown that mafias emerge in societies that are undergoing a sudden and late transition to a market economy, lack a legal structure that reliably protects property rights or settles business disputes, and have a supply of people trained in violence who become unemployed at this specific juncture.' ..."
"... Of course, this means that we know nothing of what Putin has managed to accomplish in Russia, beyond the fact that we apparently aren't supposed to like him much, or understand why he enjoys the kind of support that he apparently does. ..."
"... What is bizarre now is the c ombination of an unreal sense of danger relating to non-existent or grossly exaggerated threats, with a lack of any sense of danger relating to our current practice of making actually or potentially unstable areas of the world even more unstable (pushing Humpty-Dumpty off the wall, one might call it.) ..."
Another point may be worth bringing into the discussion. One thing that Oxford University does rather well nowadays, perhaps
ironically, is mafia studies they have two splendid Italian professors, Diego Gambetta and Federico Varese. As the latter put
it in his 2011 study 'Mafias on the Move':
'A relatively recent body of research has shown that mafias emerge in societies that are undergoing a sudden and late transition
to a market economy, lack a legal structure that reliably protects property rights or settles business disputes, and have a supply
of people trained in violence who become unemployed at this specific juncture.'
An interesting feature of this work is that a great deal of it is really an application of 'rational choice' theory. Applied
in the conditions of the Soviet Union in the Nineties, 'shock therapy' actually created pressing 'rational' incentives leading
to extensive criminalisation.
If property rights cannot be protected by an effective state, they will be protected by private enterprise which means mafias.
And if at the same time a vast military, intelligence and internal security apparatus is being demobilised, some of its members
have the strongest incentives to join mafias.
Some kind of reconstruction of the Russian state and also of Russian patriotism was clearly necessary if large parts of
Eurasia were not to be permanently locked in a state of criminalised anarchy.
People can legitimately disagree about the merits and demerits of Putin's approaches, and the interpenetration between organised
crime, supposedly 'legitimate' business and politics continues to be a massive problem.
However, any argument based upon the belief Russia was 'on the right lines' in the Yeltsin years quite patently makes it impossible
to understand what the possibilities are in the country today in particular as, precisely as rkka says, it leads to the conclusion
that Putin's supporters are suffering from a massive case of 'false consciousness'.
"Of course, this means that we know nothing of what Putin has managed to accomplish in Russia, beyond the fact that we apparently
aren't supposed to like him much, or understand why he enjoys the kind of support that he apparently does."
Exactly. In the '90s, oligarchs felt no need to pay wages to workers or taxes to the government, preferring to offshore every
kopek they could get their hands on. Hence, workers suffered and the government was bankrupt.
And the FreeMarketReformers were fine with this.
When Putin arrived, he offered the oligarchs a deal: Keep your swag from the '90s, but behave from this point on. Most took
him up on it. Several refused and tried to do as they had before. And when these were exiled or jailed, the Angosphere Foreign
Policy Elite and Punditocracy (AFPE&P) howled with outrage at Putin 'violating their human rights'
However, the Russian people know by their own experience that they now live far better than they did while FreeMarketReformers
were running the place. This is the simple reason Putin is popular with Russians. The AFPE&P say its because the Russian government
dominates Russian media and propagandizes the ignorant masses. The AFPE&P lie about this, from both ignorance and malice.
USG is clearly out of date by at least a decade and a half, or more likely, two or more, when it comes to Russia. After all, isn't
that when we supposedly "won" the Cold War? If my speculation is right and no serious Russia experts came near the loci of power
in USG since then, I shudder to think how out of date our information about the rest of the world (besides Russia and its surroundings)
are.
Of course, this means that we know nothing of what Putin has managed to accomplish in Russia, beyond the fact that we apparently
aren't supposed to like him much, or understand why he enjoys the kind of support that he apparently does.
I would absolutely agree with everything you write.
Some tentative thoughts in response.
In relation to British imperial experience, it may be relevant that the distinctive nature of Indian society, both the religious
issues involved and the critical issue of caste, facilitated imperial control over a population which was not simply 'primitive'
in the way that was the case in, for instance, most of Africa.
But 'divide et impera' can only be practised on the basis of understanding. Moreover, there were clear penalties for obtuseness,
as we discovered in 1857.
What is bizarre now is the c ombination of an unreal sense of danger relating to non-existent or grossly exaggerated threats,
with a lack of any sense of danger relating to our current practice of making actually or potentially unstable areas of the world
even more unstable (pushing Humpty-Dumpty off the wall, one might call it.)
As regards alien cultures, it is certainly not necessary either to agree with or to 'respect' them. What however strikes
me is the apparent marginalisation of a sense of interest which I think has catastrophic consequences for intelligence.
An example from British intelligence history may be to the point. The unit in MI6 which handled the material from Enigma
relating to the Abwehr, the German intelligence service, was headed by Hugh Trevor-Roper. A classicist turned historian of
early modern Europe and a strange, feline creature his response to the chaos of the time was to identify strongly with
an eighteenth-century Enlightenment tradition.
But he made sense of the accumulating evidence about the nature of the Nazi regime through a perspective shaped by a tradition
of interpretation of despotism going back through Gibbon to Tacitus, and knowledge of millenarian and apocalyptic cults in
early modern Europe.
Doing so enabled him to see something which both Roosevelt and Churchill failed to grasp that the view of the Second World
War as a continuation of its predecessor, and the enemy as 'Prussianism', was at best a half-truth, and a dangerous one at
best, obscuring the radical gulf in attitudes between the nihilistic millenarians of the 'Sicherheitsdienst' and the German
General Staff.
One of the most fascinating counterfactuals of the war is what might have happened had Trevor-Roper's attempts to get the
British to respond to the overtures from the Abwehr chief Admiral Canaris born fruit.
"Anders Aslund's deep knowledge of Eastern European politics"
During the 1990's in Russia the illusions of Mr. Aslund and others facilitated the
transcendence of the "Soviet Union" by the Russian Federation.
It appears that Mr. Aslund continues to serve a useful purpose.
It was decided in the 1990's not to thank Mr. Aslund, Mr. Sachs and others for their
complicity since such was deemed to be indelicate, so perhaps now this should be
rectified.
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.
God bless Putin and Russia for standing against the Zionist NWO
You are correct Desert Fox. The prime variable in history is economics. Economics before
politics and before war.
Our illuminist friends manipulate the strings of international bank capital for their one
world government. In effect, the West has been infested with a tiny cadre of plutocrats, who
operate a usury mechanism to extract wealth from host peoples and nations.
Russia was to be broken up into parts. ((Harvard boys)) came to the 'rescue" and
privatized Russia with various schemes, the most important of which was to saddle Russian's
with "dollar" debts. Russians as hewers of wood and drawers of water, were to sell their
"earth" in exchange for finished dollar priced goods. Middle Class Russian labor is then cut
out of wealth production inherent in making finished goods. For example, Russian platinum is
used to make high value catalytic converters elsewhere, while only a few Russian's get
wealthy (in dollar terms) by poking holes in Russian land to extract minerals. Former Russian
nuclear scientists walk around drunk as they are not fit for being good labor to extract oil,
platinum, etc.
In effect, our ((friends)) turned Russia into African economy, never mind that Russian's
aren't African's. This desire to rape and pillage the earth, to then take rents on the world,
to then think of yourselves as god (note a little g) is a sophisticated, yet criminally
insane method akin to parasitism.
Russian's were infested by parasites, and yet Russian people as hosts have become stronger
year on year, to eject their parasite. Putin was instrumental in this transformation.
All nationalist economies in the past, which had the temerity to eject these parasites
have come under attack. I'm thinking Nazi Germany as well – oh the horror. This
economic attack is often under the guise of liberalism, which has a knock on effect of
breaking down civil society. In other words, liberalism is a symptom of parasitic financial
oligarchy (and illuminism) a control method to make a host weak, to then be re-colonized.
Russia DOES need to take full control of its Central Bank and eject its fifth columnists
(atlantacists), a final act that hasn't been done yet. On this point, it is factual and fair
to criticize Putin, because once Russian's have their own money power, they can accelerate
even faster. http://www.sovereignmoney.eu
Like many high demand cults neoliberalism is a trap, from which it is very difficult to escape...
Notable quotes:
"... A large, open-border global free market would be left, not subject to popular control but managed by a globally dispersed, transnational one percent. And the whole process of making this happen would be camouflaged beneath the altruistic stylings of a benign humanitarianism. ..."
"... Globalists, as neoliberal capitalists are often called, also understood that democracy, defined by a smattering of individual rights and a voting booth, was the ideal vehicle to usher neoliberalism into the emerging world. Namely because democracy, as commonly practiced, makes no demands in the economic sphere. Socialism does. Communism does. These models directly address ownership of the means of production. Not so democratic capitalism. This permits the globalists to continue to own the means of production while proclaiming human rights triumphant in nations where interventions are staged. ..."
"... The enduring lie is that there is no democracy without economic democracy. ..."
This 'Washington Consensus' is the false promise promoted by the West. The reality is quite
different. The crux of neoliberalism is to eliminate democratic government by downsizing,
privatizing, and deregulating it. Proponents of neoliberalism recognize that the state is the
last bulwark of protection for the common people against the predations of capital. Remove the
state and they'll be left defenseless .
Think about it. Deregulation eliminates the laws. Downsizing eliminates departments and their
funding. Privatizing eliminates the very purpose of the state by having the private sector take
over its traditional responsibilities.
Ultimately, nation-states would dissolve except perhaps for armies and tax systems. A large, open-border global free
market would be left, not subject to popular control but managed by a globally dispersed, transnational one percent. And the
whole process of making this happen would be camouflaged beneath the altruistic stylings of a benign humanitarianism.
Globalists, as neoliberal capitalists are often called, also understood that democracy, defined
by a smattering of individual rights and a voting booth, was the ideal vehicle to usher
neoliberalism into the emerging world. Namely because democracy, as commonly practiced, makes
no demands in the economic sphere. Socialism does. Communism does. These models directly
address ownership of the means of production. Not so democratic capitalism. This permits the
globalists to continue to own the means of production while proclaiming human rights triumphant
in nations where interventions are staged.
The enduring lie is that there is no democracy
without economic democracy.
What matters to the one percent and the media conglomerates that disseminate their worldview is
that the official definitions are accepted by the masses. The real effects need never be known.
The neoliberal ideology (theory) thus conceals the neoliberal reality (practice). And for the
masses to accept it, it must be mass produced. Then it becomes more or less invisible by virtue
of its universality.
"... 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 .
"... Just think about who can go down with Trump is such a case. It's not only Bill and Hillary. It is also a very dangerous thing to open this can of worms as "the people" might learn something that neoliberal elite does not want them to know -- specifically the USA and intelligence agencies role in creating Russian mafia and oligarchs after the dissolution of the USSR. Do you, by any chance, know such a name as Andrei Shleifer and such a term as "Harvard Mafia" ? Please Google those if you do not. ..."
My understanding is Fusion GPS does research for both sides. Soros giving them money is
entirely plausible but assuming that money equals control is a bit of a leap.
It appears to be some Russians seeking to discredit the investigation with clever
BS/truthiness.
I suspect a few absurdly wealthy Russians harbor a deep fear of Mueller. They may believe
he is primarily after them and they may be right. I see Mueller as an old-school lawman, and
suspect he is using all this as a golden opportunity to put the hurt on some Russian
mobsters, particularly in their money laundering. It would not surprise me if he hopes he
will not be forced to nail Trump himself to the wall, which would drag all kinds of political
noise into the trials, some of the people around Trump will be bad enough. Using some of
them, at least for the moment, is unavoidable, it's the politics is the source of his mission
and resources.
If only our press had the bandwidth necessary to distinguish those few Russians from ALL
Russians...
"I suspect a few absurdly wealthy Russians harbor a deep fear of Mueller."
"I see Mueller as an old-school lawman, and suspect he is using all this as a golden
opportunity to put the hurt on some Russian mobsters"
Thank you ! You have such a refreshing level of naivety that I really enjoyed your
posts.
How one in his sound mind can call Mueller "an old-school lawman" if one remember
Mueller's role in 9/11 and anthrax investigations.
And FYI those "absurdly wealthy Russians" represents the US fifth column in Russia (as
guarantors and protectors of neoliberalism in Russia; Google such a name as Chubais
https://www.rusjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Yeltsin_Putin.pdf
) and to destroy them might not be in best USA interests. Moreover, such a move actually will
be do Putin a huge favor, strengthening his hand.
As for "a golden opportunity to put the hurt on some Russian mobsters" the danger of such
a brilliant move is to reveal criminal connections with Russian oligarchs (and financial
oligarchs in general as you never know where the oligarch ends and the mafia boss starts) and
the Democratic Party.
Just think about who can go down with Trump is such a case. It's not only Bill and
Hillary. It is also a very dangerous thing to open this can of worms as "the people" might
learn something that neoliberal elite does not want them to know -- specifically the USA and
intelligence agencies role in creating Russian mafia and oligarchs after the dissolution of
the USSR. Do you, by any chance, know such a name as Andrei Shleifer and such a term as
"Harvard Mafia" ? Please Google those if you do not.
FYI Bill Clinton took a huge bribe in the form of speech fee from people very close to
"Russian Mobsters" (organized crime figures should probably more correctly be called "the
informal neoliberals" ;-)
There was an interesting discussion in Quora in 2016 on this topic:
From Yeltsin to Putin: Chubais, Liberal Pathology, and Harvard's Criminal Record
Matthew Raphael Johnson
Johnstown, PAWhen the USSR collapsed in 1990-1991, Gorbachev was
incapable of handling thesituation. Boris Yeltsin came to power both bureaucratically and
popularly. He was named theChief of the Presidium, but in June of 1991, he was elected in a
popular election where heearned 57% of the popular vote.
With a small army of American advisers, Yeltsin began selling off Soviet era assets.The
problem was that the process had nothing to do with markets. Privatization of assets wentto a
handful of well-connected politicians and bureaucrats who came to control the economyas a
whole.1 They had amassed a huge number of shares by 1995, and hence, the post-Sovietoligarchy
was born. The fact is that the work of 70 years of Soviet labor went to the pocketsof two or
three dozen people.2
The rising oligarchs could easily manipulate the court system and tax police, sincethere was
no real law governing private enterprise. Russia was led to the brink of anarchy. By1998,
according to a paper by Sergei Guriev and Andrei Rachinsky, the oligarchs comprisedabout 700
individuals that completely controlled Russia's economic assets.3
The Western Elites and the Ivy League as a Criminal Syndicate
In NS Leonov's book
(only in Russian), The Way of the Cross: Russia from 1991-2000, he states, as the first
"reform" of Yeltsin's government :
Government "reforms" that began Gaidar's privatization scam was the seizure of the savings
of the people. These were taken by force, though not directly. Inflation and economic collapse
made the transfer of funds easy. State control was removed from prices and the "free market"
would ensure the enrichment of corruption. This was the level of cynicism the new democracy had
reached, while simultaneously preaching the sanctity of private property. What did not melt
away in the deliberate fleecing of the people was taken by other means. An estimate of the
total taken thisway is about 300 billion rubles, and it had the proper effect: without money,
rebellion was difficult. They cried out in frustration.4
Nothing was done according to democratic norms, which is odd since democracy was the
buzzword that made these economic decisions seem political. At almost no time in the history of
the USSR did one man, Chubais and his allies, have such total and irresponsible control over
the Russian economy. When the voucher program was introduced in 1992, massive inflation
resulted. Soon, each 10,000 ruble voucher was worth very little. It was rendered null
regardless, since the state refused to consider the vouchers as legal tender.
1 Hoffman, D. The Oligarchs: Wealth And Power In The New Russia. Public Affairs Books, 2011
(cf esp ch12).
2 Kotz, D.M. Russia's Financial Crisis: The Failure of Neoliberalism? Z Magazine, (1998),
28-32
4 Leonov, NS. The Way of the Cross: Russia from 1991-2000. Moscow: Russia House, 2002 (All
citations aremy translations from the Russian.
Making the entire scam even more blatant, Chubais inserted a rider to the law stating that
the value of the voucher would only exist until late 1993. In 1992, Yeltsin's popularity went
from 50% in January to 30% in August, and from there to single digits.
By July of 1992, Chubais was hated. This led Yeltsin to limit the power of parliament,
increase his executive power and totally dominate the regions. This was done with western
backing and was a far greater centralization of power than Putin was later to be condemned for.
He had already banned the Communist Party, helping to break his main opposition and prevent
their imminent reelection in Parliament. The fraud of democracy was clearly open.
Soon Chubais and his crew stated that there was no benchmark value for any sold property.
The institution in charge of this, the Russian Federal Property Fund and related agencies,
therefore, began from arbitrary benchmarks. Ultimately, major firms were being sold for 1-5% of
their value. Worse, some of these were defense plants, bought up by shallcompanies operates by
the CIA – this was Hay's job. Therefore, scientific advances of the USSR were now
entirely in American hands.
In 1992, Yeltsin did fairly well in a referendum, receiving about 50% approval, but at this
date, privatization had just begun. Elections a bit later were to belie this vote. Yeltsin
himself clearly had no confidence in this referendum. Having no confidence in that vote,
Yeltsin then, again with western backing, banned all opposition protests in Moscow. Then,
making matters worse, he signed order 1400 in September of 1993 which stripped the Congress of
People's Deputies of all power. For the upcoming elections, Yeltsin passed a law saying that
only 25% of voters needed to show for it to be valid. This was a means of making sure that
opposition boycotts could not win. Yeltsin soon after banned the main opposition newspaper.
Russia's privatization scam was created, directed and imposed by Harvard University and
carried out by two "professors" whose incompetence is rivaled only by their lack of
accountability. Anatoly Chubais, probably the most hated man in Russia, was an old friend of
Harvard "economist" Andrei Shleifer, who was also working with Harvard don Jonathan Hay (who
according to the FSB, is CIA). Chubais, functioning as a Russian dictator since Yeltsin was not
functional at the time, put the privatization scheme into Harvard's hands. Apparently having no
workable knowledge of Russian life, the Harvard elite, believing themselves infallible, quickly
proved their theories not only false, but directly responsible for ruining thelives of
millions.5
1994-1995 was the period of the solidification of the oligarchic clans, their connection
with the United States, and the complete collapse of the state. Oligarchic clans, created by
Chubais, filled the vacuum with private armies, political machines and newspapers. In the US,
conservative and liberal alike called this the "free market" and democracy. Vladimir
Zhirinovsky, of Jewish origin and endlessly changing political positions, became the
government's ace in the hole: whenever the US questioned the increasingly obvious destruction
of Russia, Yeltsin would trot this clown out to make some typically outrageous statement. In
1995, it was clear that Zhirinovsky both "loved Hitler" and was "proud" of Russia's victory in
the Great Patriotic War. Clearly in the pocket of Yeltsin, Zhirinovsky a)kept US aid money
coming into his efforts, b) siphoned off serious criticism, c) easily associated nationalist
views with this kind of rhetorical nonsense.
Chubais continued to hang onto power. Not being a Russian citizen (and yet having all that
power), he clearly equated the oligarchic clans as "democracy." In Davos, 1996, he met with the
heads of all the clans including Guzinsky, Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky, Friedman, Potanin and many
others, and formed a political movement designed to keep nationalist and communists out of
power.
This move shows that Chubais backed the oligarchs, did not consider them "unintended
consequences" and sought their assistance to stay in power: All in the name of democracy.
Yeltsin, now at 3% (with the same margin of error) began to implement populist measures, but
now was isolated. Winning a strangely high 33% of the vote in the 1996 elections, it can only
be attributed to a) electoral fraud, or b) the fact that Gen. Alexander Lebed had been talked
into entering a sort of coalition with Yeltsin. If they won, then Lebed's rival Pavel Grachev,
would be history. Yeltsin won the second round with just over 50%, as the oligarchs and Chubais
personally spend a small fortune bribing artists, journalists, writers and, making an even
worse mockery of democracy, busing thousands of urban youth into Moscow to ensure their
support.
Harvard's Sinister Role
Harvard University spent quite a bit of its money to
restructure Russia. The US government sued some of them, specifically, Andrei Shleifer, for
breach of contract. Many economists from Harvard worked for the State Department so as to be
able to control Russia for the better. The fraud of the Russian economy was in part blamed on
these advisers, whowere forced to pay more than $31 million to the US government for
"conspiracy to defraud."
Harvard had authored the plan that Gorbachev had requested to turn Russia into a capitalist
state. This was the plan that was enacted. The Harvard Institute for International Development
in Russia was the group created at Harvard and sponsored by the US government. This is what was
sued over. The US government argued that the reform program was a failure, and the planners,
living in America, knew it was a failure and continued to defend it – with taxpayer
money. Even worse, as it turns out, Shleifer was rigging some of the auctions himself,
investing his own money in firms that he knew would turn a profit, even if overseas.
The US Justice Department in 2000 sued, among others, Shleifer and Hay for defrauding the US
government. The Justice Department stated:
The United States alleges that Defendants' actions undercut the fundamental purpose of the
United States' program in Russia -- the creation of trust and confidence in the emerging
Russian financial markets and the promotion of openness, transparency, the rule of law, and
fair play in the development of theRussian economy and laws.6
Since they were using $40 million in taxpayer money, the cold-blooded desolation of Russia
implicated the US. The civil lawsuit argued, to simplify, that Harvard's economists, especially
Shleifer (and his wife), was investing taxpayer money in Russian companies about which they
were giving financial advice. Harvard admitted guilt in the form of a $25 million settlement.
How much of this assisted their victims in Russia is not known.7
In response to the suit, lawyers for Shleifer and his co-conspirator, Jonathan Hay, sneered
to the press: "We are confident that, as the civil case unfolds, the court will confirm that
the Harvard program significantly fostered Russian reform and that the government received its
money's worth." As it turns out, even their lawyers did not believe this, since their defense
rested, not on the denial that conflict of interest existed, but that they were never bound by
such ethical rules.8
6 "United States of America, Plaintiff v. the President and Fellows of Harvard College,
Andrei Shleifer, Jonathan Hay, Nancy Zimmerman, and Elizabeth Hebert, Defendants" (2000)
7 His crimes and the full nature of the lawsuit and evidence can be found here: Wedel, J.
Who Taught CronyCapitalism to Russia? How Harvard and the 'U.S. Government's Aid Agency
became part of the RussianProblem. The Wall Street Journal Europe, March 19, 2001
In 2005, a federal judge found Shleifer guilty of professional fraud. The disgraced
"professor" paid the US government $2 million, and his wife, operating yet another scam,
settled out of court for $1.5 million. Harvard paid about $10 million in legal fees to defend
their role in the starvation of Russia.9
For all that, Shleifer remains a celebrated professor at Harvard and the toast of academia
worldwide. His academic stock has not suffered in theleast from this. Just as puzzling, Harvard
suffered no diminution in prestige. This is especially puzzling in that ivy league scandals
erupt seemingly on a daily basis. This Teflon world exists partly due to the protection of
former Harvard President, World Bank economist and Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, also a
pivotal figure in the Russian fiasco.10
Summers is partly to blame for the American sub-prime mortgage disaster since hewas pivotal
in removing many of the regulatory barriers that forbade predatory lendingpractices. Therefore,
the execrable Summers is the co-author of not one but two national meltdowns. Summers,
after being forced to resign from Harvard based on an unrelated set of sins,11 was quickly
rehired as a "professor" by the government. Then, Summers became a leading figure in Obama's
economic brain trust, was soon after appointed as part of the "oversight"panel for the UN's
economic programs and became a member of the Group of 30, a highlyelite and secretive
organization created by the Rockefeller family.
Like Summers and Shleifer, Chubais was also handsomely rewarded for his direct role in the
Russian cataclysm. He was soon placed on the board of JP Morgan, and, to no one's surprise, was
granted a seat on the ultra-elite Council on Foreign Relations, another powerful conclave
within the Rockefeller cult.12
Summer's career, his almost comic legacy of failure and ignorance, and the criminal
impoverishment of Russia (not to mention the 2007 US meltdown) wholly destroy the "elitestatus"
of places like Harvard.13 This set of scandals, largely unknown to a bewildered and exhausted
American public, shows the profound and pervasive putrescence of academia, especially in the
Ivy leagues. It brought into question academic tenure, unearned salaries, and the famed
academic insulation from consequences arising from their theories. The Harvard civil suit and
all it entails demonstrates the incompetence of those paid to implement policy and their
ability to get their hands on taxpayer money. It shows a reprehensible and reckless disregard
for the welfare of others that is rewarded with academic posts, social prestige, ostentatious
wealth and immense power.
It might be worth mentioning that the behavior patters of Chubais conforms almost perfectly
to the Triarchic diagnostic model of psychopathy as developed by Skeem, et al in 2011. First,
it is typified by a pathological arrogance. The victim has full confidence that he is above the
law, or that the law only applies to others. Second, the victim shows an impulsive and
anti-social temper that focuses only on short term gratification based on the lowest motives.
Because of these two symptoms, the victim either does not perceive or does not have any
restraints on his destructive behavior. Finally, and most significantly, the victim feels no
remorse for the consequences of his actions. Other criteria related to these includeparasitic
behavior, superficial charm, grandiosity, ingenious criminal ideas, and assertive narcissism.14
Yeltsin, quoted in Leonov's book, called Chubais "an absolute Bolshevik by temperament and
mentality." The basic consensus about Chubais' behavior is that he cared little for
construction, and only for destruction.
8 Seward, Z. Harvard To Pay $26.5 Million in HIID Settlement. Crimson, July 20059 The
guilty verdict and settlement issues are summarized in the Crimson article above.
10 Finucane, M "Feds Sue Harvard over Russia Advisers." ABD News; also see Wedel, Janine
R. The HarvardBoys Do Russia. The Nation, 2008; and "Larry Summers, Robert Rubin: Will The
Harvard Shadow EliteBankrupt The University And The Country?" The Huffington Post, Jan 2010:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harry-r-lewis/larry-summers-robert-rubi_b_419224.html
11 These had something to do with comments about intellectual differences between men and
women. That this contrived controversy erupted just as Harvard was paying off the federal
government is no coincidence.
12 Levy, Ari. Summers Joins Andreessen Horowitz as a Part-Time Adviser to Entrepreneurs.
Bloomberg, June2011 and Greenwald, Glenn. Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and Wall Street's
ownership of government.Salon, 2009
13 As far as ivy league fraud and incompetence go, this is just one scandal out of
hundreds.
The political lesson of this is unfortunate: the diagnostic criteria for criminal
psychopathy are precisely the qualities required for success in big business and government.
Even the best intentioned politician or businessman must display some combination of thesevices
in order to successfully compete in these fields. What passes as virtue in libera lcapitalism
is actually an undisguised form of mental illness.
Leonov speaks in more detail about his pathology:
Evil lurks in Chubais' colorless eyes. He arrogantly uses his supporters in public.
Assertiveness and phony composure is his cynical way. Yeltsin was seen by him as merely
manageable. Yeltsin was easy to manipulate due to his unpopularity. He did not have the
intellectual wherewithal to fight back. He was compliant and signed anything on cue. He saw
the Duma as mere formalism that can be bypassed. In reality, he just relied on Presidential
decrees.
Of course, all of this in the name of democracy. Rather than deal with the fallout for the
sins of others, Yeltsin did one excellent thing for Russia – appointed Vladimir Putin
astemporary president on new year's eve, 1999. As was proper, Putin guaranteed Yeltsin immunity
from prosecution, which meant he could no longer be used as a scapegoat. Putin, to make a long
story very short, brought Russia from a GDP that was 98th in the world to 2014,where it is 8th.
For the period 1991-1997, the transfer of wealth from Russia to the oligarchs was roughly $1.75
trillion. This was not "lost" to Russia, since wealth is not "lost." It merely changed hands.
Under Chubais and Harvard, the economic contracted by almost 90%.
For all that, Yeltsin's party received 15% of the vote. With instructions from the US,
Yeltsin, after this humiliation, created the idea of a "consensus document." The point is to
create the illusion of agreement. Several western NGOs designed a position paper which
supported "free market" reforms. Representatives of the new rich in Russia signed this
document, which was then trumpeted as proof of social cohesion around Yeltsin.
Bernard Black et al, writing in 2009, described the devastation of this shock treatment
for Russia and Ukraine in 1994:Russia's mass privatization. . . permitted insiders (managers
and controlling shareholders) to engage in extensive "self" or "inside" dealing. . . which
the government did nothing to control. Later privatization "auctions" were a massive giveaway
of Russia's most important companies at bargain prices to a handful of well-connected
"kleptocrats". . . Medium-term prospects are grim; the Russian ruble has plunged; the Russian
government has defaulted on both its dollar denominated and ruble-denominated debt; most
banks are bankrupt; corruption is rampant; tax revenues have collapsed; capital flight is
pervasive; and the government (whomever the Prime Minister happens to be at the moment) seems
clueless about what to do next.15
14 Skeem, JL, Polaschek, DLL, Patrick, CJ, and S Lilienfeld. Psychopathic Personality:
Bridging the GapBetween Scientific Evidence and Public Policy. Psychological Science in the
Public Interest 12 (3): 95–1622011
15 Black, et al, 1
This scheme represents one of the most luridly thoroughgoing, colossal and overwhelming
failures in economic history. The role of the US government, international financial agencies
and elite academia in this monumental disaster is well known. During the well publicized
destruction and starvation of Russia, the British journal Euromoney named Chubais the
"Worlds Greatest Finance Minister," as yet another means of displaying theelite's lack of
accountability. In the Financial Times of 2004, A. Ostrovsky states "Chubais makes no
excuses and feels no remorse over the most controversial privatization of all - the
'loans-for-shares' deal, in which he handed control of Russia's largest and most valuable
assets to the group of tycoons [sic] in return for loans and support in the 1996 election for
the then ailing Yeltsin."16
Once this became plain, the architects of the plan backed off, blaming everyone else for the
issues. He writes in Foreign Affairs that the "Russian people" must vote for "democracy" in the
2000 elections. At the time, his own popularity was running about 2-3%. Hence, he did not mean
"democracy" in the normal sense of the word. The real change was between 1994-1996. Here, the
oligarchs were openly ruling with Yeltsin, who was often drunk and would disappear for weeks on
end. It didn't matter. The oligarchs bought up most of the banks, then issued licenses to trade
internationally that only they could have. As the government got desperate, the oligarchs
stepped in and loaned Moscow the money to continue to function. Russian was not a "government"
in any sense of the word. About 700 major families controlled almost the entire Russian economy
and hence, the state as well.
The Results of the Scam
Government revenues went down by over 50% in this same
time. Wages went down by about 75% by 1998. In 1992, the inflation rate was almost 1000%. Light
industry, that is, the consumer sector, lost about 90% of its capital, the hardest hit sector
of all. Machinery of all kinds fell by about 75%, meaning that 75% of the machines useful in
the Russian economy had been liquidated (or were just not used) by 1998. The only thing that
kept Russiaafloat was the black market.17
The state could no longer enforce its laws, and hence, men started not showing up for the
draft. Republic after republics declared independence, to be immediately recognized by the US.
So, what can we conclude here? Very few deny that Yeltsin was a failure, but a failure of the
worst kind. This kind of economic destruction has never been seen before outside of warfare.
Government revenues and expenditures collapsed, hence, an already bad infrastructure was made
far worse. Believe it or not, from 1992-1999, the Russian government collected about $6 billion
all told. Hence, the state did not function.
Interest rates were high, about 300% in 1994, so credit was available only to the very rich,
who controlled the (now private) central bank in the first place. Nearly everyoligarchical bank
was connected with organized crime. In fact, there is no substantial difference between the
oligarchs and organized crime.18
Under the oligarchs, tax collection collapsed. Industrial production went down by 25% in
just a few years. By 1997, Russia had defaulted on its debts. Between 1991 and 1998,Russian GDP
fell by almost 40%. Life expectancy went down from 68 to 56 years. Russians became
impoverished. Money was so scarce that, by 1996, most trade was done through barter.
Importantly, these oligarchs became a state within a state. Tax collection had collapsed, and
the new Russia was completely broke. With the Asian meltdown in 1998, interest rates for
Russian borrowing went to 300%. 19
16 Arkady Ostrovsky, Father to the Oligarchs. Financial Times, 2004.
17 Graham, Thomas. From Oligarchy to Oligarchy: The Structure of Russia's Ruling Elite.
Demokratizatsiya7(3), (1997) 325-340
18 ibid
Yeltsin's popularity by 1998 went to about zero. Since then, pro-western (that is, pro
freemarket) parties have polled no more than 5-7% of the vote combined. Yeltsin resigned the
Presidency in 1999 and appointed Vladimir Putin as president.
A man of immense mental and physical strength, he sought to discipline the oligarchs,
rebuild Russia and create a modern economy. As soon as Putin took office, he went after the
media monopoly of Vladimir Guzinsky. Soon, numerous oil firms and banks were investigated for
tax fraud. Some oligarchs fled the country, others like Mikhail Khordokovsky, ended up in
prison. Attempting to split the oligarchs, playing one fraction against another, Putin's
popularity soared, and Russian economic growth recovered.20 Since the meltdown in 1998, the
Russian economy has gone from $1 trillion to $2.5 trillion by 2011. Growth rates remain high,
and Russia enjoys both a trade and budget surplus. In the first eight years of Putin's
presidency, the Russian GDP increased by over 75%.
Near the end of 1993, about 18-20 billion rubles had fled the country. As 1994 dawned, the
population was impoverished. Malnutrition was becoming a problem, and alcoholism was
increasing, as was suicide and all manner of social pathology. By 1994, thedeputy interior
minister, Vladimir Kozlov, stated that about 40% of the economy is nowcriminalized. Leonov
writes,
V. Polevanov [deputy prime minister at the time] notes that the total nominal valueof the
voucher fund (about $1.5 trillion rubles) was 20 times less than the cost fixed assets
industry, fired up for auction. One Moscow, where privatization was notcarried out on the
residual and by market value, gained 20% of the enterprises 1.8 trillion rubles, while income
from the rest of Russia in the first two years of privatization amounted to only $1 trillion
rubles.
The above argument is abstract. In this section, a case study will be analyzed in detail to
show how these forces come to be, how they operate, and how they attempt to insulate themselves
from its consequences. Traumatic economic events do not occur due to abstract or impersonal
forces. People, very powerful people, create the conditions that destroy entire economies.
Economic self-interest is the engine of these irrational policies. Economics depicts social
actors and institutions as calculating machines with no identity or purpose. The result is that
economics is always treated in the passive voice, which is a fundamental mystification.
The Second Half of the 1990s
Showing Chubais complete rejection of supporting
Russian interests, Leonov writes,
Soon, it became clear that Chubais committed his sins only because he was controlled by
others. The real owners of Russia. In 1998, Russia was continuing to disaster, that is, total
bankruptcy. At this point, even after the default, American investors finally got the message
and moved their cash out of Russian securities. This strengthened the effect of the default. As
he became CEO of RAO (etc), he sold to foreigners a 32% chunk of Russian energy concerns, which
violated all Russian laws. This meant, of course, that foreigners now could block Russian
energy policy.
Chubais and his Harvard friends did not believe in their own rhetoric. Their had quickly
moved into the most luxurious apartments and appointed to themselves very high salaries.
Nothing about their world was based on the market principles they hypocriticallyadvocated.
While advocating the rule of law, the oligarchical firms allied with Chubais werenot paying
taxes; but it just so happens that the criminal code recently passed did not considerthis a
crime. In 1997, there was no question that Chubais was evading taxes as well.
19 Ibid, cf esp 330-332
20 Sakwa, R. Putin and the Oligarchs. New Political Economy, 13(2) (2008): 185-191
Admitting his guilt, he paid about 500 million rubles, which was just a small amount of what
he owed. His power did not diminish, but it remains a fact that no dictator in Russian history
had the power that Chubais had. In the name of market reform and the rule of law,Chubais was
receiving millions from shall companies for non existent services. Alexander Lebed remained the
sole source of opposition to Chubais once Yeltsin sought treatment for heart illness. Chubais,
realizing the general's recent spike in popularity for negotiating successfully with Chechen
rebels, invented a slew of charges that the general conspired with these same militants.
Chubais had become so powerful that he was no longer required to be creative. Lebed was
dismissed from his post, proving that Chubais was, in fact, a dictator.21
In the name of the rule of law, Chubais made mafia gangster Boris Berezovsky "deputy
director of the security council." Potanin, another underworld billionaire, was named "Deputy
Prime Minister." Chubais was rubbing Russia's face in his power, typical of thepsychotic. Soon,
all major television channels were in the hands of two mafia dons, Berezovsky and Guzinsky.
Leonov writes:
By 1996, all the financial power was concentrated in the hands of a small group of
businessmen almost exclusively Jewish. It consisted of Boris Berezovsky, Vladimir Gusinsky,
Alexander Smolensky, Pyotr Aven, Boris Chait, and Vitaly Malkin. Major bankers also included
gentiles Potanin and Vinogradov, the only two.
Since the state had collapsed, these oligarchs acted as the state treasury and profited from
it. Billions continued to be looted and wound up in banks in Israel, Britain and the US. Yet,
elections were coming up. An ailing Yeltsin dismissed Chernomyrdin's "government," which
included Chubais. Boris Berezovsky began, in his words, to rally all the "democraticand
reformist forces in Russia" to prevent his own possible dispossession.
Typical of the psychotic, these men knew no limits. They began issuing high yield junk
bonds, eventually promising to pay out, in some cases, 180%. Foreigners were buying these bonds
to the point where almost 30% of all marketable securities of the Russian "state"were owned by
outsiders. It was another scam, and the bankers refused to pay anypercentage, and even more,
demanded the return of Chubais to government. Chubais quicklyflew to Washington, warning of a
communist-nationalist resurgence. $6 billion was quickly given, which was never seen again.
Forming a shadow government, Russia's bankers dictated terms to Yeltsin. In their
generosity, they agreed to not demand immediate debt payment from the Russian taxpayer. Yet, to
punish Yeltsin, this oligarchy declared that it will reduce the sale of foreign currency.
Putting downward pressure on the ruble, the oligarchs got their revenge for the tepid rebellion
of Yeltsin. This is what drove the junk bonds as high as 180%; the ruble was suddenly worth
nothing. In fear, Yeltsin put the banker's friend, Chernomyrdin, back in power in late summer,
1998.22
21 Ostrovsky, Arkady. Father to the Oligarchs. Financial Times, 2004
22 Russian Federation: Selected Issues 2012 International Monetary Fund IMF Country Report
No. 12/218http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2012/cr12218.pdf and Oliker, O, and T.
Paley. Assessing Russia's
As typical of capitalist democracies, the political clique took the fall for the private
sector. Yeltsin was blamed for the disaster, though his power was nil. That winter, Russia
froze with millions unable to buy fuel. The perfect man was chosen for the prime ministership,
Yevgeny Primakov, with no apparent beliefs of any kind. Quickly, Primakov demanded the return
of Chubais and others who caused the mess, in order to repair it.
The default that August destroyed any bank not immediately under the oligarchs. GDPfell by
200-300 billion rubles. Industry was devastated. In one month, September of 1998, the average
Russian income fell by over 30%. The Federation Council, too late, officially declared Chubais
and crew as "negligent and incompetent." At the same time, the banking oligarchy was
speculating in currency markets, making a profit estimated at the time of 5.5billion rubles in
1997.
Bill Clinton at the time cared only about the possibility of the Lebed coup. Primakov,
however, began to strengthen the state as the only possibly solution to the total dissolution
of Russia as a political entity. Soon, the dependable Zhirnovsky was again trotted out, with
the occasional spray painted swastika to re-direct attention and create the "extremist" threat.
More political groups, heretofore unknown, showed up in Moscow with strange uniforms and
rallies. Gaidar was quick to link them with the communists, creating a convenient, single group
for the masses to visualize.
In the midst of the meltdown, the system took advantage of the perfectly timed murder of
Galina Starovoitova, a westernizing politician. 15,000 members of the opposition were rounded
up and the "democratic forces" demanded emergency powers. The westenizers even created their
own "nationalist" political group, "Fatherland" in order to siphon off opposition activists. In
a display showing excellent acting, Yeltsin, in December of 1998, disbanded the group as a
"threat" to "democracy." Of course, western Russia experts breathed a sigh of relief that
"fascism" was not coming to Russia.
Solzhenitsyn refused to be a part of the charade, refusing to accept the Medal of St. Andrei
from Yeltsin. A long time nationalist, Solzhenitsyn realized that in giving this award, Yeltsin
was currying favor. Another misdirection was the attempted impeachment of Yeltsin in 1998, as
if he was in charge of the disaster he only vaguely understood. Like the Clinton impeachment,
it was an absurdity, deliberately designed to protect those with actual power (that is, the
private sector) who created the disaster. The Commission decided that Yeltsin had "exceeded his
power" as president, as if this is the reason why Muscovites just froze the previous winter.
Using political figures to cover for the banking cartel is as old as the Medicis in Florence.
Then, in another mockery of Russia, Yeltsin was blamed 100% for the disaster ofthe previous
decade.23
Given all this, you are now ready to understand Putin. He came to power as Premier under
Yeltsin when the latter resigned in 1999. Yeltsin's popularity rating was between 3-5%. All aid
from the IMF was stolen and funneled into the hands of the oligarchs. Oil and gas firms had
their profits pocketed in the same way, tax free. As Yeltsin retired, he gave many of his
friends immunity from prosecution.
Putin as the Restorer of Sanity
Putin's leadership restored confidence in the
currency, the state and the law. Oligarchystill exists in Russia (as elsewhere), but the
monopoly position they used to wield is no more.Russian oil firms have come under the control,
though not the ownership, of the state, sinceoligarchs were planning on selling assets to
Exxon-Mobil, which led to the "KhordokovskyDecline. The Rand Corporation,
2002http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR1442.pdf23 Guriev, S.
and Andrei Rachinsky (2005). The Role of Oligarchs in Russian Capitalism. Journal of
EconomicPerspectives, 19(1), (2005) 131-150
http://pages.nes.ru/sguriev/papers/GurievRachinsky.pdfaffair." Mikhail Khordokovshy was an
oligarch who controlled YUKOS, one of Russia's mostpowerful oil firms. In the interest of
national security, Putin placed Khordokovsky under arrest. He was indeed guilty of tax evasion,
but his plans to see Russian strategic assets to Americans was too much for Putin to stomach.
The more oligarchs Putin put in jail, the more popular he becomes.
Putin's policy has been to tread softly, taking on only the most powerful and obnoxious of
the oligarchs. He has made strategic alliances with some in order to intimidate others While
Russia has been rebuilt and the state became powerful, the oligarchs still have fight left in
them, and Putin acts cautiously. Putin's basic approach has been to guide investment and
control the flow of investment funds so they benefit Russia, not the oligarchy. The state does
not own the economy, but it does oversee it. The oligarchy gave Putin no other choice.
The oligarchs financed all of Yeltsin's election campaigns and public image in Russia at the
time. The point was to keep Yeltsin in power long enough so that the oligarchs could get their
cash out of the country. They knew that eventually, a popular government would punish them.
Putin, to a great extent, was this punishment.
Putin created an entirely new Russian government, when local districts under his control.
Needless to say, the regional governments had been bought, and Putin could have no dealings
with them. Some of them even had their own foreign policy! All those sent to govern the regions
were from the security services or the army. This was no accident. Putin restructured the Upper
House (the Federation Council) so as to permit his government to have a say in who gets
appointed to it. 24
Putin insisted that local law must be consistent with federal law. This is because local
leaders were creating their own countries, and this could not stand. Putin then permitted
oligarchs and their puppets to be tried as violators of the constitution. Let me give you one
example. In 2003, the oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky had taken over the Russian oil giant Yukos.
Now, Putin got intelligence that Khodorkovsky was planning on entering intobusiness with
Exxon-Mobil, permitting their penetration into the Russian market. Realizing this was a
security threat (which it was, since it would mean that Exxon would control much of Russia's
oil), he had Khodorkovsky arrested. Is list of crimes was well known, but the stategot him on
taxes, which was a no-brainier. Putin was immediately attacked or "authoritarianism" by the
press in the west.
So why does the west heap abuse on this man?
He reformed the tax code, putting in place a 13% flat tax on all income and investments.
About half of regional prosecutors were removed from their positions due toe xtreme corruption.
All Russians knew that already. He quickly ended the war in Chechnya, making sure a Chechen,
pro-Russian government was put in charge.
He brought together the top 13 oligarchical families to a conference he organized. He told
them that their rule was over. He forced them to pay millions in back taxes to the state, and
to create several important charitable funds with their stolen money.
He was going to use the state to pressure their media into being more objective, pro-Russian
and pro-state. Since the oligarchs controlled the press, it made sense that this had to be
fought. To call this "assaulting press freedom" is absurd.
He realized that the political opposition in Russia was created by the oligarchy. Hence,
there was no actual party development. Few parties had an agenda (except the communists, who
did well), and these were mostly personal vehicles for their founders.
Putin also shifted investment away from oil and towards higher end items. This was needed to
diversify the economy. The judiciary is independent. Today, about 70% of people who sue the
state for various reasons win. Putin also introduced the jury.25
24 Sakwa, R. Putin and the Oligarchs. New Political Economy, 13(2), (2008), 185-191
It's tough to argue with Putin's success:
Labor productivity grew 49 percent 1995-2005, ranging from a 23 percent improvement in
retailing to a 73 percent rise in construction. Total factor productivity grew by 5.8 percent
per year, and the World Bank estimates that only one third of that increase came from increased
capacity utilization. Firm turnover (i.e. the exit of inefficient firms and the entry of new
ones) accounts for half the total improvement. Stock market capitalization rose to 44 percent
of GDP by 2005, while the RTS index went from 300 in 2000 to 2,360 in December 2007.
In September 2006 the market capitalization of the 200 biggest firms was $833 billion (one
third of which was Gazprom). The percent of the population living in poverty fell from 38
percent in 19998 to 9.5 percent in 2004, and the share of family budgets spent on food fell
from 73% in 1992to 54% in 2004.
The only macroeconomic indicator that gives cause for concern is inflation, which dropped
from 20 percent in 2000 to 9 percent in2006, before creeping back up to 11-12 percent
level.26
Now, "market capitalization" and other such elite measures are not the whole story. They can
exist with an economy failing in other respects. However, before wealth can b eredistributed,
it has to exist. Accumulating what can then be redistributed are what these numbers are telling
us. Given all this, however, it should come as no surprise that those who are condemning Putin
today backed the privatization deals 20 years ago.
W. Thompson, writing in the Guardian in the Summer of 2003, states:
Fiscal consolidation has probably contributed more than any other single factor to
restoring the authority and legitimacy of the formerly bankrupt state. Exceptionally
favorable economic circumstances account for much of this improvement, but so also do better
expenditure management, the reform of tax legislation and more efficient administration. The
state's rule-making capacity has also grown markedly.
Unlike Yeltsin, Putin has a compliant parliament and presides over a government that, for
all its internal divisions, is not riven by the factional conflicts that marked the 1990s.
The result has been a flood of new legislation, much of it directly concerned with state
reconstruction.27
Thompson speaks the truth. "Exceptionally favorable economic circumstances "can not cause
national success. They do not in Ukraine, much of Africa or Detroit. They must be identified
and utilized with substantial skill. Circumstances, of themselves, tell us nothing. The
"compliant parliament" exists because of Putin's popularity, though Thomas seems to suggest
that such legislative cooperation is required in times of emergency. Worried about bureaucratic
corruption, Putin passed several laws limiting the discretionary power of federal agencies.
Reform has reduced corruption, endemic at onepoint. Business is much easier to accomplish.
Putin's reelection numbers roughly mirror his popularity in the country, and his opposition,
backed by the US, has no agenda whatsoever.
25 Lavelle, P Putin's "Authoritarianism" vs. the "Commentariat". Commentary,
2004ahttp://www.futurebrief.com/peterlavelle004.asp and Lavelle, P Russia's Economic Future.
Commentary,2004 http://www.futurebrief.com/peterlavelle.asp
26 Rutland, P. Putin's Economic Record. Wesleyan University, CT, 2008
As of January 1 of this 2013, Russia's anti-bribery legislation is the toughest in the
world. In Russia, about 92% of American businesses think that Russian investment is a good
thing, and that Russia is a decent place to do business. The IMF has stated that part of
Putin's success is is utilization of capital that was left idle. Utilization of the country's
resources has increased from about 50% in 2000 to over 76% today. But in order to do this, he
needed to destroy the power of the oligarchs at the regional level.
Conclusion
The simple fact is that Putin's authoritarianism was forced upon him.
He did use a heavy hand, but not nearly as heavy as Yeltsin. He realized that it was either a
strong hand or chaos. As the state has been rebuilt, so have oversight bodies empowered to
check it'sbehavior. Putin launched a bunch of commissions to look into corruption in different
areas o the country, knowing full well that his popularity is based on that, plus economic
growth.Putin needed to increase the potential of the state before the state itself could grow.
Hence,the reformation of all police agencies gave them a direct line to the Kremlin, but, by
2002,crime was still rife. Now, all that has changed.
It makes sense to call Putin a reaction to Yeltsin, chaos and oligarchy. His policies make
no sense without the background. Things appear differently when contrasted with the free-fall
collapse of the Yeltsin years.
Putin then did two things: first, to build up the rudiments of a new state, one that can
permit business to thrive and destroy oligarchy. He needed a new law code, more centralized
structures and an end to regional independence. Second, he was to create a new macroeconomic
structure, with strong fiscal and oversight measures. Russia now runs a trade and budget
deficit. He then stabilized the currency.
Once economic growth took off, he tried to get as much money out of foreign banks as
possible. He first backed big business (for the sake of growth), then shifted more recently to
backing smaller business. He then engaged in education and pension reform. He turned Russia to
the east, allying with China to cooperate in their tremendous economic growth.
It is easy to forget that all that Putin is "blamed" for was suggested by western elites for
Yeltsin. Liberal democracy in the eastern bloc has, without exception, merely been a cover for
the most cynical sort of exploitation. In the name of "democracy" the eastern bloc melted into
the bank accounts of both foreign and local elites. Warlords developed with private armies
that, in the 1990s, were the subject of some journalistic treatment. A Russia in collapse is
far more dangerous for the west than anything Putin has dreamed about.
Rationally, the enforced, rehearsed and studied contempt of Putin can only exist because the
west had other plans for Russia, as a hinterland for cheap, educated labor and resources.
Western collapse is assured precisely because Russia is not prostrate and under the thumb of
Exxon-Mobil. Putin will have the last laugh, which, when the smoke clears, is the only real
cause of the west's irrational hatred.
"... Meanwhile, the FBI has reportedly been examining Ivanka Trump's negotiations over the financing of Trump International Hotel and Tower in Vancouver. ..."
Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner in 2017. The couple appears to be facing an uncertain future
in the White House. Photograph: Alamy Stock Photo Life at the White House for
Donald Trump's senior adviser and son-in-law Jared Kushner and his wife, Ivanka
Trump, may be rapidly losing its appeal as conflict of interest claims against the couple mount
and the president himself is said to be cooling on continuing their roles in the
administration.
Kushner, who this week was stripped of his top-level security clearance, faces intensifying
scrutiny on a number of fronts, including loans on his family's real estate assets agreed with
creditors who stand to gain from White House economic policy, and from special counsel Robert
Mueller's Russia investigation.
Meanwhile, the FBI has reportedly
been examining Ivanka Trump's negotiations over the financing of Trump International Hotel and
Tower in Vancouver.
Like many Trump-badged properties, the company receives licensing and marketing fees from
the developer, in this case the wealthy Malaysian Joo Kim Tiah. Peter Mirijanian, a spokesman
for Ivanka Trump's ethics counsel, told
CNN that no "hurdle, obstacle, concern, red flag or problem has been raised with respect to
Ms Trump or her clearance application".
In both cases law enforcement officials are concerned that the couple's foreign dealings
leave them vulnerable to pressure from foreign agents.
Seemingly, Kushner's inability to receive security clearance stems from his family's real
estate dealings and the business' pressing need for investment, often from foreign lenders.
Kushner had to make more than 100
revisions to his security-clearance application; his financial filings had to be amended
39 times in four months after he "inadvertently omitted" millions of dollars in assets.
According to the Washington Post, US intelligence agencies have learned that numerous
foreign government officials discussed how to exploit his business interests. These include
four countries: Israel, China, Mexico and the UAE.
The paper also reports that the president has told aides it might be preferable if the
couple returned to civilian life in New York.
These are some of the business problems plaguing Kushner. 666 Fifth Avenue
The flagship of the Kushner empire, Jared Kushner's first big deal is looking increasingly
like a potentially ruinous burden. The $1.8bn property was purchased at the top of the market
in 2007 before prices for commercial real estate crumbled.
The property is facing $1.2bn refinancing at the end of this year and the search for lenders
has
reportedly , at various times, led to contacts with Putin ally and head of Russian state
investment bank Vnesheconombank (VEB) Sergei Gorkov, as well as
Anbang , the Chinese insurance giant, and members of the Qatari
Investment Authority .
Chicago skyscraper
The company has reportedly
taken out loans totaling $509m from lenders with whom Kushner has held White House meetings.
These are reported to include a $184m loan on a Chicago skyscraper – the midwest
headquarters for AT&T – from private equity firm Apollo Global, a company that stands
to benefit from the Trump administration's infrastructure spending as well as the decision to
leave carried-interest provisions so beloved of private equity investors in
place.
Brooklyn development
The $509m also reportedly includes a $325m Citigroup loan on a Brooklyn development, soon
after the Citigroup CEO, Michael Corbat, met with Kushner at the White House.
Spokespeople for Apollo and Citigroup denied that the meetings had anything to do with the
loans. "Stories like these attempt to make insinuating connections that do not exist to
disparage the financial institutions and companies involved," a Kushner Companies spokeswoman,
Christine Taylor, told the New York Times.
Deutsche bank loan
A $285m
Deutsche bank loan to Kushner Companies is reportedly the focus of New York banking
regulators. According to Reuters last week, the New York state department of financial services
(DFS) made the requests to Deutsche Bank, Signature Bank and New York Community Bank for
information on loans and other financial arrangements including lines of credit and loan
guarantees.
Taylor said the company had not received a copy of any letter from regulators. "Prior to our
CEO voluntarily resigning to serve our country, we never had any type of inquiries," Taylor
said in an email. "These types of inquiries appear to be harassment solely for political
reasons."
EB-5 visas
In addition, the Securities and Exchange Commission is
reportedly looking into Kushner company's promotion of White House ties to pitch EB-5 visas
to Chinese investors. Kushner's use of EB-5, a congressionally approved visa-for-investment
system, came under renewed scrutiny last year after the Kushner family members conducted sales
pitches in Shanghai and Beijing seeking investment in a New Jersey project One Journal
Square.
According to reports in the
Washington Post and the
New York Times , the pitch included a photograph of the president in a slideshow that
described him as a key decision-maker on the fate of the EB-5 program. A Kushner spokesman said
the photograph was included by the Chinese organizer of the event.
"... Maybe there is a clear and present danger in the White House? Kushner's Business Got Loans From Companies After White House Meetings ..."
"... For Kushner's vulnerability to foreign manipulation, there seems to be a lot out there beyond this one WAPO story. This month old article lays out the problems existence over the last year with China. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/01/29/jared-kushner-is-chinas-trump-card ..."
"... I think what TTG is alluding to is that the source may be from another SIGINT establishment, not the USA. Correct me if I'm wrong. Given the vague nature of the allegations against Kushner, for all we know, it's Turkey, Brazil, or the UK leaking. ..."
Maybe there is a clear and present danger in the White House?
Kushner's Business Got Loans From Companies After White House Meetings
Apollo, the private equity firm, and Citigroup made large loans last year to the family real estate business of Jared Kushner,
President Trump's senior adviser.
I think the attacks on Kushner are particularly evil and calculating.... And they could pose a real danger to the country! Look: The reason Trump's enemies want Kushner gone is because Trump does not have a wide circle of friends he can trust, so
his enemies want to further isolate him so he can be controlled BY THEM.
The danger is that he will get increasingly embattled, erratic and paranoid.
Then what?? Maybe they think that's a reliable way to control someone like Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon, but Trump??? No way.
Trump has shown time and again that he does not respond to situations like other people. I think that creates a potentially grave
situation for the country, the country these deep-state vermin never think about. They only think about themselves.
I think what TTG is alluding to is that the source may be from another SIGINT establishment, not the USA. Correct me if I'm wrong. Given the vague nature of the allegations against Kushner, for all we know, it's Turkey, Brazil, or the UK leaking.
The reason why Jeff Sessions isn't prosecuting anyone is because he has no evidence against an American who is leaking.
I do hope that this is a rhetorical question - nothing will be done because the Deep State, the Borg, whatever you want to call
it, does not particularly want Kushner involved in policy.
I do not want Kushner involved in policy either, but I am not leaking anything to get him forced to the side.
If Kushner was/is involved with such risky staff, why he tried to join Trump administration. It does not requires any IQ
to understand that he will be the target and that knife are out to depose Trump. In view of color revolution against Trump the
best strategy would be to stay in NYC. You need to be squeaky clean to work for him.
Notable quotes:
"... A spokeswoman for the Kushner Cos, Christine Taylor, said "We have not received a copy of any letter from the New York State Department of Financial Services," adding "Our company is a multi-billion enterprise that is extremely financially strong. Prior to our CEO voluntarily resigning to serve our country, we never had any type of inquiries. These type of inquiries appear to be harassment solely for political reasons. " ..."
"... Kushner's family business, the Kushner Companies, has had longstanding financial troubles related to 666 Fifth Avenue, "the most expensive building ever purchased", in New York City. ..."
"... After Kushner bought the Fifth Avenue property in late 2006 for $1.8 billion - with zero skin in the game coming from Kushner, the building came under intense pressure during the financial crisis. Vornado Realty Trust stepped in with financing in exchange for a 49.5% stake in the building, which is now carrying over $1.4 billion in debt according to a March release by Vornado ..."
"... While Jared has separated himself from his family's business and placed assets in a trust, he has fallen into the crosshairs of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Of interest are discussions between Kushner and Chinese investors during the transition, according to sources familiar with the investigation. Kushner met with executives of troubled Chinese conglomerate Anbang Insurance which was recently taken over by China's insurance regulator. Talks between Kushner and Anbang's chairman, Wu Xiaohui, broke down in March 2017, according to the New York Times . ..."
"... Also of interest to Mueller are Kushner's dealings with a Qatari investor over the 666 property, for which Kusher reportedly sought financing from former Prime Minister Jassim Al Thani, according to The Intercept. The discussion apparently went nowhere , similar to the Anbang deal. ..."
"... Dovetailing off of the reports of Kushner's meetings to shore up his finances, the Washington Post reported this week that officials from at least four countries - China, Israel, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates have explored ways to manipulate Kushner by taking advantage of his "complex business arrangements, financial difficulties and lack of foreign policy experience." The story cited current and former US intelligence officials - and noted that it is unclear on whether the cited countries took any action. ..."
"... Kushner is absolute scum, but how come he gets the treatment and not the Clinton foundation ..."
"... Back door attack. The inlaws, the sacred family structure. Eventually trump is going down. ..."
"... They will stop at nothing. They already committed treasonous crimes. ..."
"... They are the majority within gov.org. top to bottom -- Trump is fighting a completely stacked deck of swamp cards. They have no fear of the law. Look at every step they have taken. Look at the reactions. deflection, non-action. Behind the scenes the deals have been made-they will take down Trump ..."
"... If any dirt is found it wasn't an issue worthy of the integrity of the FBI before Kushner gained political office. So the FBI is only discrediting their felonious selves, past and politicized, craven present. ..."
"... Trump's example proved that it is pointless trying to go there and fight them alone. There needs to be a (new) party behind the individual, otherwise one does not stand a chance. ..."
"... Kushner has been systematically targeted by allies and foes alike because he has no foreign diplomacy expertise and they know he can be manipulated. Manipulated due to ignorance and arrogance. The worst kind of manipulation! ..."
"... You don't get unsecured lines from banks anymore unless you are GOD. Not personally. It may be that the company got one, but if Jared got one something funky is going on. ..."
"... NYCB is a garbage bank. They are essentially a 1980s S&L running a book of long maturity multi family loans and funding with purchased CD's in the overnight - 90 day market. (DISCLOSURE: I have been and will be short this stock). As the Fed tightens and the curve flattens, their margins go to shit. They did well in the free money QE world, but their game has been over for a while. They rely on credit underwriting to avoid adding defaults to the litany of woes this environment brings. In fact, taking no credit risk has been their hallmark for years. They generally don't do office or mixed use lending. That they would be making an unsecured line to Kushner is BIZARRE. ..."
"... I would be surprised if DJT is involved in anything illegal in his business. The guy knows how to bend the rules, but risking his great life to launder money for a bunch of Russians?? Just don't see it. Running for the Presidency with skeletons would be suicide, and he knows that. You don't want the antiseptic light of justice shining on the roaches if you've done something not nice. ..."
"... It may be Kushner is as dirty as they come. God knows his Dad is a piece of detritus. I know DJT as a crass vulgarian, with a genius for the common weal and leveraging off OPM. But stupid felon? Not buying it. ..."
"... Thank goodness the FBI and Justice have all the Democrat/Clinton crimes solved so they can dispense equal Justice to the Republicans ..."
After losing his
top secret security clearance and reportedly falling under intense scrutiny by Robert Mueller's probe, the New York Department
of Financial Services has asked Deutsche Bank two local lenders for information about their dealings with Jared Kushner, the Kushner
companies and his family , according to
Bloomberg .
Letters were sent by department superintendent Maria Vullo to Deutsche Bank, Signature Bank and New York Community Bank last week,
said a person who had seen the letter which seeks a response by March 5. Vullo was appointed by New York's Democratic governor, Andrew
Cuomo.
The requested information is broad, and include the banks' processes for approving loans.
Vullo requested copies of emails and other communications between the Kushners and the banks related to financing requests
that have been denied or are pending. She also asked whether the banks have conducted any internal reviews of the Kushners and
their companies and the results of any such inquiries revealed.
The most detailed information about the Kushners' finances can be found in their government disclosures. The couple had unsecured
lines of credit of $5 million to $25 million each from Deutsche Bank, Signature Bank and New York Community Bank according to
a late December filing.
Deutsche Bank's line of credit was extended to Kushner and his mother; lines from the other two banks were extended to Kushner
and his father. Signature Bank also extended a secured line of credit to the couple of $1 million to $5 million, according to
the disclosure. - Bloomberg
A spokeswoman for the Kushner Cos, Christine Taylor, said "We have not received a copy of any letter from the New York State Department
of Financial Services," adding "Our company is a multi-billion enterprise that is extremely financially strong. Prior to our CEO
voluntarily resigning to serve our country, we never had any type of inquiries. These type of inquiries appear to be harassment solely
for political reasons. "
Kushner's family business, the Kushner Companies, has had longstanding financial troubles related to 666 Fifth Avenue, "the most
expensive building ever purchased", in New York City.
After Kushner bought the Fifth Avenue property in late 2006 for $1.8 billion - with zero skin in the game coming from Kushner,
the building came under intense pressure during the financial crisis. Vornado Realty Trust stepped in with financing in exchange
for a 49.5% stake in the building, which is now carrying over $1.4 billion in debt according to a March release by Vornado.
While Jared has separated himself from his family's business and placed assets in a trust, he has fallen into the crosshairs of
Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Of interest are discussions between Kushner and Chinese investors during the transition, according
to sources familiar with the investigation. Kushner met with executives of
troubled Chinese conglomerate Anbang Insurance which was recently taken over by China's insurance regulator. Talks between Kushner
and Anbang's chairman, Wu Xiaohui, broke down in March 2017, according to the
New York Times .
Also of interest to Mueller are Kushner's dealings with a Qatari investor over the 666 property, for which Kusher reportedly sought
financing from former Prime Minister Jassim Al Thani, according to The Intercept. The discussion
apparently went nowhere , similar to the Anbang deal.
Kushner in the crosshairs
Dovetailing off of the reports of Kushner's meetings to shore up his finances, the Washington Post reported this week that officials
from at least four countries - China, Israel, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates have explored ways to manipulate Kushner by taking
advantage of his "complex business arrangements, financial difficulties and lack of foreign policy experience." The story cited current
and former US intelligence officials - and noted that it is unclear on whether the cited countries took any action.
Meanwhile, the presidential son-in-law's security clearance was downgraded from "Top Secret/SCI-level" to "secret" this week,
walling him off from the most sensitive information.
Many had expected that Trump would grant Kushner a waiver, even though Trump himself said Friday that he would let
Chief of Staff
John Kelly decide if such an exception should be granted. In a statement issued last week, Kelly said that any changes to Kushner's
security clearance wouldn't impact his ability to do his job:
"As I told Jared days ago, I have full confidence in his ability to continue performing his duties in his foreign policy portfolio
including overseeing our Israeli-Palestinian peace effort and serving as an integral part of our relationship with Mexico," Kelly
said in the statement.
At the end of the day, unless Kushner or his company broke the law, it appears that this entire exercise is meant to embarrass
the president's son-in-law over his troubled 666 property.
Kushner is absolute scum, but how come he gets the treatment and not the Clinton foundation..... .yeah I know but how in your
face are they going to get... wait dont answer that
Trump, the first US President with two Jewish children
, beholden to the money power
of the US establishment (i.e.,
Jewish
money ) that supported his presidential bid (or
bought the presidency for
him), is making the Israeli dream of stealing Jerusalem and the whole of Palestine a reality; especially since
he owes
Jewish investment banks hundreds of millions of dollars, which can be easily written off the books if certain conditions are met.
"I have determined that it is time to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel," Trump
said .
In one fell swoop, Donald Trump overturned decades of
international
consensus and laws. He also ignored recorded history: Jerusalem was
NEVER the capital of even ancient Israel.
Furthermore, he constantly and nonchalantly overlooks the fact that Israel today is an inhumane,
apartheid
country that uses its carte blanche from the US to do as it pleases in the Middle East. It
oppresses the Palestinians,
treats them like
caged animals , and spreads
chaos in the region regardless of how it affects the peace of the world.
The reason is because the Jews control
the
Federal Reserve , the real center of power in the United States or the
money power of the establishment
(i.e.,
Jewish
money ). In turn, the Fed
wags
every other financial institution in America, and consequently ends up being the
root cause of all
of America's economic ills.
Trump's Jewish Entourage
Not even Trump
, who supposedly wants to "make America great again," dares mention the need to dismantle the Fed. Worse, he drools every
time he talks about
Apartheid
Israel , not unlike every other American politician.
The anti-Christ spirit of
hate
thy neighbor , which revs up the engine of the state of Israel and that of its Prime Minister, seems to fire up Trump's motor
as well with his loathing of
immigrants , especially
of his Mexican neighbors. He and Netanyahu are two peas in a pod both arrogant, haughty, and supercilious narcissists.
"Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall." Proverbs 16:18
Back door attack. The inlaws, the sacred family structure. Eventually trump is going down.
They will stop at nothing. They already committed treasonous crimes. All the righteous types just don't get it, they are being
played to heighten the drama and division.. they don't give a shit.
They are the majority within gov.org. top to bottom -- Trump is
fighting a completely stacked deck of swamp cards. They have no fear of the law. Look at every step they have taken. Look at the
reactions. deflection, non-action. Behind the scenes the deals have been made-they will take down Trump.
If any dirt is found it wasn't an issue worthy of the integrity of the FBI before Kushner gained political office. So the FBI
is only discrediting their felonious selves, past and politicized, craven present.
Remember WACO. Remember Ruby Ridge. Remember 911. Remember Lynch. Remember DACA. Remember Obama stealing from Freddie and Fannie.
Remember all the government assistance programs you are paying for, that you are not eligible for because of the color of your
skin, that you had no say in. Nice work, FBI.
Trump's example proved that it is pointless trying to go there and fight them alone. There needs to be a (new) party behind
the individual, otherwise one does not stand a chance.
Kushner has been systematically targeted by allies and foes alike because he has no foreign diplomacy expertise and they
know he can be manipulated. Manipulated due to ignorance and arrogance. The worst kind of manipulation!
How much of the loot from the US taxpayer did Deutche get from the "bailout"? The credibility of their organized bankster cartel
is lower than that of a belarus hooker in jail in Thailand, because they practice fraud professionally. The FBI is an active enemy
of the United States. The masks are coming off.
"The Knives Are Out For Kushner: Loans With Deutsche Under Scrutiny By Regulator"
Will this be the catalyst for Trump to fire Muler's sorry-ass or does he just become more defensive every day about taking
action and hope the issue will just sort itself out?
I too would continue unabated like a crazy man until stopped, if I were Muler.
Kushner wants a security clearance? They get to ream, steam and dry clean his ass. This is no game. Now, it just so happens
I ran one of the biggest commercial real estate shops on the Street. I have been in the market recently for a major developer.
5-10X the size of Kushner. You don't get unsecured lines from banks anymore unless you are GOD. Not personally. It may be
that the company got one, but if Jared got one something funky is going on.
You see, on a secured credit line, the bank only has to reserve about 4-8% of the limit as a capital charge. That allows them
to operate at about 12X leverage. If they are charging LIBOR + 300 for the line, and they fund art LIBOR-50, and the line is fully
drawn (no bank wants a line that isn't utilized, that's why they charge non-utilization fees), their 350BP spread translates into
a nice ~35% ROE. That's good business. On an unsecured line, there is a 100 % capital charge. That's a 3.5% ROE. That sucks balls.
I have literally had a major bank walk away from an unsecured $50mm line when it would have given them the inside track for
a $800 million loan they could securitize and make a quick and easy $25 million on. The regulatory headache and capital charges
just made it a non-starter.
NYCB is a garbage bank. They are essentially a 1980s S&L running a book of long maturity multi family loans and funding
with purchased CD's in the overnight - 90 day market. (DISCLOSURE: I have been and will be short this stock). As the Fed tightens
and the curve flattens, their margins go to shit. They did well in the free money QE world, but their game has been over for a
while. They rely on credit underwriting to avoid adding defaults to the litany of woes this environment brings. In fact, taking
no credit risk has been their hallmark for years. They generally don't do office or mixed use lending. That they would be making
an unsecured line to Kushner is BIZARRE.
If I were working for Mueller, I would be very curious about this stuff, too. If they called me, I would give them a list of
things to look for. Something sounds screwy. Either the reporter has the details wrong, or something IS wrong.
I would be surprised if DJT is involved in anything illegal in his business. The guy knows how to bend the rules, but risking
his great life to launder money for a bunch of Russians?? Just don't see it. Running for the Presidency with skeletons would be
suicide, and he knows that. You don't want the antiseptic light of justice shining on the roaches if you've done something not
nice.
It may be Kushner is as dirty as they come. God knows his Dad is a piece of detritus. I know DJT as a crass vulgarian, with
a genius for the common weal and leveraging off OPM. But stupid felon? Not buying it.
Perry, a member of the Homeland Security subcommittee on cyber security, said Tuesday that the House Office of Inspector General
tracked the network usage of Awan and his associates on House servers and found that a "massive" amount of data was flowing from the
networks.
Notable quotes:
"... Attorneys for the Plaintiffs in the case, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, and appears to argue that if the Democratic Party did cheat Sanders in the 2016 Presidential primary race, then that action was protected under the first amendment. Twitter users were quick to respond to the brief, expressing outrage and disgust at the claims made by representatives of the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz. ..."
"... This author was shocked to find that despite the characterization of the Becks as peddlers of conspiracy theory, the defense counsel failed to mention the motion for protection filed by the Becks earlier in the litigation process. They also failed to note the voice-modulated phone calls received by the law offices of the Becks which contained a caller-ID corresponding to the law offices of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a defendant in the case. In light of this context, the Becks hardly appear to be peddlers of conspiracy theory. ..."
"... It appears that the defendants in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit are attempting to argue that cheating a candidate in the primary process is protected under the first amendment. ..."
"... If all that weren't enough, DNC representatives argued that the Democratic National Committee had no established fiduciary duty "to the Plaintiffs or the classes of donors and registered voters they seek to represent." ..."
"... It seems here that the DNC is arguing for its right to appoint candidates at its own discretion while simultaneously denying any "fiduciary duty" to represent the voters who donated to the Democratic Party under the belief that the DNC would act impartially towards the candidates involved. ..."
"... If Wikileaks' publication of DNC emails are found to be similarly admissible in a United States court of law, then the contents of the leaked emails could be used to argue that, contrary to the defendant's latest brief, the DNC did favor the campaign of Hillary Clinton over Senator Sanders and that they acted to sabotage Sanders' campaign. ..."
"... Seth Rich murder and DHS investigation into 2016 election tampering soon to expose this party's contempt for the law, and all other forms of ethical conduct. ..."
"... Bernie is more than happy to yammer on about Russian bots swarming Facebook and other social media platforms in some insidious plot to rig the election -- and yet he fails to say a word about the actual attempts to rig the election by the DNA and Hillary. ..."
"... Don't forget in their twisted minds that the lies they tell to support their corrupt agenda are "protected free speech". There are no further examples one needs to show that these fuckers are nothing but malignant sociopaths. The death of the Rule of Law is why sociopaths flourish. ..."
"... They are without shame, without remorse, without ethics or morals, feeling or caring. Yet they still try to defend their indefensible actions where contrition and humbleness would be much better long term..."politically". The rank & file snowflakes would eat up a simple apology because they have been brought up to think thats all it takes to right wrongs. ..."
The ongoing litigation of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit and the appeal regarding its dismissal took a stunning turn yesterday. The defendants
in the case, including the DNC and former DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, filed a response brief that left many observers
of the case at a loss for words. The
document , provided by the
law offices of the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs in the case, Jared and Elizabeth Beck, and appears to argue that if the Democratic
Party did cheat Sanders in the 2016 Presidential primary race, then that action was protected under the first amendment.
Twitter users were quick to respond to the brief, expressing outrage and disgust
at the claims made by representatives of the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
The Defense counsel also argued that because of Jared Beck's outspoken twitter posts, the plaintiffs were using the litigation
process for political purposes: "For example, Plaintiffs' counsel Jared Beck repeatedly refers to the DNC as "shi*bags" on Twitter
and uses other degrading language in reference to Defendants." Fascinatingly, no mention is made regarding the importance of First
Amendment at this point in the document.
The defense counsel also took issue with Jared Beck for what they termed as: " Repeatedly promoted patently false and deeply offensive
conspiracy theories about the deaths of a former DNC staffer and Plaintiffs' process server in an attempt to bolster attention for
this lawsuit."
This author was shocked to find that despite the characterization of the Becks as peddlers of conspiracy theory, the defense
counsel failed to mention the motion for protection filed by the Becks earlier in the litigation process. They also failed to note
the voice-modulated phone calls received by the law offices of the Becks which contained a caller-ID corresponding to the law offices
of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a defendant in the case. In light of this context, the Becks hardly appear to be peddlers of conspiracy
theory.
The DNC defense lawyers then argued that: " There is no legitimate basis for this litigation, which is, at its most basic, an
improper attempt to forge the federal courts into a political weapon to be used by individuals who are unhappy with how a political
party selected its candidate in a presidential campaign ."
The brief continued: " To recognize any of the causes of action that Plaintiffs allege based on their animating theory would run
directly contrary to long-standing Supreme Court precedent recognizing the central and critical First Amendment rights enjoyed by
political parties, especially when it comes to selecting the party's nominee for public office. "
It appears that the defendants in the DNC Fraud Lawsuit are attempting to argue that cheating a candidate in the primary process
is protected under the first amendment.
If all that weren't enough, DNC representatives argued that the Democratic National Committee had no established fiduciary duty
"to the Plaintiffs or the classes of donors and registered voters they seek to represent."
It seems here that the DNC is arguing for its right to appoint candidates at its own discretion while simultaneously denying
any "fiduciary duty" to represent the voters who donated to the Democratic Party under the belief that the DNC would act impartially
towards the candidates involved.
Adding to the latest news regarding the DNC Fraud Lawsuit was the recent
finding by the UK Supreme Court, which stated
that Wikileaks Cables were admissible as evidence in legal proceedings.
If Wikileaks' publication of DNC emails are found to be similarly admissible in a United States court of law, then the contents
of the leaked emails could be used to argue that, contrary to the defendant's latest brief, the DNC did favor the campaign of Hillary
Clinton over Senator Sanders and that they acted to sabotage Sanders' campaign.
The outcome of the appeal of the DNC Fraud Lawsuit remains to be seen. Disobedient Media will continue to report on this important
story as it unfolds.
Even on a practical level, beyond the "fraud is free speech" argument, they don't seem to have considered that this argument
is a lose/lose proposition. Even if they (DNC) win legally, they are going to lose as people turn away from the finger they're
giving them.
Notice this is a civil suit brought by a citizen. The Bern is silent and not suing anybody although he was the target
of the scam, or maybe a party to it. The DOJ is silent and not looking to put anybody in jail for what appears to be an
obvious violation of criminal law.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
- - Jeff Sessions
Not so for murder, and rigging the general election. Seth Rich murder and DHS investigation into 2016 election tampering
soon to expose this party's contempt for the law, and all other forms of ethical conduct.
What is the difference? There is no any justice in America. It is all gone.
The US people are polarized and, thanks to Hollywood and mainstream media, with the culture of lawless, violence, and hatred
of everybody. America is a very sick country with a fake President and the utterly corrupt US Congress. It will not end good or
bloodless.
The US military reliance on super-technology is poorly thought of since these high-tech military systems require very highly-educated
and intelligent people to operate these systems while the US educational system being a total failure cannot produce.
Bernie is more than happy to yammer on about Russian bots swarming Facebook and other social media platforms in some insidious
plot to rig the election -- and yet he fails to say a word about the actual attempts to rig the election by the DNA and Hillary.
But, hey, if he can shave a few hundred dollars off of my monthly health insurance premiums he can call for a first-strike nuclear
attack on Russia!
Clearly we have laws for little people while the owners do whatever the fuck they want.
... the State Department completed its review and determined that 2,115 of the 30,490 emails contain information that is presently
classified Out of these 2,115 emails, the State Department determined that 2,028 emails contain information classified at the
Confidential level; 65 contain information classified at the Secret level; and 22 contain information classified at the Top Secret
level....
I think this is the exact reason election boards exists. They should be suing the DNC over this as well, but are full of party
officials. If there was any sane form of democracy, the DNC would be bared from campaigning in most states.
It's a sewer, the whole fucking system is just a cesspool filled with the most reprehensible, self-serving people in the country
outside of Wall Street. But everybody just keeps playing along.
Don't forget in their twisted minds that the lies they tell to support their corrupt agenda are "protected free speech". There
are no further examples one needs to show that these fuckers are nothing but malignant sociopaths. The death of the Rule of Law
is why sociopaths flourish.
They don't live in the same reality as us and never have.
They are without shame, without remorse, without ethics or morals, feeling or caring. Yet they still try to defend their indefensible
actions where contrition and humbleness would be much better long term..."politically". The rank & file snowflakes would eat up
a simple apology because they have been brought up to think thats all it takes to right wrongs.
My take was Bernie was supposed to cat herd the millennials to the Hillary camp but that blew up in their face when the millennials
decided to put down their cell phones and proceeded to give Hillary the bird.
Wouldn't doubt a large majority still ended up voting for but they probably won't admit it.
Doesn't this make the whole candidate selection process, and all the rules and regulations governing a party's whole nomination
process meaningless? If what DEMS did within their own party to Bernie is moot, then what Trump may have done via his "Russian
collusion" is mooted also. Can't have it both ways.
They used the same argument before the appeal... and the corrupt judge agreed with "The Crooks" and closed the case. NOT ONE media outlet covered the fact they actually said in open court that the DNC had no legal obligation to be fair.
"... Not only large elements of the American and British intelligence services, but the 'Borgistas' in both countries, now including large elements of the academic/research apparatus and most of the MSM, really are joined at the hip. ..."
"... A relevant element of such collusion has to do with the creation of the Yeltsin-era Russian oligarchy. On this, a crucial source are interviews given by Christian Michel and Christopher Samuelson, who used to run a company called 'Valmet', to Catherine Belton, then with the 'Moscow Times', later with the 'Financial Times', in the days leading up to the conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovsky in May 2005. ..."
"... On the subject of the competence of MI6, what seems to me a total apposite judgement was provided by the man whom Steele and his associates framed over the death of Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi. ..."
"... 'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them about Russia.' ..."
"... Throughout life, I have repeatedly come across a game played on certain kinds of ιlite Westerners, which, in honor of Kipling, who gave brilliant depictions of it, I call 'fool the stupid Sahib.' Both people from other societies, and their own, often play this game, and the underlying mentality not infrequently involves a combination of a sense of inferiority and contempt for the gullibility of people who are thought of -- commonly with justice -- as not knowing how the world really works, and thus being open to manipulation if one tells them what they want to hear. ..."
"... Irrespective of whether Lugovoi was accurately reporting what Litvinenko said, however, a mass of 'open source' evidence testifies to the extreme credulity with which officials and journalists on both sides of the Atlantic treat claims made by members of the 'StratCom' groups created by the oligarchs whose initial training was done by Valmet. ..."
"... (One good example is provided by the way that Sir Robert Owen and his team took what the surviving members of the Berezovsky group told them on trust. Another is the extraordinary way MSM figures continue to claim made by Khodorkovsky and his associates seriously.) ..."
"... When I discover that John Sipher is a 'former member of the CIA's Clandestine Service', who also worked 'on Russian espionage issues overseas, and in support of FBI counterintelligence investigations domestically,' then his apologetics for Steele seem not only to suggest he may be another 'total retard' -- but to point towards how the Anglo-American collaboration actually worked. (See https://www.politico.eu/article/devin-nunes-donald-trump-the-smearing-of-christopher-steele/ .) ..."
"... Another characteristic of these 'retards' is that they seem unable to get their story straight. In his piece last September defending the dossier, Sipher wrote that 'While in London he worked as the personal handler of the Russian defector Alexander Litvinenko.' Apparently he didn't know that the 'party line' had changed -- that when Steele emerged from hiding in May, his mouthpiece, Luke Harding of the 'Guardian', had explained: 'As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends said.' ..."
"... The whole situation with Russia, of which, be it her economy, history, military, culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people populating this bubble. ..."
"... Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry scientific language it is called a "confirmation bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian "sources" because those "sources" reiterate to them what they want to hear to start with, thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced. ..."
1. Not only large elements of the American and British intelligence services, but the 'Borgistas' in both countries, now
including large elements of the academic/research apparatus and most of the MSM, really are joined at the hip.
It is thus an open question how far it is useful to speak of British intelligence intervening in the American election, rather
than the American section of the 'Borg' and their partners in crime 'across the pond' colluding in an attempt to mount such an
intervention with a greater appearance of 'plausible deniability.'
2. A relevant element of such collusion has to do with the creation of the Yeltsin-era Russian oligarchy. On this, a crucial
source are interviews given by Christian Michel and Christopher Samuelson, who used to run a company called 'Valmet', to Catherine
Belton, then with the 'Moscow Times', later with the 'Financial Times', in the days leading up to the conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovsky
in May 2005.
This describes the education in 'Western banking practices' given to him and his Menatep associates by Michel and Samuelson,
starting as early as 1989, and also their crucial involvement with Berezovsky.
We are told by Belton that: 'With the help of British government connections, Valmet had already built up a wealthy clientele
that included the ruling family of Dubai.' As to large ambitions which Michel and Samuelson had, she tells us: 'Used to dealing
with the riches of Arab leaders, they found Menatep, by comparison still relatively small fry. By 1994, however, Menatep had started
moving into all kinds of industries, from chemicals to textiles to metallurgy. But for Valmet, which by that time had already
partnered up with one of the oldest banks in the United States, Riggs Bank, and for Menatep, the real prize was oil.'
Try Googling 'Riggs Bank' -- a lot of interesting information emerges, on matters such as their involvement with Prince Bandar.
So, what we are dealing with is a joint Anglo-American attempt to create a 'comprador' oligarchy who could loot Russia's raw materials
resources.
3. On the subject of the competence of MI6, what seems to me a total apposite judgement was provided by the man whom Steele
and his associates framed over the death of Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi.
In the press conference in May 2007 where he responded to the request for his extradition submitted by the Crown Prosecution
Service, he claimed that: 'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them
about Russia.'
It seems to me quite likely, although obviously not certain, that this did indeed represent the view of many of the 'StratCom'
operators around Berezovsky of people like Steele.
Throughout life, I have repeatedly come across a game played on certain kinds of ιlite Westerners, which, in honor of
Kipling, who gave brilliant depictions of it, I call 'fool the stupid Sahib.' Both people from other societies, and their own,
often play this game, and the underlying mentality not infrequently involves a combination of a sense of inferiority and contempt
for the gullibility of people who are thought of -- commonly with justice -- as not knowing how the world really works, and thus
being open to manipulation if one tells them what they want to hear.
Some fragments of a mass of evidence that this was precisely what Litvinenko did were presented by me in a previous post.
Irrespective of whether Lugovoi was accurately reporting what Litvinenko said, however, a mass of 'open source' evidence
testifies to the extreme credulity with which officials and journalists on both sides of the Atlantic treat claims made by members
of the 'StratCom' groups created by the oligarchs whose initial training was done by Valmet.
(One good example is provided by
the way that Sir Robert Owen and his team took what the surviving members of the Berezovsky group told them on trust. Another
is the extraordinary way MSM figures continue to claim made by Khodorkovsky and his associates seriously.)
Accordingly, when I read of anyone treating practically anything that Steele claims as plausible, I try to work out how much
of a 'retard' they must be, starting with a baseline of about 50%.
4. In the light of the way that the reliance on the dossier in the FISA applications absent meaningful corroboration is being
defended by Comey and others on the basis that Steele was 'considered reliable due to his past work with the Bureau', the question
is how many people in the FBI must be considered to have a 'retard' rating somewhere over 90%.
When I discover that John Sipher is a 'former member of the CIA's Clandestine Service', who also worked 'on Russian espionage
issues overseas, and in support of FBI counterintelligence investigations domestically,' then his apologetics for Steele seem
not only to suggest he may be another 'total retard' -- but to point towards how the Anglo-American collaboration actually worked.
(See https://www.politico.eu/article/devin-nunes-donald-trump-the-smearing-of-christopher-steele/
.)
5. Another characteristic of these 'retards' is that they seem unable to get their story straight. In his piece last September
defending the dossier, Sipher wrote that 'While in London he worked as the personal handler of the Russian defector Alexander
Litvinenko.' Apparently he didn't know that the 'party line' had changed -- that when Steele emerged from hiding in May, his mouthpiece,
Luke Harding of the 'Guardian', had explained: 'As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium
poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends
said.'
6. In his attempts to defend the credibility of the dossier, Sipher also explains that its -- supposed -- author was President
of the Cambridge Union. Here, two profiles of Steele on the 'MailOnline' site are of interest.
In one a contemporary is quoted:
"'When you took part in politics at the Cambridge Union, it was very spiteful and full of people spreading rumours," he said.
"Steele fitted right in. He was very ambitious, ruthless and frankly not a very nice guy."
The other tells us that he born in Aden in 1964, and that his father was in the military, before going on to say that contemporaries
recall an 'avowedly Left-wing student with CND credentials', while a book on the Union's history says he was a 'confirmed socialist'.
From my own -- undistinguished and mildly irreverent -- Cambridge career, I can testify that there was indeed a certain kind
of student politician, whom, if I may mix metaphors, fellow-students were perfectly well aware were going to arse-lick their way
up some greasy pole or other in later life.
It was a world with which I came back in contact when, after living abroad and a protracted apprenticeship in print journalism,
I accidentally found employment with what was then one of the principal television current affairs programmes in Britain. In the
early 'Eighties I overlapped with Peter -- now Lord -- Mandelson, who became one of the principal architects of 'New Labour.'
7. Given that at this time British intelligence agencies were somewhat paranoid about CND, there is a small puzzle as to why
on his graduation in 1986 Steele should have been recruited by MI6. In more paranoid moments I wonder whether he did not already
have intelligence contacts through his father, and served as a 'stool pigeon' as a student.
But then, people like Sir John Scarlett and Sir Richard Dearlove may simply have concluded that someone with 'form' in smearing
rivals at the Union was ideally suited for the kind of organisation they wanted to run.
8. From experience with Mandelson, and others, there are however other relevant things about this type. One is that they commonly
love Machiavellian intrigue, and are very good at it, within the worlds they know and understand.
If however they have to try to cope with alien environments, where they do not know the people and where such intrigues are
played much more ruthlessly, they are liable to find themselves hopelessly outclassed. (This can happen not simply with the politics
of the post-Soviet space and the Middle East, but with some of the murkier undergrowths of local politics in London.)
Another limitation on their understanding is that the last thing they are interested in his how the world outside the bubbles
they prefer to inhabit operates, and they commonly have absolutely contempt for 'deplorables', be they Russian, British or American.
This can lead to political misjudgements.
9. So it is not really so surprising that, when Berezovsky's 'StratCom' people told them that the Putin 'sistema' really was
the 'return of Karla', people like Steele believed everything they said, precisely as Lugovoi brought out.
There is I think every reason to believe that, from first to last, the intrigues in which he has been involved have involved
close collusion between them and elements in American intelligence -- including the FBI. As a result, a lot of people on both
sides of the Atlantic have repeatedly got into complex undercover contests in the post-Soviet space which ran right out of control,
creating a desperate need for cover-ups. A similar pattern applies in relation to the activities of such people in the Middle
East.
Another limitation on their understanding is that the last thing they are interested in his how the world outside the bubbles
they prefer to inhabit operates, and they commonly have absolutely contempt for 'deplorables', be they Russian, British or American.
This can lead to political misjudgements.
It is not just "can" it very often does. The whole situation with Russia, of which, be it her economy, history, military,
culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people
populating this bubble.
Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry
scientific language it is called a "confirmation bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this
IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian "sources" because those "sources" reiterate
to them what they want to hear to start with, thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced.
In case of Iraq, as an example, it is a tragedy but at least the world is relatively safe. With Russia, as I stated many times
for years--they simply have no idea what they are dealing with. None. It is expected from people who are briefed by "sources"
such as Russian fugitive London Oligarchy or ultra-liberal and fringe urban Russian "tusovka". Again, the level of "Russian Studies"
in Anglophone world is appalling. In fact, it is clear and present danger since removes or misinterprets crucial information about
the only nation in the world which can annihilate the United States completely in such a light that it creates a real danger even
for a disastrous military confrontation. I would go on a limb here and say that US military on average is much better aware of
Russia and not only in purely military terms. In some sense--it is an exception. But even there, there are some trends (and they
are not new) which are very worrisome.
"... Nowhere is this more apparent than in the defense sphere, where the head of the Pentagon regularly rubs shoulders with top brass in weapons production and technological development. When then-defense secretary Ashton Carter crashed Davos in 2016, he met with executive after executive offering to do their part in the fight against the Islamic State. ..."
"... Agencies like the Department of Defense simply prefer to retain the connections they already have , and that often leads to toxic relationships in which the government is virtually held hostage to a small pool of contractors who have managed to box everyone else out. ..."
"... Elite convocations like Davos also help perpetuate -- and reinforce -- a problematic revolving door in which officials leave office to consult and lobby for industries that have business and regulatory interests in Washington. To say that Davos isn't a sort of prom for individuals perched on either side of that door would be naive. ..."
The Independent writer Hamish McRae seems to hit closest to the mark in
assessing Davos as an "informal and efficient" business meeting instead of a "temple of evil" or pro-capitalism bash.
That, ironically, makes it an even darker event than you might think.
Let's face it: a clustering of brilliant minds with practically endless resources isn't bad on its face -- until government officials
enter the equation. The repeated dalliances between business and government leaders at an event where attendance is famously restricted
gives rise to a certain air of "special access" that in turn fosters concerns of cronyism and favoritism.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the defense sphere, where the head of the Pentagon regularly rubs shoulders with top
brass in weapons production and technological development. When then-defense secretary Ashton Carter
crashed Davos in 2016, he met with executive after executive offering to do their part in the fight against the Islamic State.
As one senior defense official put it, "I think the secretary's found people in the tech and business community who are just as
concerned about America's security and are just as patriotic as anybody else." Count Meg Whitman, outgoing CEO of Hewlett Packard
Enterprises (HPE), as one of these "concerned" individuals. In the months after meeting with Secretary Carter, Whitman secured some
of the largest contracts that HPE has ever obtained from the federal government.
Of the 10 largest deals that the company has inked with Uncle Sam,
three were signed
in the three-month period following the 2016 Davos meeting. Now obviously a large agency like the Pentagon will find efficiencies
in contracting with behemoths like HPE. But going with the big guy also has its disadvantages. HPE, it turns out, is also in the
hunt for foreign governmental clients -- including the Kremlin. In an effort to sell cyber defense software to Russia, the company
shared sensitive details of source code used in a product supplied to the Pentagon. This may not be a sufficient reason to eschew
HPE entirely, but it does show a kind of corporate mendacity that stems from privileged access. Longstanding ties between HPE and
the government means that, regardless of careless oversights and waste, they'll always have (
at least five ) seats at the Davos roundtable.
Similar examples of shenanigans show up in agriculture dealings. A darling of United State Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs,
Cargill Inc., rakes in agricultural subsidies at an impressive pace. In fact, as Good Jobs First's subsidy tracker
shows
, the mega-corporation garners millions a year in subsidies and loan guarantees from "Farm Bill" commodity support programs. Support
also flows in via the Bioenergy Program for Advanced Biofuels (BPAB), which ironically allows Cargill and other large agribusinesses
to receive
support for facilities that don't even produce advanced biofuels. Connections between Cargill leadership and former USDA secretary
Tom Vilsack began when the latter worked for a law firm representing the company.
Cargill's federal benefits climbed higher and higher as David MacLennan, Cargill CEO and regular Davos attendee,
heaped
praise on federal officials. There is no telling how many times MacLennan has pulled former secretary Vilsack aside to discuss
"strategic partnerships" at Davos. And we'll likely never know. We'll also likely never know the extent of partnership between the
U.S. Dairy Export Council (
which Vilsack currently
leads ) and Cargill .
Of course none of this proves corrupt quid-pro-quo arrangements. Most high-level government officials are just trying to
do their jobs, and Davos offers an opportunity to capable businesses tackling today's leading challenges.
But good intentions shouldn't lead to an understatement of the problem. Smaller businesses that may be even more capable are shut
out of the meeting entirely, and simply don't get the same attention and access as their bigger counterparts. Agencies like the Department
of Defense simply prefer to retain the connections they already
have , and that often leads to
toxic
relationships in which the government is virtually held hostage to a small pool of contractors who have managed to box everyone
else out.
Elite convocations like Davos also help perpetuate -- and reinforce -- a problematic revolving door in which officials leave
office to consult and lobby for industries that have business and regulatory interests in Washington. To say that Davos isn't a sort
of prom for individuals perched on either side of that door would be naive.
... ... ...
Ross Marchand is an economics writer based out of Washington D.C., and is an alum of the Mercatus MA Program at George Mason
University. He is also the policy director at the Taxpayers Protection Alliance.
"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.
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.
FBI documents detail Clinton and Mueller's own 'Russiagate' – but they're classified
Senator Has Long Ties to Donor Under ScrutinyIn April 2015, federal prosecutors dropped a bomb on one of Senate Democrats' leading foreign policy voices. They accused Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.) of doling out political favors for one of his longtime friends in exchange for luxurious trips, lavish gifts and campaign cash.
Skip (Reuters) Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) was indicted on Wednesday on federal corruption charges. (Reuters)
Les Bernal is working on a ranking of the states with the worst predatory gambling problems.
